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

[Sparrow]

So, fresh off the back of the Men's Singles final, I thought it might be interesting to debate something that people have been arguing back and forth about for years: Should men and women receive the same reward money at Wimbledon? For simplicity's sake, let's just refer to the Singles tournaments in regards to this question.

In a bid to stay somewhat impartial, I'll just throw some facts at you and keep my own opinion on the matter to myself.

- In 2007 the powers that be at Wimbledon decided that women competitors (who had previously earnt a small fraction less than their male counterparts) should receive equal prize money as men.

- 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.

- Men's Singles matches always cost more than their respective Women's Singles matches to attend (closest thing I could find to a ticket price listing [http://tennisboxoffice.com/images/wimbledon-tickets-price-list.gif])

 

[rbstewart7263]

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.

 

[Genocidicles]

They do less work, they should get less pay. It's as simple as that.

 

[Sparrow]

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.

They do less work, they should get less pay. It's as simple as that.

Do you think that they should receive the same winnings if they played the same amount of sets, but the ticket prices remained the same?

 

[FalloutJack]

You know what? Why not? I'M never going to beat a professional woman tennis player. It's an achievement. That HAVE the skill. Give them the money!

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

I find the way players are paid in tennis weird as I would say that men and women competitors should be paid evenly. However women competitors play less sets than their male counterparts which allows them to also compete in doubles competitions at the same time, which allows them to actually earn more than male competitors who usually have to choose between single or doubles competitions. So then you could argue equal pay is unfair on males who now play more tennis for less pay comparatively. Surely the easiest thing to do is just have both genders play 5 set games and pay them equally.

 

[o_d]

I think they should get equal pay. I think the 'duration' argument is a little flawed. Just because Usain Bolt's event lasts for only 10 seconds doesn't mean he should receive a fraction of the winnings in comparison to 10,000 metre runner. Of course, both Usain Bolt and Mo Farah have to train 100% of their ability in order to achieve such perfection, as too do men and women's tennis players if they want to be champions. Tennis match lengths are flexible anyway, and it's not like Murray would have received more prize money for playing longer matches overall than Djokovic. Prize money should reflect the enormity of the achievement, and being the best female grass court tennis player should be considered as much of an accomplishment as being the best men's player. True, the men's matches are longer, but there is less margin for error in the women's game that makes any grand slam success a mighty achievement.

 

[Aris Khandr]

I'm on the "No" side. Simply because of the economics of it. I'm quite certain that Wimbledon isn't charging less for the seats at the women's tournament to be nice, or as an excuse to pay them less. They're charging less because fewer people are interested in the tournament. Which means that the women's tournament makes less money, and in turn pays out less.

 

[rbstewart7263]

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.

They do less work, they should get less pay. It's as simple as that.

Do you think that they should receive the same winnings if they played the same amount of sets, but the ticket prices remained the same?

Ticket prices are a matter of profit so no. If they do the same work then the winnings should be the same.

Correct me if im wrong escapists but viewership wise is it true that female sports events get less viewers than the male events?

I think it would be a shame if there pay were based on monetary reasons.

 

[Jamieson 90]

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.

 

[Sparrow]

Do you think that they should receive the same winnings if they played the same amount of sets, but the ticket prices remained the same?

Ticket prices are a matter of profit so no. If they do the same work then the winnings should be the same.

Correct me if im wrong escapists but viewership wise is it true that female sports events get less viewers than the male events?

I think it would be a shame if there pay were based on monetary reasons.

I can't speak for female vs male sports in general, but I was surprised to see empty seats at the latter half of the Women's Singles matches. Every Men's Singles quarter-finals matches were packed, but even the most popular Women's Singles matches had empty seats. Hell, I think the Women's Singles final had some empty seats come to think of it.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I don't care if they play the same amount of sets and it has nothing to do with the situation. People are just less interested in women tennis => less sponsors / less payment => less prize money can be paid out.

Simple as that. Make women tennis more appealing to people and the rest sorts itself out.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't care if they play the same amount of sets and it has nothing to do with the situation. People are just less interested in women tennis => less sponsors / less payment => less prize money can be paid out.

Simple as that. Make women tennis more appealing to people and the rest sorts itself out.

Do you think more people would watch or pay for tickets if they played as many sets as men though? In regards to the people buying the tickets, wouldn't it be more value for money and therefore more appealing?

 

[Cowabungaa]

Wait, they're not getting the same amount of prize money?

