How can equal prizemoney continue when it is obvious they are not doing the same job as the men.

It would be like the gardener at a hospital asking for equal wages as a surgeon because they both attend the same campus to perform their duties.

Here’s a few points:
Men play 5 sets, women 3.
The mens final sells out in minutes when tickets go on sale. The women’s final is still not a sell out and it is tomorrow. You will find tickets at heavily discounted prices on ebay.
Ask the sponsor what they would pay if it was mens only field versus a womens only field.
The shorter matches in women’s bring in less advertising revenue for starters.
The women should be thanking the men for allowing them to even make a living by hanging on to their coat tails.

This is political correctness gone mad.

I don’t disagree with any of the points you make about the financial side of things, but surely it is up to the organisers of the tournament as to what they do with the money they make. In this day and age, one could argue that not offering equal prizemoney could cost the organisers revenue through bad publicity etc.
As to your 3 set versus 5 set arguement…the winner of the Olympic 100m title and the winner of the marathon both receive the same prize, despite one running a hell of a lot further than the other.

I don’t disagree with any of the points you make about the financial side of things, but surely it is up to the organisers of the tournament as to what they do with the money they make. In this day and age, one could argue that not offering equal prizemoney could cost the organisers revenue through bad publicity etc.
As to your 3 set versus 5 set arguement…the winner of the Olympic 100m title and the winner of the marathon both receive the same prize, despite one running a hell of a lot further than the other.

Good point about the Olympics Libba. So if the tennis officials went down that track then the doubles winners would get the same as the singles winners.

Do athletes win prizemoney at the Olympics? If they don’t. then your point is useless. Just googled it, they don’t. So where were you again?

What should happen is, the men play one day and the women play on the alternate day throughout the tournament. You can then work out how popular the women’s game is.

Then by your own definition, all non-grand slam tournaments must have equal prize-money, as men and women play best of three sets…?

Your other arguments could be used to create separate competitions where men’s comps hog all the media coverage….which they generally do now.

The attitude of this post suggests that you would prefer that women not compete at any sport at any level.

Some men’s attitude to women’s sport and the wider competition really really SHITS me, and jaffle, your post is a classic example of what I mean.

The women should be thanking the men for allowing them to even make a living by hanging on to their coat tails.

Women should be encouraged to participate in sport as widely as possible, and in that encouragement there MUST be media coverage of women’s sport. The fact that in Grand Slam Tennis Men’s and Women’s competitions happen simultaneously, is a good thing as it may be an encouragement to women, and is a greater and wider advertisement for the sport.

In most other sports, elite men’s and woman’s competitions have separate championships. In most (if not all) cases, the men’s competitions garner far greater media coverage. Are you Jaffle, suggesting that ALL sporting media coverage be for men’s competition and NONE for women’s competition?

Does it upset you to see any women’s sports are being covered in the media including on TV. What do you feel about athletics… the Commonwealth games, the Olympics…

I wonder if you are one (or are like one) of those old fogeys who think woman should not be allowed on the course… yet could not hit a ball straight to save themselves…

Then by your own definition, all non-grand slam tournaments must have equal prize-money, as men and women play best of three sets…?

Your other arguments could be used to create separate competitions where men’s comps hog all the media coverage….which they generally do now.

The attitude of this post suggests that you would prefer that women not compete at any sport at any level.

Some men’s attitude to women’s sport and the wider competition really really SHITS me, and jaffle, your post is a classic example of what I mean.

The women should be thanking the men for allowing them to even make a living by hanging on to their coat tails.

To my mind, this is the comment of an arsehole…. and I am being kind here.

Women should be encouraged to participate in sport as widely as possible, and in that encouragement there MUST be media coverage of women’s sport. The fact that in Grand Slam Tennis Men’s and Women’s competitions happen simultaneously, is a good thing as it may be an encouragement to women, and is a greater and wider advertisement for the sport.

