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

[Angelous Wang]

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.

Men and women have different sports for a scientific physical reason.

Male body (skeletal) structure allows for physically bigger muscles (length wise), which means an absolute peak physical male would be stronger and faster than an absolute peak physical female. And because of the muscle size differences males have to work less to gain the same amount of strength as a female.

So it is unfair as males "can" be physically better at any sport than a female.

Also one could argue all the chemical difference is the brain as well as the differences in active brain parts between male and females will always make any contest unfair between the genders, even if they were at identical physical condition.

 

[BlackBark]

I am really surprised to see that there are more votes for "yes". It just doesn't make any sense. As already mentioned, the women's tournament brings in less money and men have to play more to earn the prize.

Also, if you compare the achievement itself; the female winner just becomes the best women tennis player on grass while the male winner becomes the best player in the world, which is more of an achievement.

I would say that if they changed the rules to make women play 5 set matches, then I think equal pay might just be justifiable, but right now it's a bit of a joke. I know this will sound wrong, but the women's tournament just feels like a junior division. They play shorter matches and people kind of watch it just because it's there, but when you want to watch some real, exciting tennis, then it's time to turn on the men's tennis.

 

[O maestre]

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.

well everybody needs to get paid, if they didn't base it on viewer-ship than what would they base it on?, by your logic a curling player should get the same base amount as a soccer player, despite there being near zero interest in curling as a sport and there for almost no profit in supporting it. Another example would be women's soccer compared to men's, why should i as a sponsor pay for something that isn't going to get me as much attention? its basic supply and demand, harsh but fair, especially when you consider that Wimbledon does not allow for advertisement on the court during matches!. spectator sports are after all entertainment when you get down to it, Wimbledon is not the Olympics but rather a private tournament, and is under no obligation to focus on anything else but entertainment.

OT: I voted no for the reasons I stated above, and due to the fact that according to the facts of the OP the men have to endure longer matches

 

[Abomination]

The answer is a resounding "NO" because it isn't a matter of "all other things being equal". The male competition brings in more viewers, brings in more revenue, they play more sets, and are considered the better players.

This isn't just a matter of men being paid more than women because they're men. There are measureable and practical reasons for it being that way.

They can get paid the same when men and women can compete in a tournament against each other in singles matches.

 

[Andy Shandy]

In a perfect world, yes, they should. Because in a perfect world, they'd be able to bring in the same amount of people and money, that men do.

However, unfortunately we live in an imperfect world, and this means that women do not bring in the same amount as men (and is the same in many sports), and therefore it is difficult to argue that they should be being paid the same amount as men, just for equality's sake.

 

[O maestre]

...
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.

I like your analogy however there is one problem, a chess player can be active far longer than a football player, most players when they reach the big 30 are practically old men, something akin to dog years lol, while a chess player might be able to stay mentally sharp for decades. Add potential crippling injuries and you have yourself a sport with high risk and therefore high gain.... that's not to say that the earnings of soccer players isn't ridiculous, but it seems odd comparing chess to a physical sport.

 

[Legion]

Other:

Men should play best of three sets or women should play best of five sets. Then they should both get equal prize money as well.

 

[Sparrow]

I am really surprised to see that there are more votes for "yes". It just doesn't make any sense. As already mentioned, the women's tournament brings in less money and men have to play more to earn the prize.

Oddly enough almost all the comments say either women should have to play as many sets as men, or disagree entirely that they should receive equal pay. For whatever reason it would appear the people voting yes simply aren't commenting, which is kind of a shame.

 

[josemlopes]

I have to say no because of the price of the tickets (although it should cost the same, women also have recognisable stars in it that bring fans to the tournament and thats what people pay to see), the prize money has to be dependent of the cost of the tournament and profits that it brings, they cant make the price higher then what they bring in and they cant make it very low since they need to have justification to why the tournament is happening in the first place.


So just fix the sets and the tickets and the prize can be the same.

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.

I am curious to know if they raised the ticket prices would the profit be the same as the mens tournament, women in tennis are quite well know just as much as men, its not like in basketball or football where its really obvious that the men are the ones that bring the fans.

 

[Vrach]

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.

Men and women have different sports for a scientific physical reason.

Male body (skeletal) structure allows for physically bigger muscles (length wise), which means an absolute peak physical male would be stronger and faster than an absolute peak physical female. And because of the muscle size differences males have to work less to gain the same amount of strength as a female.

So it is unfair as males "can" be physically better at any sport than a female.

Also one could argue all the chemical difference is the brain as well as the differences in active brain parts between male and females will always make any contest unfair between the genders, even if they were at identical physical condition.

I'm aware of that, that's my point - as I said, if you concede to the argument that men are better than women (we're talking top professional athletes here, so there's not much "can"-ing about, their limits are in a large part physical), you can't deny it's more interesting to watch the men playing sports, the same way it's more interesting to watch two better players than two average ones (I'm not calling the female tennis players average, far from it - it's just an analogy). More interesting matches draw in more people, ie. make more money ie. the winner gets more.

 

[Easton Dark]

It's not the womens' fault they aren't allowed to play as long as men, or that they're less popular. So yes, same amount.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

I fail to see how that's relevant Like what does upper body strength have to do with the number of sets they play?
And incidentally I was going to say they should have equal prizes, but then I noticed the part about them not playing the same number of sets and that changes things.

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."

It would certainly simplify things if they did.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Since the women can play doubles as well as singles they have a potentially larger pay out than the men so I'd say no to the same wage until the woman have to play the same number of sets as men.

On a humorous note a reason why people don't watch the female tennis players as much could be attributed to the shrieking war cries the higher ranked players yell out every...damn...shot. That puts me off watching it all the time and some matches you just think yeah this is going on mute and I'd hate to actually be there and listen to that.

 

[Abomination]

The answer is a resounding "NO" because it isn't a matter of "all other things being equal". The male competition brings in more viewers, brings in more revenue, they play more sets, and are considered the better players.

This isn't just a matter of men being paid more than women because they're men. There are measureable and practical reasons for it being that way.

They can get paid the same when men and women can compete in a tournament against each other in singles matches.

I wouldn't say "better" players. Stronger? Yes. Not better.

If one group is capable of playing 5 sets reliably and the other group is only capable of playing 3 sets reliably then which group has the "better" players?

If you can do something 66% longer/more than someone else in anything you can reliably say they are "better" at it... hell, you could argue they're 66% "better" at it.

 

[RandV80]

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.

My primary sport is ice hockey. At the women's international level the sport is dominated by the US and Canada teams, to the point that there's been talk of removing it from the winter Olympics because it isn't really a competition. So how would these dominant women's teams do against men? Well the two teams have occasionally had non-contact practice matches against high level high school teams, and they usually lose.

That said I would take an educated guess that ice hockey is a particularly hard sport for women to compete against men in. It takes a certain kind of strength to skate well, another kind of strength to handle the puck or shoot well, and then another strength again if you want to get into the physical side of hockey. Soccer in comparison is just leg strength. I also play recreational co-ed soccer and unlike hockey I come across plenty of girls that can kick my but at it!

So I really don't know much about Tennis, but at the end of a day a professional athlete is paid based on how many and for how much spectators are willing to pay to watch. I suppose Wimbledon is in a unique position where it's one central body handing out payment and their events have men and women occupying the same events, so they have the luxury of being 'politically correct'. However this is merely a unique situation and isn't going to change anything in the grand scheme of things.

 

[CriticalMiss]

They should get paid the same amount per set, so the women should be getting 3/5ths that of the men. If the womens' events were the same length then they can get the same prize money. It's unfair otherwise.