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

[IronMit]

A question though too: does anybody think that, by paying less prize money at some tournaments, organisers are sending a message that women's tennis is a less worthy spectacle? Does anybody think that, even if its popularity isn't the same right now, paying equal prize money now might go some way to encouraging people to take women's tennis more seriously, and in turn build its popularity up closer to that of the mens game? Just a thought.

The organiser's don't set importance..fans/consumers do. E.g tv revenue/advertising revenue. The market should set the prize money. If less people watch, women matches tickets are lower, advertising doesn't bring in as much money then that's not the organisers fault.
However If women's tennis was more popular they should get paid more. I wouldn't expect men's tennis to be subsidised.

 

[Schadrach]

Of course they should have the same prize money. They should *also* be playing the same amount of tennis. Either move both to either best-of-5 or best-of-3, or else drop the award for women to be inline with actually playing less tennis to be rewarded with it. Anything else is fundamentally unfair.

 

[Sparrow]

They should earn the same, but also there's no reason why they should continue to play shorter matches.

My argument has been for some time that both men and women should play 3-set matches up to the 4th round, and 5-set matches thereafter. Given that in general, early-round matches are much more likely to be one-sided (this year's weird results notwithstanding!), this seems like a better solution; we can get through the routine matches quickly and spend more time on the good stuff.

There have been several good examples of male players coming from two sets down to win though, even in early rounds in the tournament. Do you remember the Isner-Mahut match in 2010? If such a three round rule existed we'd have never seen such a match.

It's interesting because according to the poll the majority are saying yes, but if you look at the posts almost everyone is saying "no" or "other".

I noted this earlier. I'm confused as to why the majority of the people voting yes are not commenting, unless the majority of the people voting yes are the people saying "They should, but only if they play equal sets."

 

[Flatfrog]

They should earn the same, but also there's no reason why they should continue to play shorter matches.

My argument has been for some time that both men and women should play 3-set matches up to the 4th round, and 5-set matches thereafter. Given that in general, early-round matches are much more likely to be one-sided (this year's weird results notwithstanding!), this seems like a better solution; we can get through the routine matches quickly and spend more time on the good stuff.

There have been several good examples of male players coming from two sets down to win though, even in early rounds in the tournament. Do you remember the Isner-Mahut match in 2010? If such a three round rule existed we'd have never seen such a match.

I know. And think of all the great five-set women's finals and semi-finals we've missed for the same reason. In fact, I'd wager that for every exciting five-set first-round epic men's match we lose, there would be twice as many great women's matches we'd gain.

Also, it's worth noting that those great five-set epics in the first round are almost invariably going to be between lower-ranked players who have little or no chance of making it to the final anyway. I'm pretty sure Isner lost in the very next round that year (although admittedly playing a final set that was longer than any Wimbledon match in history may have had something to do with that too!)

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No because they already make more from doing Doubles and Singles while men can only do one and the reasons why men have bo5 and women have bo3 is already stated so I see no unfairness or unwarranted gender bias in the way this is run.

 

[Sparrow]

No because they already make more from doing Doubles and Singles while men can only do one and the reasons why men have bo5 and women have bo3 is already stated so I see no unfairness or unwarranted gender bias in the way this is run.

So, do you think women's singles players should be paid less now?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No because they already make more from doing Doubles and Singles while men can only do one and the reasons why men have bo5 and women have bo3 is already stated so I see no unfairness or unwarranted gender bias in the way this is run.

So, do you think women's singles players should be paid less now?

No. They get paid what they are paid for their time and do both so they should be paid for both. As far as I know they don't have to do Doubles that is just something they do extra like a teacher doing grinds.

 

[AnarchistFish]

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

The time devoted to "work" is probably about the same when you factor in all the training. It doesn't really come down to home much time they do "working" though, unless you consider that they're being paid to provide entertainment.



This really depends on what they're being paid for. If they're paid for placement in a competition then the number of sets is irrelevant. They're all on the same playing field, it's about defeating others on that same playing field and placing higher than them. That'll be just as hard for everyone, whether you have to play 3 sets or 5, so that shouldn't affect the winnings. If they're being paid in relation to the competition earnings or to provide entertainment to an audience, that's another thing completely, and I'm not really sure either way.



That being said, I think they should play 5 sets anyway.

 

[Sparrow]

No because they already make more from doing Doubles and Singles while men can only do one and the reasons why men have bo5 and women have bo3 is already stated so I see no unfairness or unwarranted gender bias in the way this is run.

So, do you think women's singles players should be paid less now?