In most other sports, elite men’s and woman’s competitions have separate championships. In most (if not all) cases, the men’s competitions garner far greater media coverage. Are you Jaffle, suggesting that ALL sporting media coverage be for men’s competition and NONE for women’s competition?

Does it upset you to see any women’s sports are being covered in the media including on TV. What do you feel about athletics… the Commonwealth games, the Olympics…

I wonder if you are one (or are like one) of those old fogeys who think woman should not be allowed on the course… yet could not hit a ball straight to save themselves…

It is important to avoid being too mechanical…
I putt like a 2-stroke motor.

Mekat, while you’re absolutely right about coverage (I watch a lot of women’s sport), the media simply responds to demand. It is a simple fact that Tiger vs Rory on the last day of a tournament will generate more interest, more advertising and justify higher ticket prices than their female counterparts…

same with tennis, now, li na vs azarenka will be a great display of female athleticism and I hope it’s a great game, but the tickets to this match don’t cost the same and will not be in the same stratosphere of interest as Djoker vs Murray (I think fed is doomend), let alone if rafa was playing against the fed… and that’s a fact whether they play three or five sets

I personally love watching table tennis and gymnastics, no chance I’ll see that on fox sports but that’s the reality, most would prefer to watch tennis, golf, rugby, footy… yet I don’t go on about it on a forum and think the whole world is against table tennis players or gymnasts…

It’s funny when people argue for equal rights and a fair go, but then think that means getting special treatment for the underdog…

You had to use Google to find out if Olympic medallists won prizemoney or not? Intelligence isn’t one of your strong points is it?
The point is they win the same prize. By your logic the 100m winner’s medal would be the size of a 5c piece while the marathon winner’s would be the size of a pizza.

I love the grunting in the ladies tennis and for that alone they deserve equal if not more prize money.

Also hope they bring choking breaks into golf, it would help me enormously.

Seriously watching tennis is like watching paint dry, the repetition is dull in both the male and female forms of the game. Federer at his prime was about the only player worth watching, the rest seem to just endlessly bash from the base line.

As an aside I much prefer watching womens golf because mens golf for the majority of the year is just endless bashing followed by a putting contest.

Firstly Mekat- You are correct that all non-grand slams are best of three sets- BUT- what you will also find is that the mens tour (ATP) has loads more prizemoney on offer due to revenues etc. The women’s tour (WTA) still make the women extremely wealthy at the top end of the sport. Luckily for the women- today’s leftist hairy armpitted equal opportunity community have highjacked the argument and made everyone think that it is against women’s tennis players human rights to get less money than the men. That is BS. They don’t generate the same revenue. It is socialism/communism at a basic level. I mean their could be an argument for Serena to get equal prizemoney (wink wink).

If men’s comps hog all the media coverage then it might suggest something about the product. I suppose it is a conspiracy that is thought up in the Channel 7 boardroom to keep women in the kitchen.

I quite like watching women’s sports. Especially golf- as they play similar to myself. Doesn’t mean they deserve tokenistic placement on TV to satisfy 300 viewers.

One point I agree with you- I am an arsehole.

Libba (& Mekat)- are you suggesting the winners of the doubles should also get a slice of the pie equal to their singles counterparts?

The channel 7 boardroom is full of men, it is a full on conspiracy.

For me jaff it’s about prestige. There is as much prestige in a man winning the men’s singles as there is in a woman winning the women’s singles. The doubles is a less prestigious event. As I said before, I recognise that this is against the commercial reality of professional sport. But, to my mind, that is an even greater reason to ensure that the prize money is equal at the biggest events, like the grand slams.
My apologies too for insulting you in my previous post. It wasn’t clever and it was uncalled for.

5 sets vs 3 sets. Enough said. Make the women play 5 and I dont have a problem but they don’t.

5 sets vs 3 sets. Enough said. Make the women play 5 and I dont have a problem but they don’t.

No problem Libba. As for the Olympics- this fits in with you prestige argument. They all get the same medal- but after the Olympics, the winners of the more prestiguous events end up making more through sponsorships in the commercial world.

