Equal Pay - Wimbledon

Sporky

Winny_Pooh said:

It's fairly simple logic from my little corner: Men watch most sport, men mostly prefer to watch male teams/players (varies from sport to sport of course), money follows the level of interest. 

But again, that's pretty circular. Vastly more money goes into promoting men's sport than women's. 

lovestrat74

If they had a tournament prize at a lower rate and then a per game (not match) win bonus can imagine the amout of games that would get played

Hattigol

Take away the utter nonsense of allowing them two goes at a serve. Seriously, why does that happen? That would shorten games dramatically and make them a better spectacle IMHO.

quarky

Sporky said:

quarky said:

What makes you think more women would watch football if women were paid more?

I didn't say that.

So you think it is just promotion then? The reason women's sports like rugby, football, etc. are not as popular is just because they are not as promoted, so not as well known? 

Why do you think these additonal viewers will come from? Women who don't know about women's sport, or men who don't know about women's sport?

crunchman

Hattigol said:

Take away the utter nonsense of allowing them two goes at a serve. Seriously, why does that happen? That would shorten games dramatically and make them a better spectacle IMHO.

It couldn't make them a worse spectacle anyway.

In a way, the horse has bolted, but they ruined tennis when they allowed all the new racquet technology.  They just sit on the baseline now and spank it to each other and wait for a mistake.  It was much more interesting in the old days when you had the serve and volley game. The rallies were far shorter as well, so the game moved along more quickly.

I'll be glad next week when it's all over, and Pointless is back on at teatime.

Winny_Pooh

Sporky said:

Winny_Pooh said:

It's fairly simple logic from my little corner: Men watch most sport, men mostly prefer to watch male teams/players (varies from sport to sport of course), money follows the level of interest. 

But again, that's pretty circular. Vastly more money goes into promoting men's sport than women's. 

Only someone who doesn't watch sport (or perhaps have friends who don't) would think that men would watch more women's sport if it were promoted. There's little basis in fact for the idea. 

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

PS A good test case will be Dr Who. If global sales decline, will the makers revert to a male lead to improve sales?  Or stick to the dogma that the global audience for the show must accept the female lead even if it leads to the shows decline and closure?

1. Doctor Who did decline and close with a male lead. 
2. Ratings and merchandise sales reduced significantly with the introduction of Peter Capaldi. 
3. So if the new Doctor boosts ratings and sales to Eccleston levels, do you then keep the Doctor female? 

 

Zoolooter

Don't get me started on this. 98% of them are over weight and not fit. They obviously do not put in the training hours and diet properly. Their standard of play is embarrassing bad compared to the men's. I can't think of another sport were an 'athlete' can get away with this and be paid extreme amounts of money. 

Even the female curling teams at the Olympics looked more athletic and fit. 

Roland

Chalky said:

Equal pay in entertainment is never going to work.  Unless you are going to create a society where the Equal Pay Police tell the people who pay - the audience - what they should enjoy.  Women's sports are simply not as popular, in terms of the time and money that the audience that they attract, is willing to spend.

Chalky has picked up the key point. Let’s not confuse equal pay for the same work with equal pricing for a similar product or service. Your average tennis coach will have an hourly rate. A Grand Slam circuit player provides contracted services which include non-playing activities such as press conferences.

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn said:

Chalky said:

PS A good test case will be Dr Who. If global sales decline, will the makers revert to a male lead to improve sales?  Or stick to the dogma that the global audience for the show must accept the female lead even if it leads to the shows decline and closure?

1. Doctor Who did decline and close with a male lead. 
2. Ratings and merchandise sales reduced significantly with the introduction of Peter Capaldi. 
3. So if the new Doctor boosts ratings and sales to Eccleston levels, do you then keep the Doctor female? 

 

Absolutely. You giving the audience what they are willing to pay for.

Chalky

Winny_Pooh said:

Sporky said:

Winny_Pooh said:

It's fairly simple logic from my little corner: Men watch most sport, men mostly prefer to watch male teams/players (varies from sport to sport of course), money follows the level of interest. 

But again, that's pretty circular. Vastly more money goes into promoting men's sport than women's. 

Only someone who doesn't watch sport (or perhaps have friends who don't) would think that men would watch more women's sport if it were promoted. There's little basis in fact for the idea. 

