Home Travel & Free Time
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Wimbledon prize money...

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, sugested yesterday that the Women's Champion at Wimbledon should recieve the same prize money as the Men's Champion...purely as an act of equality.

What do you think?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Although it seems unfair, if more people pay to go and see the men then it is fair in my opinion. It's still a lot of money and recognition.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the respective standards of tennis should reach 'equality' first, stupid cow
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think the "standards" of the game are what is relevant, but the numbers of people willing to pay to see either men/women play?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by PussyKatty
    I don't think the "standards" of the game are what is relevant, but the numbers of people willing to pay to see either men/women play?

    But in the case of Wimbledon its difficult to determine as you pay to get in for the day, not specific matches, but surely standard is directly linked to the number of people wishing to watch a match ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I disagree, these aresome of the best tennis players in the world. men are bigger and stronger, if you think that constitutes as a higher standard of game play then yoi are free to think that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally I don't see it as a standards issue, or the number of people watching.

    If women want equal pay, then they should put in the equal effort. Currently women play a maximum three sets per match, for men that is the minimum...

    Oh, and Pussy..are you stalking me today or something? :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by PussyKatty
    I disagree, these aresome of the best tennis players in the world. men are bigger and stronger, if you think that constitutes as a higher standard of game play then yoi are free to think that.

    If the men took on the women, 1st seed versus 1st seed, 2nd versus 2nd and so on i doubt the women would win a set, men clearly play a higher standard.

    If you decide prizes on the probable audiences then you can start to argue different players should recieve different amounts for winning, Kournikova for example in theory would be entitled to far more than any other women as far more people wish to see her play than anyone else. That would be ridiclous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But that relates to football also and other sports- popular teams can afford to pay their players more than unpopular teams.

    Like I said- men on the whole are stronger so would most likely win against females, that's why females play females apart from mixed doubles.

    I like to watch female and male tennis personally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Personally I don't see it as a standards issue, or the number of people watching.

    If women want equal pay, then they should put in the equal effort. Currently women play a maximum three sets per match, for men that is the minimum...


    have to agree with you there,

    with regards that, why do women only play best of three and not five anyway??

    i can imagine it would be terrible watching anna kournikova playing a 4 hour game to be fair... ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How Much prize money do they get? I don't really follow the tennis! :p:p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think women get summit like £125,000 for winning wimbledon
    and men dunno but they get more

    i agree with man of kent, they want the same amount of pay, they play the same amount of sets as men!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MattBomb
    I think women get summit like £125,000 for winning wimbledon
    and men dunno but they get more

    i agree with man of kent, they want the same amount of pay, they play the same amount of sets as men!

    Shit Thats alot of money!! thanks for telling me that because its something I always wanted to know! :);):):p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by ebb


    If the men took on the women, 1st seed versus 1st seed, 2nd versus 2nd and so on i doubt the women would win a set, men clearly play a higher standard.

    If you decide prizes on the probable audiences then you can start to argue different players should recieve different amounts for winning, Kournikova for example in theory would be entitled to far more than any other women as far more people wish to see her play than anyone else. That would be ridiclous.

    Yeah exactly! It works with boxing, but thats the nature of the sport and the promotion surrounding it. Also, a boxing match is billed as being between two individuals (i.e. in name) with Wimbledon its billed as Wimbledon, so prize money has to be predetermined!

    Otherwise you could have Anna Kournikova making a packet for a first round loss and lets say, someone like David Nalbandian making very little for winning the whole thing (which he has an outside chance of doing, being in the semis of course!)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Prize money is also linked to the amount of tennis played. Women play the best of three sets, and for the top players such as the Williams sisters and others a typical game is a 6-1 6-2 forty-minute stroll. The winner of the men's singles (probably Hewitt by the looks of it) will have clocked quite a few 4-set and 5-set games by the time the final is over.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Correction, women get about £240,000 for winning wimbledon, i think the tv said £243,000 but im not sure cant remember
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the winner of the womens final got £480,000, the runner up gets £240,000:eek:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do they play who wants to be a millionaire in tandem with the tennis :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I really don't believe that men get a higher rate of pay than the women....
    I can see how it happens, but I really don't think its right.

