If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
All England Club agrees to pay women equal prize money
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6385295.stm
About time too.
I don't care much for the number of sets played. If that really held any water then male players who win their games in straight sets should have had 2/5 of their prize money substracted. It's all about the spectacle not about the amount of tennis played.
About time too.
I don't care much for the number of sets played. If that really held any water then male players who win their games in straight sets should have had 2/5 of their prize money substracted. It's all about the spectacle not about the amount of tennis played.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
Post edited by JustV on
0
Comments
I'm all for sexual equality and all that but they do not play the same game. Women play 2 fewer sets than men. Men's tennis is longer, more physically demanding and thus the two games are not equal and thus they should not be paid the same for what is essentially a shorter form of the game. If the games were the same length, I would be the first person to call for equal prize money but that isn't the case.
Time constraints I guess :yes:
Yes, but not for the reasons you mentioned
Nah, I think the womens game is a good bit more open at the minute than the men's. Federer is a bit of a machine, but it's good to see Andy Murray coming onto a game :thumb:
But on a serious note. Yay.
But a lot of sport comes down to entertainment - for example football... sponsors just get so much more exposure from mens football, wayyy more people watch it, it would be tough to give equal pay to womens football, even if they deserve it (itd just be illogical for sponsors).
I think they've got it spot on in the tennis though...
I think the two games, whilst not being exactly the same, are of equal worth and equal merit, and the pay should be equal accordingly. It isn't like women's football where 3 men and a dog turn up to watch, women's tennis is probably more watched and more commercially successful than the men's game.
And I for one could happily sit and look at Sharapova's delightful little bottom all day long.
If a woman at my work only did a maximum 3 day week (min 2) whilst I was expected to do a minimum 3 (maximum 5) then the pay difference would be pro-rata and I don't see any difference here- although I would advocate payment based on minum expected sets for men would only get 1/3 more.
I really struggle to find how anyone can defend parity TBH.
In many other sports the game is the same, track and field it's same disatnces run, for example. However, I have heard the "spectator" aspect mentioned and I suppose that account could be made for that, but even then I am not sure that parity is fair.
The only justification for paying women's champions less is that their game is less commercially successful- i.e. they make less money for the LTA. The women's game is probably more commercially successful (the games are better, the scenery is better) than the man's game.
So the tournament is just a single match?
Its a step ultimately in the right direction but it will take a lot longer to change the set minds that womens sport is inferior
Of course in the case of Wimbledon, it is the whole tournament that is sponsored. Therefore, the proceeds should be split evenly between the winners of the mens and womens winners.
The pay for the men's champion isn't pro-rata depending on how many sets he played, so I fail to see why that argument is sufficient justification for paying the female champion less. If we have it so that you get paid per set played, then you might have a point.
Football in the US is the reverse of the usual, in that the women's game is seen as superior and the women are paid more accordingly. Tennis is an exceptional sport because the women's game is the equal of the men's, both in terms of quality and commercial opportunity.
I go back to my first post where I asid that the men should be paid 1/3 more. I argue that on the basis of the minimum sets expected.
It's a farce that the person expected to play less should get paid the same amount. You would through a hissy-fit if the same approach applied in your office.
I don't understand why though. I watched the women's FA cup final last year and found it much more enjoyable, for a start if the women were tackled they didn't throw themselves through the air and lie on the ground screaming and crying milking for a foul or free kick or penalty, they tried desperately to stay on their feet and keep control of the ball.
Quite frankly there being next to no diving is enough of a reason for me for the women's game of footy to be fifty billion times better than the mens. So what if they don't have the power to drill it home from 40 yards out, how often does that really happen in mens anyway?
You can't base there being no diving on one cup final. I watched a few games in the womens' world cup and saw women going down easy all the time, under much less punishing challenges than in the mens' game.
It's not just all about men being more powerful though. In terms of technique and ability the womens' game is nowhere near. From watching the womens' world cup, I'd compare it to conference football. I'm not being sexist, it was just what I thought. People want to watch the sport being played at the highest levels.
By that logic then, you don't understand why the Nationwide Conference is less popular than the Champions League?
