Simon having a go at women tennis

ok its from the daily mail but nothing like a bit of controversy when it rains in SW13 (or wherever it is).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2165239/Wimbledon-2012-Women-dont-deserve-equal-prize-money--Gilles-Simon.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

French tennis star Gilles Simon has shocked Wimbledon by claiming women players do not deserve equal pay with men.
The prize-money for men and women at Wimbledon has been the same since 2007, but Simon, the No 13 seed who plays on Court No 1 on Wednesday against Belgian Xavier Malisse, claims equal pay is wrong.
Simon, who has just been elected to the Association of Tennis Professionals council, said: ‘Equal pay doesn’t work in sport. We talk a lot about it but I don’t think it works.

Marion Bartoli replied today that 1) its only valid in GS and some tournaments and 2) Women train as hard as men do so deserve the same return.
is she right or is Gilles Simon right in saying :

I think right now that men’s tennis is better than women’s tennis. In Grand Slams men spend twice as much time on court as the women.
‘When Rome became a joint tournament it was to save the women because I remember a final with 20 spectators.’

discuss

Simon is right, discussion finalised.

It is none of Simons buisiness what other people get paid.

It's not really a shock, is it? Someone brings it up every year.

With this being equal pay, the mens grandslam events will eventually become bo3 sets. What is the point in getting the same as the women when they have do more for the win?

Yes it is his business hawkeye when it is coming out of the pocket of him and every other male player. Bottom line outside of legal and public relations blackmail there is no valid moral or logical reason to pay the women equal to men. I have gone to dual tournaments before after the men's match centre court virtually empties for the woman's match. I don't think it has much to do with the time on the court but that the men's game attracts much more interest. I mean look at this site or other sites who posts regularly on the woman's tour? They are the opening act and through petulance and odd political correctness they have been successful in getting a bit of extra money from the slams that obviously lessens what the slams can play to the male players who are the actual draw.

Market forces - does Simon work any harder than me? What's it got to do with him what other people earn? OK, he can have an opinion, but it shouldn't carry any weight.

Are anyone really watching womens tennis in their droves?

No? Then there is no reason to earn what the men are earning, JH.

I'm not sure Simon should really have much say in the matter considering he probably couldn't fill court 18 himself.

It's prizemoney anyway, not pay. But I appreciate the whole men/women equal thing (in tennis and life) is quite an emotive issue for you socal.

Actually Dj it isn't, first time I mentioned it in many months. I think it is more an emotional issue for you judging by your comments the last time we discussed the matter. The facts are the only, only reason they pay the women equally is because the women have threaten PR and legal blackmail. Good on them for having more eggs then the men who run the tournaments and broadcast their tournaments. The men are the draw in every other field of entertainment or business the draw gets paid more than the side show. Not in men's tennis, through legal and pr black mail and gonadless political correctness gone wild the warm up act is getting as much as the headliner. I think it is damaging to the men's tour especially for the mid ranked player who relies more heavily on early round prize money. But whatever it isn't one of the world's great injustices just a minor one.

You make the mistake of thinking that the men's prizemoney is harmed by the fact that the women are given equal.

But I guess this is your justification.

The whole early round prize-money thing had nothing to do with the whole men/women equal thing. That problem arose because the money for reaching the later rounds was rising very fast while the early round money was barely rising at all.

I think this tells the whole story.

http://www.wimbledondebentureholders.com/

Check those prices. The market speaks!

But essentially, surely if you're going to divide the prize-money by interest you shouldn't do it by gender but by individual.

Therefore Federer and Nadal get just about everything and Simon is down earning 50 quid along with most other players.

There are probably 20 female players that people are more interested in watching than Simon.

If anyone should be complaining it's the big star players, I know Federer is simply uninterested in the debate completely.

djlovesyou wrote:But essentially, surely if you're going to divide the prize-money by interest you shouldn't do it by gender but by individual.

Therefore Federer and Nadal get just about everything and Simon is down earning 50 quid along with most other players.

There are probably 20 female players that people are more interested in watching than Simon.

If anyone should be complaining it's the big star players, I know Federer is simply uninterested in the debate completely.

They do it by interest.

Did you notice how the ticket prices and prize money correspond? More for the final?

That's not by interest, that's by performance.

If prize-money was divided by how much revenue a player brought into an event, Federer would get paid a lot regardless of when he lost.

Simon wouldn't be paid so much even if he won it.

It's interest because people are prepared more to watch the final than the first round. Price reflects interest.

But that's a reflection of the interest in watching a final rather than an individual player.

It's not really the point either.

The point was that people are saying that men generate more revenue for the event and should be paid more to reflect this.