    If I were a world class female tennis champion (small jump from reality) I wouldn't want to play until i had the oppertunity of winning the same amount as the men. Its obvious discrimination.

    Do women <i>have</i> to play in the womens or can they play with the men (giving them the oppertunity to win the same amount)?

    I am coming at this from a purely political veiwpoint, as i really don't enjoy any spectator sports... I just don't see the appeal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    If I were a world class female tennis champion (small jump from reality) I wouldn't want to play until i had the oppertunity of winning the same amount as the men. Its obvious discrimination.

    It would be discrimination if

    a: Entry to Wimbledon was restricted to Men only, but it isn't

    b: Both sexes played the same number of games/sets as a minimum. At present the maximum for women is the minum for men. That is disriminatory towards men, surely.
    Do women <i>have</i> to play in the womens or can they play with the men (giving them the oppertunity to win the same amount)?

    From a sporting perspective they wouldn't ever win, so the question becomes irrelevant. There are no women currently playing who could compete on an equal setting.
    I am coming at this from a purely political veiwpoint, as i really don't enjoy any spectator sports... I just don't see the appeal.

    Which is why politics shouldn't be involved in sport ;)

    Poltics dictates total equality, but the sporting arena doesn't. I am not aware of any sport where women compete on an equal setting - physiology sees to that. The sexes aren't equal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Poltics dictates total equality, but the sporting arena doesn't. I am not aware of any sport where women compete on an equal setting - physiology sees to that. The sexes aren't equal. [/B]

    There are occasions where women do compete on an equal footing to men, although these situations are rare. Horse-riding (as in equestrianism, not as in horse racing) is the only sport where women compete directly against men (again, as far as I'm aware). I also see no reason why men and women should not be in direct competition in sports such as shooting - basically anything where physiological differences won't make a difference. So in a way this does back up your point!

    Another way of looking at this is mixed doubles events in tennis and badminton. Badminton being my sport I'll go with that (btw, with tennis, I guess the obvious female weakness is on their serve). Anyway, in mixed doubles, it is the woman who wins the game playing mixed. Women can handle a guys power because they are used to playing against it, so when taking on another woman they can happily cope with power strokes. It comes down to a touch game.

    In mixed doubles, it is the woman's touch at the net which gets the attack for the man. Physically the man can attack from the back and get the opponnents in to difficulty with power strokes. These strokes usually present winning opportunities for the woman, who will have the chance to finish. A man in mixed is only as good as the woman he plays with: -

    -she gets the attack (by forcing the opposition to lift)
    -she kills the points off by following up the man's attacks.

    As far as I am aware though, as prize money is distrbuted by pair this puts them on equal terms, in terms of prize money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by KermitEntity
    There are occasions where women do compete on an equal footing to men, although these situations are rare. Horse-riding (as in equestrianism, not as in horse racing) is the only sport where women compete directly against men (again, as far as I'm aware).

    I'd argue that it is the HORSES which compete, rather than their riders. I'll admit that it takes talent to ride a horse over such jumps, but who really puts in the most effort?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In a roundabout way, I was kinda going for a "the exception proves the rule" approach!!

    Originally posted by Man Of Kent


    I'd argue that it is the HORSES which compete, rather than their riders. I'll admit that it takes talent to ride a horse over such jumps, but who really puts in the most effort?

    You're right there, its a good point! But thats kinda what I meant by taking away the physiological differences (although it might have helped if I'd have used ur point there!
    :D )

    Actually, you could argue whether they're male or female horses................But that goes into the realms of effort! Nah, you've got a point dude! Fair play!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak


    Do women <i>have</i> to play in the womens or can they play with the men (giving them the oppertunity to win the same amount)?


    LMAO, I'd be amazed if Venus Williams the number 1 lady in the world would be able to beat any man in the top 350, thats how big the levels of class are.
Sign In or Register to comment.