Well that's a crock of shit right there. Then again, tennis is, rule- and culture-wise, rather archaic so I really should've seen this coming. I mean sheesh women players are still required to play in skirts, it's so silly.

 

[Sparrow]

Wait, they're not getting the same amount of prize money?

Well that's a crock of shit right there. Then again, tennis is, rule- and culture-wise, rather archaic so I really should've seen this coming. I mean sheesh women players are still required to play in skirts, it's so silly.

Women's Singles and Doubles players have received the same prize money as their male counterparts since 2007.

Also, I'm not sure that skirt rule applies anymore. Several female players have been wearing shorts during this years Wimbledon matches, but the majority still wear skirts. Seems to be a case of preference.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I don't care if they play the same amount of sets and it has nothing to do with the situation. People are just less interested in women tennis => less sponsors / less payment => less prize money can be paid out.

Simple as that. Make women tennis more appealing to people and the rest sorts itself out.

Do you think more people would watch or pay for tickets if they played as many sets as men though? In regards to the people buying the tickets, wouldn't it be more value for money and therefore more appealing?

Hm right, it's maybe worth a shot. I doubt the length of the games is the problem though. I can only speak for me now, but women tennis is just not as appealing to watch. Whenever i watch them i feel it lacks something compared to mens matches.
Same with women soccer. They work hard and are probably really good players... but it just looks wierd and not that tense to watch.

I dunno. I just was irked by the thread at first, since it sounded like another "ermergerd, women are not equal!!!" Thread.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Wait, they're not getting the same amount of prize money?

Well that's a crock of shit right there. Then again, tennis is, rule- and culture-wise, rather archaic so I really should've seen this coming. I mean sheesh women players are still required to play in skirts, it's so silly.

Women's Singles and Doubles players have received the same prize money as their male counterparts since 2007.

Also, I'm not sure that skirt rule applies anymore. Several female players have been wearing shorts during this years Wimbledon matches, but the majority still wear skirts. Seems to be a case of preference.

It does pay (pun intended) to read the OP properly. What can I say, it's been a hot and tiring day. I hope you're right about the skirt thing as well. That'd be some nice progress.

Anyway, I still stand behind their decision to equalize their prize money. But I would also like to see rules like game length equalized. I do however understand that that'd be rather problematic. Afterall, if you've been training to play three sets max for your entire career, suddenly playing five could be a little much.

The cost I find a non-argument. That's not the fault of the players.

 

[Sparrow]

Hm right, it's maybe worth a shot. I doubt the length of the games is the problem though. I can only speak for me now, but women tennis is just not as appealing to watch. Whenever i watch them i feel it lacks something compared to mens matches.
Same with women soccer. They work hard and are probably really good players... but it just looks wierd and not that tense to watch.

I dunno. I just was irked by the thread at first, since it sounded like another "ermergerd, women are not equal!!!" Thread.

I agree with you that it's not as appealing to watch. The rallies are always much shorter in women's matches than in the men's. I'm not sure exactly why that is, could be a number of reasons. Also, female tennis players at their highest level also can't serve anywhere near as fast as professional male players, so everything does seem kind of slower as a result. A lot of female players have a thing for really loud grunting, too. Sharapova is the worst in this regard, she makes matches sound like a badly acted porno.

In regards to your second point, I'm sure some people will argue that it's the principle of the thing and that women deserve equal reward as it would set a negative precedent otherwise. That's not a logical train of thought in my opinion, it's simply other people forcing their viewpoints on the sport. At the same time however, I think it's rather anti-feminist that women receive equal prize rewards. If I were a female tennis player I'd want to go for five sets just to prove that I'd earnt my reward, rather than be doted on.

Anyway, I still stand behind their decision to equalize their prize money. But I would also like to see rules like game length equalized. I do however understand that that'd be rather problematic. Afterall, if you've been training to play three sets max for your entire career, suddenly playing five could be a little much.

As a couple of other people have said, it is quite clear the Women's Singles players have the stamina to play more matches as a good majority of them also compete in Women's Doubles or Mixed Doubles matches after they're done with their singles games. In comparison the Men's Singles players are so drained after their matches that they more often than not don't participate in any of the Wimbledon Doubles matches alongside their singles matches. This also allows female players to earn much more than the male players, as they receive the same monetary reward for the singles matches and then also compete in other matches to earn even more money.

 

[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

 

[Genocidicles]

snip

Male footballers get paid more because shit loads more people watch men's football over women's.