But why seperate by gender. If you're going to seperate by gender, why not by individual? Can't Federer complain that he generates more money than Simon, but if they lose at the same point, they get the same? What about Sharapova and Simon?

Price usually reflects interest but not for grandslam tennis. The only industry I can think of that pays employees who attract less interest therefore revenues and work less than their counterparts and through business extortion are able to deman equal pay for less work and less valuable work. The women's tour and their inflated pay checks would not be something i would hang my hat or reputation on if I was a feminist or any person interested in fairness as a whole. And DJ where does the money come from? Do the broadcasters have money printing machines or are they the kind of entities that budget everything? Of course it comes out of the whole pot of what they are willing to pay for prize money, where else would it come from?

dj, you're dissembling.

People, given a choice, will pay much more money to watch Men rather than Women. The Debenture holders can barely sell a Women's Final seat for the same price as a first Friday!!!

That tells you Men's tennis brings in the money.

In both cases prices go up for later stages, indicating those matches are worth more. The prize money corresponds to that.

I was thinking of bringing this subject up for a laugh when there appeared "new" members on this forum with wummish tendencies, just to see who they would reveal themselves to be. All the arguments have been made on both sides of the debate and it's just a question of whether you accept the present situation or you don't. Many of the grand slam tournament organisers were unwilling to go along with equal prize money - but they weren't able to win the argument.

Hence we are where we are and there will be no differentials for the forseeable future.

Not an accurate reflection of reality DJ, there is a mens tour and a women's tour. You can't just pay the personality in prize money. Prize money isn't paid to you based on attractiveness of your draw. It is paid on winning, therefore to pay the federer's and the Novak's more you half to tilt the prize money to the actual draw, the men's tour.

DJ be honest if they separated wimbeldon. Had a men's wimbeldon 2 weeks after or before the women's wimbeldon. Which event would draw more fans, higher ticket prices, and bigger ad dollars? Be honest here. Out of the tens of thousands of posts on this and other sites what tiny percent of the interest is about women's tennis.

Outside of the Grand Slams and compulsory tournament elements of the ATP and WTA tours, undeclared appearance money plays a role in creating differentials (between the men and women, and between the men and between the women) beyond just prize money considerations.

So perhaps discussion of appearance moneys and prize money outside of grand slams tournaments, might be a worthy and interesting subject for discussion.

I don't doubt that 'men's tennis' brings in more money.

But it's not 'men's tennis' It's Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. The fact that Simon is whining about his fair share of the pot, when in reality, his fair share of the pot isn't very much.

Life isn't fair. He does very well, despite the fact nobody is interested in his matches.

Actually I disagree it is precisely the Simon's of the world that feel the bite. Roger maybe tips more at resturants than the prize money we are talking about. But the players from 20-100 get much less money in terms of appearrance fees and endorsements. A higher percentage of their money comes from prize money. And also a higher percentage of the money these guys make gets sucked up by coaching and travel costs as well. So they really do the mid ranking guys feel the bite of every dollar that gets taken out of the early rounds at slams. That is their chance to make a quick buck for making the draw with their ranking and getting a first or second round pay day.

Another worthy and interesting subject for debate is the prize money differentials between rounds and between tournaments for men and for women. It has been said the prize money differentials are skewed too much towards the top end, later rounds. This means that the very top players win millions in prize money while those lower down, have difficulty to survive in the game.

djlovesyou wrote:I don't doubt that 'men's tennis' brings in more money.

But it's not 'men's tennis' It's Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. The fact that Simon is whining about his fair share of the pot, when in reality, his fair share of the pot isn't very much.

Life isn't fair. He does very well, despite the fact nobody is interested in his matches.

Nope, this differential has been around long before those guys.

whocares wrote:.... Simon, who has just been elected to the Association of Tennis Professionals council, said: ‘Equal pay doesn’t work in sport. We talk a lot about it but I don’t think it works.

Is he saying that women should get more "pay" than the men or less?

Jamie Baker has balls the size of saturn.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Jamie Baker has balls the size of saturn.

Is he getting classified as a planet or a planetoid? Or does it depend on the orbit he takes along with his family jewels?

He held serve from 0-40 LF, he was briefly in Federer mode before returning adequately to his more accustomed pub player mode.

hawkeye wrote:It is none of Simons buisiness what other people get paid.

Is that supposed to be some sort of argument? Simon has made a good valid point. Women are being paid the same as men for doing less of a job. Oh yeah, the PC world of positive discrimination.

The fact is men and women are different. Men are better at sport and many other things. Tennis is one of the things men are superior at in the top level. People enjoy watching Men's sports more because of the variety, increased skill level, competition. Same with football. But in PC world we are all equal. Viewing figures, sanity and disproportionate time on court mean nothing as long as the liberal elite can claim we are all equal.

