Poll: Should women get the same prize money as men at Wimbledon?

[Sparrow]

Women tennis players are paid relatively well. The issue that should be addressed is womens football (soccer if youre a yank). Men footballers are paid a fortune and i mean a fortune. A low paid footballer is on 5000 a week and thats really low paid. I dont know exactly what women footballers earn but i can garuntee the top flight get paid a lot less than a low end male footballer. Granted the quality of the game is nowhere near male football but without the massive investment you cant expect it to be

I think one of the problems with Women's Tennis is one of the same problems with women's football; there simply isn't the same demand to watch them in comparison to their male counterparts. The only time most people even catch a glimpse of England's women's squad is when they make the final of an important cup, because there's an outside chance it'll be on ITV2. Women's tennis in this respect is much more prominent and certainly more televised, yet at the same time not as many people watch the women's matches as they do the men's. Is that the fault of the players? I can't quite say for sure, but it's obvious that the men's matches are far more popular.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Women tennis players are paid relatively well. The issue that should be addressed is womens football (soccer if youre a yank). Men footballers are paid a fortune and i mean a fortune. A low paid footballer is on 5000 a week and thats really low paid. I dont know exactly what women footballers earn but i can garuntee the top flight get paid a lot less than a low end male footballer. Granted the quality of the game is nowhere near male football but without the massive investment you cant expect it to be

I think one of the problems with Women's Tennis is one of the same problems with women's football; there simply isn't the same demand to watch them in comparison to their male counterparts. The only time most people even catch a glimpse of England's women's squad is when they make the final of an important cup, because there's an outside chance it'll be on ITV2. Women's tennis in this respect is much more prominent and certainly more televised, yet at the same time not as many people watch the women's matches as they do the men's. Is that the fault of the players? I can't quite say for sure, but it's obvious that the men's matches are far more popular.

another funny point is that if they had a all male team vs an all female team tournament than people would watch double of what they normally watch then when it is a single gender.

 

[shootthebandit]

Women tennis players are paid relatively well. The issue that should be addressed is womens football (soccer if youre a yank). Men footballers are paid a fortune and i mean a fortune. A low paid footballer is on 5000 a week and thats really low paid. I dont know exactly what women footballers earn but i can garuntee the top flight get paid a lot less than a low end male footballer. Granted the quality of the game is nowhere near male football but without the massive investment you cant expect it to be

I think one of the problems with Women's Tennis is one of the same problems with women's football; there simply isn't the same demand to watch them in comparison to their male counterparts. The only time most people even catch a glimpse of England's women's squad is when they make the final of an important cup, because there's an outside chance it'll be on ITV2. Women's tennis in this respect is much more prominent and certainly more televised, yet at the same time not as many people watch the women's matches as they do the men's. Is that the fault of the players? I can't quite say for sure, but it's obvious that the men's matches are far more popular.

another funny point is that if they had a all male team vs an all female team tournament than people would watch double of what they normally watch then when it is a single gender.

Im not sure about that. Mixed doubles tennis is still not as popular as all male tennis and i believe football would be the same

 

[Evonisia]

I think Women should have to play with the same rules as men, most notably three sets. Once that's done I fully agree that Women should get equal pay, I don't understand the reason why Women have to play less to win.

 

[Verbatim]

In most cases the prize pool is based on how many tickets and broadcasting rights you can sell for the event and for how much.

Women's tennis isn't popular as men's, the games tend to be less dynamic/aggressive and unless you get a real locker playing(which for quite some time now we haven't) it just wont track attention.

The tickets for Women matches cost considerably less, and unlike their men counter parts are not sold out 8-10 months in advance(They will start selling 2014 tickets in 3 weeks).

Like with any other Job, you are paid not judged by your work or even your product but by how much others value it.
If Wimbledon cannot capitalize as much on women tennis as they do on men they have the right to pay female athletes less.

 

[Lieju]

My instinct is to say 'yes', but I don't really understand sports.

If women played the same amount of sets and the same amount of people were interesting in viewing women's tennis, and therefore brought in the same amount of money they yes they should receive equal amounts of prize money, but the reality is that they don't and as often happens some principles while great in theory don't actually work that well in the real world, so under the current circumstances no I don't think women should revive the same money, that however may change in the future if they start playing more and bring in bigger crowds who are willing to pay more.

How do the different competitions compare with-in one gender?