Agreed. There are plenty of examples of trying to build audience through promotion that have failed.  Thinking that "Sport + Promotion = Constant Paying Audience" is silly.  Nowhere near that simple.

mart

pintspiller said:

I watch wimmins tennis for the same reason I watch wimmin ice scating - the legs!

Me too - my legs are too lazy to go to the TV and switch over to something less dull. 

Fretwired

Tennis is a sport. Its business model is based on income earned from selling tickets, global TV rights and merchandise. What the tennis stars are paid should be related to their 'pulling power' income wise and what the fans want to watch and are prepared to pay for, not the length of time on court. Its pure economics, not time on court or the time spent practising. At the moment men's tennis is far more popular (based on ticket sales and TV time watched) than women's, tennis but that may not be the case in the future. To say everyone should get the same pay is just bizarre. My mother is a tennis nut. She only watches men's tennis as she thinks the women's game is just boring.

And who earns the most from sponsors? Its the men. Why is that? Again, this may change i the future.

guitars4you

Fretwired said:

And who earns the most from sponsors? Its the men. Why is that? Again, this may change i the future.

There was a case a few years ago that Anna Kournikova made more money from sponsorship deals than either of the Williams sisters did from match winnings on the court - I wonder why - Allegedly over 10 million dollars a year in 2002 from sponsorship deals alone - Kournikova's success off the court established a way for future female tennis players to become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams - Sometimes it seems the richer they get, the poorer they play the game.

BigLicks67

I think pay equality should be a given. The precedent should be set in real life as much as Sport. Tennis is a good example were the economics are in favour of equality, as tournaments like Wimbledon attract a massive audience for both women and men. A lot of the time men underestimate how good these sportswomen are at their chosen sport. 
As for the men's semi final that was an exercise in tedium while awaiting Nadal & Djorkovic to arrive on court.

underdog

BigLicks67 said:

I think pay equality should be a given. The precedent should be set in real life as much as Sport. Tennis is a good example were the economics are in favour of equality, as tournaments like Wimbledon attract a massive audience for both women and men. A lot of the time men underestimate how good these sportswomen are at their chosen sport. 
As for the men's semi final that was an exercise in tedium while awaiting Nadal & Djorkovic to arrive on court.

Do male athletes really underestimate their female counterparts? I wouldn't imagine they do, in fact, they know better than anyone the amount they sacrifice day in and day out to play at the highest level, but at the same time, it can't be debated that men play more tennis than females do.

BigLicks67

underdog said:

BigLicks67 said:

I think pay equality should be a given. The precedent should be set in real life as much as Sport. Tennis is a good example were the economics are in favour of equality, as tournaments like Wimbledon attract a massive audience for both women and men. A lot of the time men underestimate how good these sportswomen are at their chosen sport. 
As for the men's semi final that was an exercise in tedium while awaiting Nadal & Djorkovic to arrive on court.

Do male athletes really underestimate their female counterparts? I wouldn't imagine they do, in fact, they know better than anyone the amount they sacrifice day in and day out to play at the highest level, but at the same time, it can't be debated that men play more tennis than females do.

Sorry, by men, I meant in general not other athletes.

Roland

BigLicks67 said:

I think pay equality should be a given. The precedent should be set in real life as much as Sport. Tennis is a good example were the economics are in favour of equality, as tournaments like Wimbledon attract a massive audience for both women and men. 

Equal pay is a separate discussion. As mentioned above by several people the contractual income of sports personalities and other entertainers is not the same thing as pay.

Chalky

BigLicks67 said:

I think pay equality should be a given. The precedent should be set in real life as much as Sport. Tennis is a good example were the economics are in favour of equality, as tournaments like Wimbledon attract a massive audience for both women and men. A lot of the time men underestimate how good these sportswomen are at their chosen sport. 
As for the men's semi final that was an exercise in tedium while awaiting Nadal & Djorkovic to arrive on court.

Womens tennis is boring, and the majority of the audience feel the same.  But by your logic the audience should be forced to buy a ticket for womens matches?

BigLicks67

Roland said:

BigLicks67 said:

I think pay equality should be a given. The precedent should be set in real life as much as Sport. Tennis is a good example were the economics are in favour of equality, as tournaments like Wimbledon attract a massive audience for both women and men. 

Equal pay is a separate discussion. As mentioned above by several people the contractual income of sports personalities and other entertainers is not the same thing as pay.

But, the thread title is equal pay.