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
Wimbledon prize money...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 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?
What do you think?
Post edited by JustV on
0
Comments
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 ?
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?
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.
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.
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...
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!
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
)
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!
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.