Equal Pay - Wimbledon

guitars4you · July 2018

Men's semi final today and over 6 hours long !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is one match - Some women barely make 6 hours for 6 matches - If you translate prize money to time on the the court then men earn less then women - And you name 3 women today who are in the top 10

Sporky · July 2018

guitars4you said:

If you translate prize money to time on the the court

Why would you do that? That'd ignore time spent training, skill level, and everything else.

You might as well price guitars by scale length.

guitars4you · July 2018

Sporky said:

guitars4you said:

If you translate prize money to time on the the court

Why would you do that? That'd ignore time spent training, skill level, and everything else.

You might as well price guitars by scale length.

women's tennis has been struggling for years now - Very little longevity now amongst the top seeds - yet for years they have moaned about equal prize money - they only play 3 sets and many matches don't last 70 mins - IMO a mockery

Sporky · July 2018

Do people really want to sit for six hours watching one match?

There'd better be at-seat Pimms deliveries. And free catheterization at entry.

Heartfeltdawn · July 2018

Simple. Make men's matches three sets max. The injury and attrition rate in men's tennis is horrific. They play too much tennis.

VimFuego · July 2018

I hate it when tradesmen go over time, there needs to be an industry standard set for matches, and every minute they go over they get money deducted.

fob · July 2018

There's a few calling for the men to only do three sets but I hope that never happens. These are grand slams - the pinnacles of the circuit - and going that extra mile has produced some of the greatest moments in sport. In principle, the women should either play best of five or get 60-70% of the men's prize money. However, in reality, no one wants to watch five sets of women's tennis and the tournament directors know they wouldn't survive the firestorm if they introduced proportional pay (it's worth noting that the women often make more money by being 'rested' enough to enter the Doubles & Mixed Doubles - Serena Williams has 14 GS doubles titles which, I think, is 14 more than Federer, Nadal, Djokovik and Murray combined).

Sporky · July 2018

fob said:

no one wants to watch five sets of women's tennis

I'm amazed that anyone wants to watch other people playing games at all.

Heartfeltdawn · July 2018

fob said:

There's a few calling for the men to only do three sets but I hope that never happens. These are grand slams - the pinnacles of the circuit - and going that extra mile has produced some of the greatest moments in sport. In principle, the women should either play best of five or get 60-70% of the men's prize money. However, in reality, no one wants to watch five sets of women's tennis and the tournament directors know they wouldn't survive the firestorm if they introduced proportional pay (it's worth noting that the women often make more money by being 'rested' enough to enter the Doubles & Mixed Doubles - Serena Williams has 14 GS doubles titles which, I think, is 14 more than Federer, Nadal, Djokovik and Murray combined).

The tennis schedules are ridiculous. if five set men's tennis is to be retained, then the tournament schedules have to be cut back in order to allow players to rest. This is unlikely to happen so three set matches are the way forward for me.

Five set men's tournaments don't have the same zap when you have large numbers of top players out injured.

quarky · July 2018

True equality would be men and women competing for the same prize money in the same tournament. Whether it is tennis, football, rugby, or MotoGP.

That is unlikely, so I guess same prize money is OK, but it is to the advantage of women.

Heartfeltdawn · July 2018

quarky said:

True equality would be men and women competing for the same prize money in the same tournament. Whether it is tennis, football, rugby, or MotoGP.

That is unlikely, so I guess same prize money is OK, but it is to the advantage of women.

Wouldn't true equality also involve the blind, the deaf, and the disabled?

Sporky · July 2018

True equality is, it seems, whatever enables a person to best prove their point.

fob · July 2018

Sporky said:

fob said:

no one wants to watch five sets of women's tennis

I'm amazed that anyone wants to watch other people playing games at all.

This is probably a joke/reference that I'm not getting but, if not, I'm surprised you're amazed. Watching the greatest (or just incredibly competent) exponents of anything is one of life's pleasures, be they tennis players, footballers, chess masters, guitarists, woodworkers etc. You get the point. I do draw the line at golf though.

Heartfeltdawn said:

Five set men's tournaments don't have the same zap when you have large numbers of top players out injured.

I'd agree that tennis is one of the most physically punishing sports anyone could do but I don't really remember many GS tournaments being short of the top talent - even limiting it to the big four, you usually have at least three. In fact, I think the current debate is about how those outside those four can break in - the longevity of the top players is fairly incredible, especially considering the staggering talent lined up behind them.

guitarfishbay · July 2018

Sporky said:

Do people really want to sit for six hours watching one match?

(..Wait until he hears about cricket)

guitarfishbay · July 2018

Tennis is one of the sports actually in the position to push for and achieve equal pay for men and women.

There is an established audience for the women's game also it can be held at the same event time period and location as the men's game.

Many other sports won't ever have that setup, so it will take a longer time to build the audiences to support equal pay. It'll be a long time until the players in the female football leagues in the UK earn anywhere near what men can earn.

Sporky · July 2018

fob said:

Sporky said:

fob said:

no one wants to watch five sets of women's tennis

I'm amazed that anyone wants to watch other people playing games at all.

This is probably a joke/reference that I'm not getting

Not at all. I'm not much for spectating. It's more fun, to me, to do something than watch someone else do it, no matter how much better they are at it than me.

Watching is boring and passive. Doing is awesome.

Philly_Q · July 2018

So if, say, Nadal breezes through all his matches in straight sets should he get paid less than Isner and Anderson?

ThePrettyDamned · July 2018

Sporky said:

True equality is, it seems, whatever enables a person to best prove their point.

My girlfriend's step dad said something that really resonated with me.

"equality is always unfair".

Bridgehouse · July 2018

Sporky said:

guitars4you said:

If you translate prize money to time on the the court

Why would you do that? That'd ignore time spent training, skill level, and everything else.

You might as well price guitars by scale length.

Surely it would be like pricing guitars by solo length during a concert?

crunchman · July 2018

Bridgehouse said:

Sporky said:

guitars4you said:

If you translate prize money to time on the the court

Why would you do that? That'd ignore time spent training, skill level, and everything else.

You might as well price guitars by scale length.

Surely it would be like pricing guitars by solo length during a concert?

It's more like paying the performer for how long they play. If they play an hour and half, you are more willing to pay more than if they only play an hour.

There is also the quality to consider. If you did put Serena Williams up against any of the top men, they would blow her away in straight sets.

I don't know why I'm even replying to this thread. Tennis is boring these days, and I haven't watched Wimbledon at all. I'm just annoyed that tennis is on BBC1 and BBC2 at the same time, and they have taken Pointless off.

fob · July 2018

Sporky said:

<snip>
Not at all. I'm not much for spectating. It's more fun, to me, to do something than watch someone else do it, no matter how much better they are at it than me.

Watching is boring and passive. Doing is awesome.

I'm with you on 'doing is awesome' but not with watching is boring/passive. Do you not watch any sport? Do you play any? It's probably safe to assume you play guitar but do you not go to gigs (or listen to other's music)? Have any art on your walls that you haven't painted yourself? I'd encourage anyone to get hands-on with anything that interests them as much as they can but experiencing the talent of others is very often exciting and involving.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Equal Pay - Wimbledon

Comments