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

[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.

The set differential is because women's hips are wider then mens, and more weight is supported on their lower body then on men. This puts more pressure on the ankles, which is the most important limb in Tennis. It's to prevent injury.

So men are "better" at tennis than women because they do not suffer from those limitations.

I mean, it's pretty cut and dry. The reasons for one side being better than the other don't change that one side is better than the other.

 

[Saltyk]

This sounds like a case of economics. Fewer people watch the female version, even at a reduced price. Therefore, less money to be paid. It's not a case of right/wrong, it's about not having the money in the first place. Winning less money for fewer rounds certainly beats not playing at all.

Might as well complain about athletes in different sports making different amounts of money. Or that the Quarterback makes more than any other player on the field.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised to hear (according to several comments here) that the women's game has fewer viewers. I would think "sex appeal" would draw some people. Primarily men.

That's my two cents.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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

Tradition, simple as.

Way back in the day the justification was that women weren't strong enough to last through five sets (bare in mind this is also a time when women played tennis in a full length dress, so maybe some truth to it). That hasn't really applied to the modern era, it certainly didn't apply by the days of Billy Jean King.

There's no question that a Williams or Azarenka could play five set matches, it's a crying shame that no one has got off their arse and made it happen yet, it would be a win for everyone.

 

[Genocidicles]

This sounds like a case of economics. Fewer people watch the female version, even at a reduced price. Therefore, less money to be paid. It's not a case of right/wrong, it's about not having the money in the first place. Winning less money for fewer rounds certainly beats not playing at all.

You misunderstand. They've made the same amount as men since 2007, despite them playing less rounds, and having fewer viewers.

 

[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.

The rules weren't made out of sexism. 3 sets of tennis is grueling as it is, and extending that further would cause severe injuries on the female side. It's a biology thing. The curvature of the hips puts more pressure on the ankles, the joint most used in tennis. If they were extended to the same length as men, ankle sprains and fractures would greatly increase.

It's still not their fault. Maybe some tennis playing women out there have ankles made of steel and still wouldn't be allowed. And thinking about it like that, men are playing to their general limit as safety allows, and so are women, same amount of stress, same payment.

 

[Abomination]

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.

The rules weren't made out of sexism. 3 sets of tennis is grueling as it is, and extending that further would cause severe injuries on the female side. It's a biology thing. The curvature of the hips puts more pressure on the ankles, the joint most used in tennis. If they were extended to the same length as men, ankle sprains and fractures would greatly increase.

It's still not their fault. Maybe some tennis playing women out there have ankles made of steel and still wouldn't be allowed. And thinking about it like that, men are playing to their general limit as safety allows, and so are women, same amount of stress, same payment.

You don't get paid by your limits, you get paid for the actual work you accomplish.

Might as well pay your GP the same as a brain surgeon because his "limits" were to refer you to the brain surgeon.

 

[Saltyk]

This sounds like a case of economics. Fewer people watch the female version, even at a reduced price. Therefore, less money to be paid. It's not a case of right/wrong, it's about not having the money in the first place. Winning less money for fewer rounds certainly beats not playing at all.

You misunderstand. They've made the same amount as men since 2007, despite them playing less rounds, and having fewer viewers.

It seems that I did. Thank you for clarifying that.
Well, in that case, the sentiment remains the same. I would say it's smarter to not pay the same. That being said, I don't care. They can pay the women MORE for all I care. Wouldn't affect whether I like watching it or not.

I generally don't care what winning a major title means in terms of money. I care about the prestige. I don't care if you win money for winning the Super Bowl or World Series. I just want my team to win them.

 

[Clowndoe]

I voted other because there's something missing. I think they should make as much money proportionately to how much they bring in. For example, WNBA players make less than NBA players because nobody cares about the WNBA. It's supply and demand.

 

[clippen05]

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.

How is people preferring to watch men's sports and not womens' sports "imperfect." Its not like people are barred from watching women's sports; it's a matter of preference. People just happen to prefer to watch men's sports; that's their choice. Should every show in the world get equal viewership so no actors get less money? In a perfect world...

 

[RedDeadFred]

Only if men and women start playing each other.

I know almost nothing about this sport but let's say that the number 1 man from a men's tournament faced the number 1 woman from a woman's tournament. If the man beats the woman (or vice versa) it shows that he is the best player and so he should be receiving the higher pay.

I'm all for equality, but not when it's selective. If you're going to get the same prize, you should be playing against the same people.

 

[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.

The rules weren't made out of sexism. 3 sets of tennis is grueling as it is, and extending that further would cause severe injuries on the female side. It's a biology thing. The curvature of the hips puts more pressure on the ankles, the joint most used in tennis. If they were extended to the same length as men, ankle sprains and fractures would greatly increase.

It's still not their fault. Maybe some tennis playing women out there have ankles made of steel and still wouldn't be allowed. And thinking about it like that, men are playing to their general limit as safety allows, and so are women, same amount of stress, same payment.