It doesn't matter how much they try, it isn't gonna become any less obvious that they are wrong.

Seifer Almasy wrote:...The fact is men and women are different. Men are better at sport and many other things. ...

... People enjoy watching Men's sports more because of the variety, increased skill level, competition. Same with football. ...

Have you seen the Mens English football team play football

When you say "People enjoy watching Men's sports more", do you mean all "people"?

Would you say that there are equal opportunities for men and women in sport - or are the cards stacked unfairly in favour of men?

When you say "Men are better at sport" than women - do you mean all sports?

What are the "many other things" that Men are better at than the women?

at the top level:

Men are greater at Football, Darts, Snooker, Tennis, Basketball, Table Tennis, Badminton, Chess, Boxing, Hockey, Golf, Running, Swimming and most olympic sports (or is it all? Anyone?), and pretty much any sport I can think of? Can you find me that many major sports that women are as good as men in? The answer is no.

Equal opportunities means just that. The opportunity to compete equally and have rights to the same chance. Rights to the same chance does not mean right to be equal even when you aren't.

Men are better at tasks involving spacial awareness; generally better at inventing, writing, poetry, art and IQ tests (helped by the difference in hormones and weight and differences of average male brain). (Look at most of the big names in all these fields). Men are better at physical activity and endurance. I could go on all day, but I fear your post is simply a rather annoying attempt at diversion.

Let me make sure that doesn't happen by returning you to Simon who is a Tennis player. It is a fact that men play tennis better than women at the professional level. It is also a fact that men pull in the vast majority of viewers. It is also a fact men play 5 set matches to women's 3.

If you are going to argue equal pay you are going to have to admit you like things unfair when it favours women. Good luck.

PS we don't get to see the Women's England side because no bugger wants to watch the mediocre spectacle on display. Although Tennis women got their way with the PC world we live in, broadcasters and promoters elsewhere realise what a disaster it will be for their profits to attempt to foist Women's Football on us.

Technically speaking no other sport pays anywhere close to equal pay in their sport [Golf may be exception].

Men don't get paid anywhere near beauty contest as ladies do .

Simon has alright to raise the issue coz he is in ATP council, and the grandslams make the most of ATP than WTA players, so its completely unfair to pay ATP players what they deserve.

Lets put it frank if ATP boycott Wimbledon and arrange an alternate tournament the crowd will still come and they can still make the same money, this would just not be the case for ladies

Seifer Almasy thanks for taking the time to expand on your views. I wonder have you heard of the term the patriarchal society?

I watched Sharapova last night and in my view she and the WTA are taking the p$ss if they expect people to continue to want to pay to watch the likes of her screaming their heads off for any length of time. My anecdotal experience of going to Wimbledon is that the show courts empty quickly when screechers come out to play.

Mine is a commercial viewpoint - I don't think people who act in a way to make the spectacle they are trying to sell disagreeable should get as much money as those who respect the enjoyment of those paying to watch them.

I don't say that the best woman is less impressive than the best man or compare the time they spend on the Court or the current mismatch in quality of competition at the very top (things change), but were I running Wimbledon as a dictatorship I'd say to the WTA that their members can have 50% of the prize money fund that the men have until they stop screeching, whereupon they can have 100% but remain on permanent probation in case of its return.

My interest in women's tennis has waned with the high pitched and loud screaming, as well as the pornographic lingerie that was the trademark of the later half of Venus' career. I think the clothing has become less pornographic with the demise of Venus, but the screeching continues amongst quite a few.

Completely agree Barry. I'd had a hectiv day at work, came home, switched on the TV to watch some evening tennis and immedaitely was aurally assaulted by Shriekapova. It literally gave me a headache so I switched it off. Its pure gamesmanship...because she and Azarenka dont shriek in practice.

WTA need to sort this out.

lydian wrote:Completely agree Barry. I'd had a hectiv day at work, came home, switched on the TV to watch some evening tennis and immedaitely was aurally assaulted by Shriekapova. It literally gave me a headache so I switched it off. Its pure gamesmanship...because she and Azarenka dont shriek in practice.

WTA need to sort this out.

Aye - watch Azarenka warm-up and it's lovely silence, she gets her game face and voice on and it's purgatory. She talks about it with such a sense of entitlement, 'I've always done this and I shouldn't have to change'. I can see that point of view, and it's not 100% her fault because nobody's stopped her. I'd also say that on pretty much every other count she comes across as one of the good sorts. However, somebody needs to get it through to her that one thing she's not entitled to take for granted is that people will want to sit through it. Unfortunatey the WTA has a track record of bowing down before its "stars".

The ATP needs to keep an eye on that when it hears whining about reducing Nadal's schedule.