There are different kinds of tennis, right? Singles and doubles, at least. Do they all get the same prize-money, and how does that scale to the growds they draw in?

They could argue that despite the fewer sets, those shorter games are as physically exerting for women as longer games are for men, but that's a bit too 'real' for the modern world. No one likes to talk about biological facts any more.

What would that even matter? Even if we assume all women get tired more easily, they'd be competing against other women, so wouldn't it be fair anyway?

It's pretty obvious my knowledge of tennis extends to 'it's the sport where you hit a ball back and forth', right?

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

If the whole thing was evenly laid out from start to finish, yeah, I'd absolutely think so.

If the women's tournament only brings in a quarter of the total amount of what the men's tournament ticket/sponsoring/ad revenue is, hell no. Why break the bank for the fuzzy idea of equality when it ends up being more skewed and unequal in the process?

You know, I'd like to live in a day and age when things like this could be discussed square and fair, but since we live in the sorry age of feminism fuck yeah, this is not bound to happen. So... I fight my fight alone, no thanks to the feminist types. Thanks for nothing.

If you insist on working less and still demand to be paid the same, I think you are not actually talking equal rights. You're talking about fucking people and the system over, and I don't like that, as everyone pays for this, making everything more expensive, which sucks major hairy donkey balls.

This is a really important point that doesn't get brought up very often.

Tennis is one of the few sports where women have the chance to earn quite a bit more than their male counterparts - and many of them do.

Okay, yeah, Stephen Fry taught me that, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Careful with Stephen Fry. He is a nice and charming chap when he's in his good mood, but he is not as smart or all-knowing as he manages to make it seem. He's been talking gadgets and inventions and novelties in this latest TV show of his, and it's proven him to be quite a schmuck and ignoramus. He likes Apple, which is a plus for some people. He knows more about things than a lot of folks his age. It's still very non-technical and limited. And while I like QI, it has to be noted that he has plenty of elf support both over earplug as well as on screen support, so... he's definitely not quite infallible. His predisposition also makes him fall for many a stunt he doesn't even stop half a second to question its veracity. Cave.

 

[rednose1]

Well, at first I thought the natural answer was yes, but the men put in more work, so to be fair, should get more money. If they up the women's sets to five, then sure.

Equality works both ways. To get the same compensation as a man, put in the same amount of work. Once that happens, I'm all for it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

If everything was equal then I would say yes, but everything is not equal so I don't know. However I do have to ask:

- Female competitors play a best of three sets, whereas male competitors play a best of five sets. As a result, men will never play less sets than women.

Why the hell is that? Why don't they play the same number of sets?

 

[Mortakk]

...
But seriously, supply and demand. Female tennis players bring in less money for the tournament than men, so the tournament organisers are under no obligation to give them equal pay.

That said, the organisers of Wimbledon have clearly decided that the cost is not an issue, so good on them for making the prizes equal.

That's my take. Prize money is not strictly analogous to wages, it all depends on how much the sport makes. For instance, you could argue that a chess champion works/practices as hard as a football star (albeit in a different way... any two examples work here), but they'll never make the same kind of money simply because there is less popular interest.

But as long as the prize is large enough to attract the high quality of players (and it's like $3 million... so...) I don't see why it matters if everything is equal or not. Let them pay what they think is fair. If the players don't think it is, they can skip the tourney.

 

[The Lyre]

What would that even matter? Even if we assume all women get tired more easily, they'd be competing against other women, so wouldn't it be fair anyway?

It's pretty obvious my knowledge of tennis extends to 'it's the sport where you hit a ball back and forth', right?

I don't know, I just can't think of any other reason for giving them the same prize money.

The only argument I can think of is "We put the same physical effort in, relative to how much effort we physically can put in".

It really doesn't matter how you answer this question; either way you're screwed.

You either say that:

A) Female pros aren't worth as much money as male pros, so pay them less.

Or

B) Male pro effort isn't worth as much as female pro effort, so pay women the same for less sets.

You're an awful bastard either way.

Why the hell is that? Why don't they play the same number of sets?

Can you really not guess?

No one really likes to say it, but professional male athletes tend to have a higher physical potential than professional female athletes, especially in sports like tennis that require upper body strength. It's an uncomfortable, unfair truth, but it's true nonetheless.

EDIT; As a side note, I think it's interesting that if you ask this question, the usual reaction is probably "Give them equal prizes"

But if you make a thread about socialism, you'll get dozens upon dozens of "wages should reflect work and worth." responses.