No. They get paid what they are paid for their time and do both so they should be paid for both. As far as I know they don't have to do Doubles that is just something they do extra like a teacher doing grinds.

But a lot of the male players are so exhausted after five sets that they can't even participate in the doubles matches, therefore not only do the female players get the same amount of money for something less strenuous but also have the opportunity to make even more money on top of that.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No because they already make more from doing Doubles and Singles while men can only do one and the reasons why men have bo5 and women have bo3 is already stated so I see no unfairness or unwarranted gender bias in the way this is run.

So, do you think women's singles players should be paid less now?

No. They get paid what they are paid for their time and do both so they should be paid for both. As far as I know they don't have to do Doubles that is just something they do extra like a teacher doing grinds.

But a lot of the male players are so exhausted after five sets that they can't even participate in the doubles matches, therefore not only do the female players get the same amount of money for something less strenuous but also have the opportunity to make even more money on top of that.

That was already answered with my thread response so I should have phrased my reply better after reading over it. The question posed was should women get the same as for singles and I said no to that. So no I don't think women should be paid the same for a 3 set single, when they can then go on to do doubles.

So to clarify women should be paid less for their singles since they can go on and do Doubles as pretty much all do as far as I know.

 

[hazabaza1]

If they're not doing as many sets then it makes sense they get less. Seems like a fairly simple system.

 

[Cheeseman Muncher]

As far as I can remember, for the most part the vast majority of tennis matches for both men and women are best of three sets. That only changes for the grand slams for reasons that escape me.

I'm totally fine with the women's champion getting paid the same as the men's. The level of the achievement is equal so the prize should be too.

 

[Altorin]

Should really be based on the sort of revenues they bring in.

If they bring in none, then it would be silly to pay them a lot, and if they bring in more then men it would be silly to pay them less..

that's not any sort of conservatism, that just seems like common sense to me... You could argue that it's wrong that we have these biases against women in sport, and you're almost certainly right.. society should really take a closer look at that sort of thing.. remember to let society know that the next time you're on the phone with them.

 

[LetalisK]

Other. I have no problem with Wimbledon paying women more than relative to what they bring in, it's their money. That said, I would have no problem if they decided they wanted to pay women less relative to the revenue they bring in vs the men, or vice versa if the cases ended up being reversed.

And why do people keep bringing up sets? Sets have jack shit to do with this beyond their impact on revenue and have no intrinsic standing in this discussion. Men could play 1 set and women could play 10, but if the men are still bringing in more revenue with their 1 set then they should be paid accordingly.

 

[SSJBlastoise]

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 think the reason that is because some responses have shown that some people didn't read the OP so some people may have just read the title and voted. Also, being a gaming site a lot of the members are not huge sports fans so they don't understand the situation.

Also, that second part is incorrect. The winners of the mens and womens tournament are crowned as grass court champions for the year, the best in the world is only claimed after multiple wins at different tournaments throughout the year.

It is odd that the women have the lower ticket prices, considering they have had the more competitive scene in the last decade. The previous decade of men's tennis has been thoroughly dominated by the same three players: Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, and Novak Djokavic. Players like Andy Murray or Andy Roddick winning are the exception, not the norm. This isn't new, since the 90's were dominated by Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, and previously by John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg.

I feel that men's tennis has a greater following due to the players being more skilled. One of the main reasons people like watching Federer is because he is one of, if not, the best player to ever play the game. Then we have Nadal, the best clay court player and one of the best defensive players in the world.

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

Except that they are and even the women acknowledge that.


Williams said she would struggle to win a game against Murray and he isn't even the best in the world. One of her main weapons is her serve which is great for a woman but compared to what the men face every match it isn't much of an advantage anymore.

 

[Aramis Night]

I don't see why we are segregating players by gender. I though we were all supposed to be about equality now. Get rid of men's and women's tennis, and just have everyone compete in tennis. Same with football, basketball, baseball, soccer and everything else. No more of these sexist double standards.

 

[Angie7F]

Definitely!
i actually didnt know that they didnt.
When it comes to endorsements, it is a different story, but for prizes, it should be equal

 

[crazyarms33]

Has anyone pointed out to you yet that you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about? I say that in complete respect, but you're precisely wrong.

They do, and they shouldn't.

They get pound for pound exactly the same money, despite doing considerably less work. So much so in fact, that there are female players who have enough time and energy to enter and win both the singles and the doubles events, thus giving them even GREATER earning potential...

Yeah you're not the first person to point that out to me. Also to embed a video just copy the link and put it in brackets without the "www." part. Example [ youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo] but no space behind the first bracket Hope that helps!