Nore Staat wrote:Seifer Almasy thanks for taking the time to expand on your views. I wonder have you heard of the term the patriarchal society?

I have heard the words 'lousy excuse'. It is a better one than your theory I just love how the only come back to a mountain of scientific and statistical evidence is an excuse. Every time haha.

Nore Staat wrote: I think the clothing has become less pornographic

Awww! That was the only way you'd get me to watch Women's Tennis!

The only players who deserve as much as the men for winning slams;

Cibulkova
Ivanovic
Rus
Wickmayer

my personal opinion is that you dont have to play 5 sets to earn as much as a man. prize money is dictated by the quality of the entertainment and the marketing value (sponsors, tv etc) of the event.
although its subjective, the enternaiment value of women tennis has increased a lot in the last 10 years. I used to find it boring but when I sat at suzanne lenglen a few weeks ago watching Li vs MChale (followed by kanepi/wozniacki) I thought that the pace was clearly much quicker than what it used to be and I actually enjoyed it. clearly they dont have the likes of federer, nadal and djockovic to promote the game but it's not all bad.

It makes me angry that screaming harlots like Maria Sharapova gets the same as Djokovic /Nadal or whatever for her brand of biggest girl bully in school tennis.

The match against Pivlokova (sp) was absolutely awful. Why do they let her get away with screaming like that?

lydian wrote:Completely agree Barry. I'd had a hectiv day at work, came home, switched on the TV to watch some evening tennis and immedaitely was aurally assaulted by Shriekapova. It literally gave me a headache so I switched it off. Its pure gamesmanship...because she and Azarenka dont shriek in practice.

WTA need to sort this out.

Sabine Lisicki has complained about the grunting issue.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/sabine-lisicki-accuses-opponent-bojana-jovanovski-of-excessive-grunting-7893315.html

I absolutely agree with Lisicki.


Oh and I agree with Simon too. The men play for longer.

Just ask yourself - which would you rather watch - Wimbledon men's final or women's final?

Super D Boon wrote:The match against Pivlokova (sp) was absolutely awful. Why do they let her get away with screaming like that?

Pironkova - and I found the contrast between the banshee wailing, which varied in intensity and duration dependant upon the importance of the point, and Pironkova's complete silence to be salutory.

The absolute worst of all time I recall was Sharapova vs. Venus Williams Wimbledon SF 2005. As the match built up to its climax so too it seemed did the players. If anything I think Venus is worse than Sharapova because I've seen her get herself in trouble in a match and then scream and force her way out of it. Whether it has an effect on the opponents is hardly the point (although I am sure it disguises the sound of string on racquet, which is a disadvantage), it's the fact that I don't want to endure it, so I'll do and so something more entertaining, like roll around on broken glass and stinging nettles. Nobody should treat their spectators like that.

Sharapova's screaming would be the best alarm recording ever.

Yes I mean as we see with all these tennis fans online there is little interest in the women's game. And no valid point has been made as to why the women's tour deserves the same pay for being less of a draw than the men has not been made. As a feminist I wouldn't hang my hat on the poor oppressed women of the WTA tour. The fact is that at one time feminism meant getting paid equally for equal work and equal opportunity. It didn't not mean using PR blackmail to demand more pay for less revenue generating work. Unfortunately, that has been the direction of many modern feminists in other arenas as well. If at its feminism involves fairness then feminists should oppose someone being paid equally for less work, less revenue generating work, simply because of what they do or don't have between their legs.

But Simon gets paid the same as Federer (if he reached the same stage) for less revenue generating work.

The point is, you've got to let it go. Private companies have decided it's in their best interests to have equal prize-money.

It just always seems odd that people that it has absolutely zero effect on get so emotional about it. But, if you're brought up that way.

djlovesyou wrote:But Simon gets paid the same as Federer (if he reached the same stage) for less revenue generating work.

The point is, you've got to let it go. Private companies have decided it's in their best interests to have equal prize-money.

It just always seems odd that people that it has absolutely zero effect on get so emotional about it. But, if you're brought up that way.

Oh please dj, there you go, "if you are brought up that way", more of your subtle and not so subtle race inneundos. I don't have to let anything go. I can comment on what i like. And you seem to think that I care greatly about this issue. I don't really care that much, look in the mirror you are the one who always gets wound up when people point out the obvious fact that other than Public relations blackmail there is no good reason to pay the women the same prize money as men. I haven't mentioned this in many months, I didn't start the thread, I wasn't one of the first to comment. But if you have to throw out more of your innueundos about "if you are brought up that way". I am sick of that sheet from you, last time you made it much more blatant and got an earful from the moderators. So now you have to be snide and sideways about it but you aren't fooling me.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I was saying it wasn't your fault that you're a misogynist.