Indeed they do. Unfortunately it’s the same logic which leads to footballers/actors/supermodels earning hundreds times more than nurses/teachers/police officers.

If any sport is segregated it means that there is a significant difference in skill between the sexes. I like watching sport played at the highest level. Ergo other than watching the Diamonds I rarely watch women’s sport. I suspect I am not in the minority.

Payment of sports people is based on the revenue generated by that sport. Players at the highest level get greater rewards. Sadly the grand slam tennis has been politically corrected and capitalism has been replaced by socialism.

Female tennis players should be very grateful for the subsidy provided by the men’s tour.

Libba (& Mekat)- are you suggesting the winners of the doubles should also get a slice of the pie equal to their singles counterparts?

Singles have a singles prize, and doubles have a doubles prize…

Anyway, I think Tennis is the only major stand-alone sport whose Men’s and Woman’s major championships (grand slams) occur as single events… the current even is the Australian Open… the championships are both Men’s and Women’s…

I can’t think of another single sport that does the same as tennis.

If any sport is segregated it means that there is a significant difference in skill between the sexes.

It is not necessarily a difference in SKILL, but (depending on the sport) on the STRENGTH difference.

How well could Azarenka deal with a Federer (or Tsonga) serve?

It takes strength and power to serve a ball at over 200kph, but it takes skill to land the ball in.

It takes power to drive a golf ball 350 metres, it takes skill to hit the fairway.

We watch the men’s sport to watch the strength and power – often at the cost of seeing the skill in women’s sport.

Libba (& Mekat)- are you suggesting the winners of the doubles should also get a slice of the pie equal to their singles counterparts?

Singles have a singles prize, and doubles have a doubles prize…

Anyway, I think Tennis is the only major stand-alone sport whose Men’s and Woman’s major championships (grand slams) occur as single events… the current even is the Australian Open… the championships are both Men’s and Women’s…

I can’t think of another single sport that does the same as tennis.

It is important to avoid being too mechanical…
I putt like a 2-stroke motor.

Your argument seems to be that as it is a combined event, they should get equal prizemoney. Doubles make the tournament a complete package and I definitely know of about 3 people who enjoy watching doubles- they should also get equal share. They are all playing tennis.

Does golf not have a US Open and British Open? They may not be held as a single event, but shouldn’t they still be afforded equal prizemoney as they are competing for the equivalent trophy in the same sport?

The Golf US open and the British open are not like the Tennis version of those events, as the Men’s and Woman’s championships are not played at the same time nor at the same venue.

There is an interesting question. Is the US or British Golf Open trophy as equivalent in meaning to the Women’s Golf US or British Open , one to the other, as their Tennis counterparts, which are played simultaneously at the same venue??

5 sets vs 3 sets. Enough said. Make the women play 5 and I dont have a problem but they don’t.

I’m with this….

The Golf US open and the British open are not like the Tennis version of those events, as the Men’s and Woman’s championships are not played at the same time nor at the same venue.

There is an interesting question. Is the US or British Golf Open trophy as equivalent in meaning to the Women’s Golf US or British Open , one to the other, as their Tennis counterparts, which are played simultaneously at the same venue??

It is important to avoid being too mechanical…
I putt like a 2-stroke motor.

simple solution, ditch the women and pay the men more.

I don’t need to call you that thing again do I?

Then by your own definition, all non-grand slam tournaments must have equal prize-money, as men and women play best of three sets…?

Your other arguments could be used to create separate competitions where men’s comps hog all the media coverage….which they generally do now.

The attitude of this post suggests that you would prefer that women not compete at any sport at any level.

Some men’s attitude to women’s sport and the wider competition really really SHITS me, and jaffle, your post is a classic example of what I mean.

The women should be thanking the men for allowing them to even make a living by hanging on to their coat tails.

To my mind, this is the comment of an arsehole…. and I am being kind here.