 

[crazyarms33]

Should they? Yes.

Will they? No. Why? The finances of it don't make any sense. If the men's tourney makes a million dollars(hypothetically) and the winner gets $400,000 and the woman's tourney makes $400,000 and the winner gets $400,000 where does the extra money for the other participants come from? It's just simple economics to me.

 

[zerragonoss]

Wait men's tennis is a thing and it more popular than women tennis? I am not actually surprised its just I know nothing of sports, and 100% of the clips of tennis or mentions of it I have seen in my life have all been women's tennis. on topic I have no idea I would have to see the books and such, their seems to be a difference in add money, and in the technicalities of the games they are playing. In the dark I would say yes just because.

 

[Sparrow]

If everything was equal then I would say yes, but everything is not equal so I don't know. However I do have to ask:

- Female competitors play a best of three sets, whereas male competitors play a best of five sets. As a result, men will never play less sets than women.

Why the hell is that? Why don't they play the same number of sets?

I honestly can't give you a reason. It would seem beneficial to almost everyone, the female players included, if they did play the same amount of sets as the men. Yet for some reason they don't. As Bill O'Reilly once said: "you just can't explain that."

Should they? Yes.

Will they? No. Why? The finances of it don't make any sense. If the men's tourney makes a million dollars(hypothetically) and the winner gets $400,000 and the woman's tourney makes $400,000 and the winner gets $400,000 where does the extra money for the other participants come from? It's just simple economics to me.

Except, the female players DO get the same amount as the men already.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think you're all missing the REALLY important question:

Should Blancmanges receive the same prize as humans at Wimbledon?

[image/]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jxBDP53ERkM/TFjJiEmyxNI/AAAAAAAABXA/sc4i7G7WAO4/s200/BirdsBlancmange4.jpg[/IMG]

[sub/]for the record, that skit is my entire education on tennis[/sub]

 

[Angelous Wang]

The issue that should be addressed is womens football (soccer if youre a yank). Men footballers are paid a fortune and i mean a fortune. A low paid footballer is on 5000 a week and thats really low paid. I dont know exactly what women footballers earn but i can garuntee the top flight get paid a lot less than a low end male footballer. Granted the quality of the game is nowhere near male football but without the massive investment you cant expect it to be

The problem with this (and the reason they will probably never be the same) is that all tennis players get paid by a single group who is hosting/controlling the tournament/event, whilst football players all get paid by their own individual clubs.

The fact is football players salaries are directly linked to their clubs popularity and the players own individual worth to keep said popularity. Because the more popular a club the more tickets and merchandise they sell, and the cost of these things also goes higher with popularity too, which means the club keeps on getting even more rich due to the players.

Which is why your most popular top end football players makes millions, because he generates more than that for his club. And your bottom end football player is only making 5k because he can only generate that much.

And the simple fact is womens football is just not popular. Therefore women football players generate much, much less than their male counter parts so they clubs cannot afford to pay them anywhere near as much.

Pumping more money into this wont help, even if women had some big "male level" football events it would just bankrupt whomever did it and wouldn't change anything, because the reason womens football is not popular is because of a deep social/cultural attitude towards football, which means people (spectators) aren't willing to watch or spend on it, and there are not very many "great" players because most women don't want to waist their lives on something they know is a fruitless dream.

And to answer the OP - No to equal pay, not until they play an equal amount.

 

[Vrach]

until the sets and the costs are evened out no unfortunately. I believe in paying based off what you do not your gender. but its wimbledons choice to give them less sets and stuff for whatever reason.

Agreed. My guess on the reason is that men's singles probably get a lot more attention... it's true of most sports, you might not like it, but it's simply how things are.

I think the bigger question would be if men and women should play against each other. Can't really debate equality if you concede to the fact that women are worse at a certain sport than men as you're pretty much automatically accepting the fact that the men are more interesting to watch, being better at it.

 

[crazyarms33]

Should they? Yes.

Will they? No. Why? The finances of it don't make any sense. If the men's tourney makes a million dollars(hypothetically) and the winner gets $400,000 and the woman's tourney makes $400,000 and the winner gets $400,000 where does the extra money for the other participants come from? It's just simple economics to me.

Except, the female players DO get the same amount as the men already.

I should have clarified. My mistake. I meant:

Should they(morally):Yes

Should they(practically): No. For the reasons I listed.

I apologize for my mistake.