That's just a question of investment then. Women can play a game different to men but just as interesting and exciting.
The two best women's ultimate teams in the country
the two best student women's ultimate teams in the country
two of the best men's ultimate teams in the country
Now I accept that you probably don't know good ultimate from bad, the men and women's games are different but both awesome
ETA: if I can find another good clip of a typical men's game I'll put it up.
Also, I'm with Stupid, no that's not the point, quality if lacking (and I don't really watch a lot of footy so probably wouldn't know) is just a question of time and investment, as it is with most things
So why is the women's game in the USA, despite receving huge funding and investment, not up to scratch then? If your theory was true, women's ability in the USA should equate to that of the men at the top level.
Time and investment might be crucial factor in most things, but it's not in sport where raw ability is much more important. There's only so far time and investment can go.
I don't know anything about frisbee, apart from it's a good thing to have down the park in the summer, so I can't comment on those videos. If, in your opinion, the women's game is better or just as good as the men's, then that's fair enough. I like watching women's sports, well tennis mostly, because it's different from the men's. You don't often just have a big serve and return. But, despite enjoying women's tennis I'd still rather watch a men's game to see the sport being played at the best level IMO.
It depends on what you mean by equation, though, doesn't it.
Most women are not built like Emile Heskey or Nemanja Vidic, and so the women's game relies less on physical presence- you don't get a Big Forward in the women's game.
In terms of skill women can be a match for men, and the best players in the women's game are a match for men in terms of skill and ball control. Certainly the Swedish women's team would give a lot of Premiership players a run for their money in terms of skill and ability, but they couldn't cope so well with a set of cloggers like Bolton in a physical game.
In the US the women's game probably is an equal of the men's game. But for most countries the women's game isn't a match because its still an amateur game.
The men's and women's game in tennis are different, and if the women's champion went up against the men's champion she would probably lose, but only an idiot would try and claim that the women's game wasn't as good as the men's game.
I'm going to contest this on the grounds that football players e.g. wingers do not need to be powerhouses to be good players. If women have ball control and skill to match men then they'd be able to play at the same level, but they don't. I saw supposedly the best female player in the world (Birgitte Prinz) at the women's world cup, and she was relatively ordinary. Decent touch and she can certainly play, but nothing you wouldn't see from a decent player at championship level. I saw a Brazilian player Marta who is supposedly the female Ronaldinho, but she seemed a bit more like an average winger to me. She actually reminded of Ivan Sproule who plays for Hibs in her style. Nice running with a bit of skill, but wouldn't stand a chance against a good defender.
I enjoy the women's game, but regardless of power, in terms of technical ability, some of the things players like Federer and Nadal do are never replicated in a women's match. That's why I enjoy watching the men's more. But I'd still rather watch the best women over some big serving eastern European powehouse male, because the women's technical game would be better.
No, but they have to have enough about them to withstand being repeatedly clobbered by a full back in the Dixon or Winterburn mould. Ronaldo is a traditional winger but he's only so good because he's strong enough to muscle tough full backs off the ball. Without his physical presence he'd be half the player he is.
Football is more than about pure skill, otherwise Bolton would be in the Conference.
I agree, and sure Ronaldo is tough, but a dainty little winger can do quite well for himself at lower levels of football and sometimes higher level (SWP, Lennon) without having the physical presence. You'll never see Lennon brushing away a defender's challenge, but his technical ability and skill means he doesn't have to. If the female Ronaldinho was technically as gifted as any other winger I'd back the point that she's just as good, but she's not. She might stand out against her peers, just like my wee brother stands out in the U-14s, but she's a relatively average player.
And much as I like Lennon as a player, he's quite often anonymous against the top teams. He's also not that weak, he won't be kicked out of a game.
There are so many variables its impossible to compare the two games to be honest, but if the women's game had the funds and the training facilities of the men's game the difference in class would be a lot different. The best women could cut it at the top level in terms of skill, with access to the training of the top teams, but skill isn't the only thing that makes a player successful, and there are plenty of tricky wingers who have been abject failures because of the physical side of the game.