You don't get paid by your limits, you get paid for the actual work you accomplish.

Might as well pay your GP the same as a brain surgeon because his "limits" were to refer you to the brain surgeon.

Maybe if they did the same job but they don't, not like two tennis players who only play tennis.

 

[Abomination]

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.

The rules weren't made out of sexism. 3 sets of tennis is grueling as it is, and extending that further would cause severe injuries on the female side. It's a biology thing. The curvature of the hips puts more pressure on the ankles, the joint most used in tennis. If they were extended to the same length as men, ankle sprains and fractures would greatly increase.

It's still not their fault. Maybe some tennis playing women out there have ankles made of steel and still wouldn't be allowed. And thinking about it like that, men are playing to their general limit as safety allows, and so are women, same amount of stress, same payment.

You don't get paid by your limits, you get paid for the actual work you accomplish.

Might as well pay your GP the same as a brain surgeon because his "limits" were to refer you to the brain surgeon.

Maybe if they did the same job but they don't, not like two tennis players who only play tennis.

They are doing the same job, they're assisting you with a medical issue.

Both the tennis players are doing the same job... just one does less than the other and performs against different people.

 

[Easton Dark]

They are doing the same job, they're assisting you with a medical issue.

Both the tennis players are doing the same job... just one does less than the other and performs against different people.

That's not their fault or necessarily their choice though, and I don't think they should be faulted for that. It's a choice to be a brain surgeon or pediatrician, etc.

I'll say that I'd prefer the equal payment even more if men and women faced each other, but apparently that's not happening.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

I voted other... I say no, not yet. But with a very simple criteria for change. Well, two criteria.

Option 1 : Can the Women's Champions beat the Men's champion? Could Marion Bartoli beat Andy Murray straight up? No, she probably couldn't, and so she gets paid less. This isn't like an office job or some thing in which gender does not matter. Men are still innately stronger, faster, etc on the whole. This isn't to say that ALL men are stronger, faster, etc ... I'm in pretty good shape (Tough Mudder), but every single woman at Wimbeldon would whoop my arse on the courts, without a doubt. That said, Men's fastest recorded serves are still 10-20% faster than the women's best. (serves may not be the best measurement, but it's the most closely tracked) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves. Even the #1 fastest women's serves ever, wouldn't crack the top 50 in Men's play.

Option 2 : Can the Women's side draw the same revenue as the Men's side? When ticket prices, endorsement deals, and all other money involved reach parity, then their pay should too. But, right now people pay more to see the men, so the men get a bigger prize.

I apologize if this comes across as sexist, I certainly don't intend for that and I do look forward to the day when these differences shrink to the point of nonexistence... but for now, the women players draw less money, cannot compete on equal footing with the men, and as such receive a smaller payment.

 

[Gunner_Guardian]

I choose other. It's their money they can do what they want with it.

They want to respond to backlash and make everything equal for everyone? Fine their money. They want to focus the prize pool on the male tennis player because they bring in more view. Fine, their money. There's consequences either way (viewership, participation, etc) and I'm sure their measuring it and adjusting accordingly.

 

[Abomination]

They are doing the same job, they're assisting you with a medical issue.

Both the tennis players are doing the same job... just one does less than the other and performs against different people.

That's not their fault or necessarily their choice though, and I don't think they should be faulted for that. It's a choice to be a brain surgeon or pediatrician, etc.

I'll say that I'd prefer the equal payment even more if men and women faced each other, but apparently that's not happening.

Not their choice to be a woman is correct but it's not the organizers' choices that men's tennis generates that much more revenue.

We can't have people doing 3/5 the work and getting 5/5 the pay, no matter the reason for them only doing 3/5 the work.

 

[Sparrow]

Only if men and women start playing each other.

I know almost nothing about this sport but let's say that the number 1 man from a men's tournament faced the number 1 woman from a woman's tournament. If the man beats the woman (or vice versa) it shows that he is the best player and so he should be receiving the higher pay.

I'm all for equality, but not when it's selective. If you're going to get the same prize, you should be playing against the same people.

As entertaining as it would be to see it happen again in recent times (not in a "it'd be great to see a woman lose!" sense, more in a "This'll be a neat talking point" sense) the last few times it's happened the men have wiped the floor with the women. There were a couple of games (in the infamous "Riggs vs." set of games) where a 55 year old man went up against female tennis pros. He won the first singles match, but then lost the proceeding singles match and another doubles match (at the ripe old age of 67).

The most recent example is Braasch vs Williams sisters matches. Braasch was a former pro tennis player, peaking at a singles seed rating of 38. By the time he played the Williams sisters he was thirty years old and ranked 203rd, yet he proceeded to floor the both of them. He remarked later on that he played badly to make it competitive.

If the top men's seed played the top women's seed, it would be a massacre.

 

[smithy_2045]

If they both play best of 5, they should e payed equally.