Women should be encouraged to participate in sport as widely as possible, and in that encouragement there MUST be media coverage of women’s sport. The fact that in Grand Slam Tennis Men’s and Women’s competitions happen simultaneously, is a good thing as it may be an encouragement to women, and is a greater and wider advertisement for the sport.

In most other sports, elite men’s and woman’s competitions have separate championships. In most (if not all) cases, the men’s competitions garner far greater media coverage. Are you Jaffle, suggesting that ALL sporting media coverage be for men’s competition and NONE for women’s competition?

Does it upset you to see any women’s sports are being covered in the media including on TV. What do you feel about athletics… the Commonwealth games, the Olympics…

I wonder if you are one (or are like one) of those old fogeys who think woman should not be allowed on the course… yet could not hit a ball straight to save themselves…

It is important to avoid being too mechanical…
I putt like a 2-stroke motor.

Oh yeah… Lets hand out millions of dollars as a participation achievement award. Just so we set a good example, or is it a VERY POOR example we are setting? Lets be honest I have a daughter, and I would expect that if she were to take up a profession of some kind in 20 odd years she would be reasonably compensated for this in an equally measurable manner based on her performance.

As a parent I only want the best for my child but I have taught her so far and will continue to teach her that she only gets out what she puts in and should only receive what she deserves no matter her skin colour, sex or sexual persuasion. Yes we are supposed to be created equal in the lords eyes however “HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY” dictates that this is untrue and should be no basis for remuneration in a professional world. I have a close friend who is a barrister, a very, very good barrister and SHE charges a fortune for her services and more often than not is successful in her chosen job. Her husband, however, is a less skilled lawyer whilst being a very good lawyer and as such demands less in his remuneration. Should this man, less qualified, less skilled but no less a human being be awarded the same $$$ based on his sex alone?? I would think not. A person, regardless of anything, is worth whatever someone is willing to pay them for their services. My wife makes more money an hour than I do…. Why? Because she is worth more to her boss than I am to my boss. However I am the main monetary supplier to OUR household due to sheer weight of hours and convenience. Should I bleet and cry because I have a penis rather than a vagina??? NO!! NEVER!!! I’m a man I can surely handle it.

To put it in golf terms, should Susan Petterson demand the same money that both Tiger and Rory COMMAND from Nike simply based on her sex alone??

Sure, same job, same pay. I 100% agree with that however your point about creating an example and giving ladies events equal broadcasting space is untenable as it is a fact that the public at large aren’t interested in watching ladies events compared with watching similar men’s events. Unfortunately that is the way it is and as a father raising a young girl it is a challenge that I’m sure I’m not the only one to encounter. .

IF you are proficient at your job and an invaluable resource to your place of work you will be reimbursed accordingly, regardless of sex.

May I add that when Annika and Michelle Wei attempted to win men’s events it was deemed a great failure from which unfortunately Wie has never recovered?. Why do we not see Tiger, Rory, Adam Scott et al jumping out of their skin to play the ‘Evian Masters’ or the ‘Kraft Nabisco’ to prove a point???

The commercial realities are often skewed when it comes to women’s sport. Sponsorship dollars end up not in the pockets of not the most talented but the most marketable ie:sexy.

Does one need to remind you of this lassie

http://www.gossipurge.com/n...

Maybe I could put it like this: you have a couple who do the same job- male and female. The female works fulltime and gets paid for this. The male works 3 days a week and gets paid the same hourly rate but obviously gets paid less in the pocket. In fact they are both being paid exactly the same.

I say the tennis officialdom should keep stats for a year on both tours and work out average match times and then divide the prizemoney accordingly. The bleeding hearts feminists will still rant and be outraged- but they only want equality. I say the men should be demanding equality.

Over the course of the tournament- I would hazard a guess that the men provide 100’s of hours more tennis/entertainment- (read- working).

I would bet my bottom dollar that even if the men played three set matches, they would go for an hour longer on average.