Tennis 'relieved' to be joined in madhouse.

Ever since Jelly-Bean King successfully blackmailed persuaded tennis to pay women a vastly higher percentage of their income generation at the US Open, the sport has had to endure the humiliation of its lonely detachment from reality, but no more!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29744400

The great news is that a number of women have issued a report, covered in depth by more women at the BBC that reveals, shockingly, how women in sports such as football are paid much less than men, and that this must be closed in the 'battle' for gender equality.

The report highlights that if only TV companies would inflict cover women's sport as much as men's, their status as economic powerhouses would be revealed. Millions of fans are crying out to watch women's sport but being denied it by evil male TV executives who insist on foisting men's codes on unwilling viewers who don't know how to change channels or how to find WTA coverage on Eurosport.

Darts and Snooker are singled out for  insisting that women actually compete with men, thereby perpetuating the inequality of women's earnings because they're actually no good at the sport  disadvantaged by unfair rules. Snooker especially came in for criticism because of it's obvious obsession with balls and pointed sticks, and for putting things into pockets (I think that's enough, we get the picture).

Beach Volleyball, which attained equal pay in 1993, is also criticised. Rules requiring skimpy clothing have resulted in women doing all the work (again!) actually as viewing figures are dominated by the women's game so really they should be paid more.

A spokesman for the Premier League was unable to comment because he couldn't stop laughing but did later ask the reporter for two sugars, love.

On a role missy!

Im going to put my hand up, I'm surprised it's only 30%... I mean I love golf, and Michelle Wie and I had no idea she won the US Open.

That seems one of the more pointless surveys ever prepared. The only interesting fact which, frankly, must be wrong is the claim that 70% of sports do have equal pay.

This argument always seems quite simple to me. Men and women are not competing against each other in these sports. Given that segregation, there is no valid argument for equal pay - they are not competing in the same events. I assume the prize money in these sports is set depending on how much revenue is generated. Given no one watches womens football etc I can't really see why revenue should be the same as the men.

The way they have done that survey is bizarre. Basketball, rugby and boxing are all claimed to have no prize money (presumably just ignoring the professional games).

I think I'm right in stating that boxers are paid a "purse" for a fight, they don't get more money if they win (though obviously the more they win the more likely they are to earn more in subsequent fights), hence it isn't "prize money". By contrast, in tennis you sometimes get paid an appearance fee, but you earn more money the further you go in a tournament, hence "prize money".

I'm not sure what the situation is in rugby (or basketball): I'd have assumed similar to football, i.e. a basic salary + bonuses for wins/goals/tries/whatever. I don't know if the directing instances give out prize money for winners of tournaments, i.e. does FIFA/IRB give the winning world cup team some extra pay, or is that all in the hands of the relevant federations (RFU/FA)?

The 70% stat is most misleading BS, because it only takes into account the prize money, and not the basic salary, which in most sports is how players earn their keep. In reality there's a massive massive pay gap, but IMO clamouring for equal pay is the wrong approach: I would clamour more for equal visibility/marketability. The fact is there are very few sports where women competition is watched on a similar level to men's: tennis, athletics, swimming, maybe something like Judo, can't really think of (m)any others.

I personally find this a real shame. I watch a fair bit of women's cricket and rugby, and find both a fascinating watch in their own right, but it seems too many sports watchers (who after all, tend to be the rather archetypal male) find the idea of watching women play sports unpalatable. Maybe they just can't accept some women being stronger and more skilled than they will ever be?

Anyway, I don't want to comment any further, as I suspect I'll be in a very small minority on this one, and don't want to get too angry.

BB,

Rarely I have been so infuriated on a drive to work than this morning when Radio 5 Live were discussing this 'survey', it's results and what this means.

Almost equally as infuriated as the other BBC survey done recently which showed that of a survey of a 1000 adults, 68% said the war in Afghanistan was not worthwhile (I can't remember the exact figure tbh).

The point being that 100% of these adults (I am willing to bet) have no knowledge of what it is like to live in Afghanistan now, nevermind being able to compare to what it was like before the conflict began. These people probably couldn't tell you where Afghanistan was on a map! Also, these people, unless they have access to a parrallel universe we are all unaware of, do not know what the consequences might have been had we not intervened. To make clear - I am not suggested we should or shouldn't have intervened. My point is, it is a rubbish survey which served absolutely no point other than to give the BBC something to talk about. Creating their own news.

I have to say that I agree with the highest rated comment on the story which stated this isn't about gender when it comes to athletes pay and prize money, it's about who creates that wealth. If I was generating more wealth for a company than my female counterpart and yet were earned the same money, by deifinition isn't there an equality issue there??

Sometimes the issue isn't about genitalia!

You supported the war in Afghanistan?

I sense an off-topic debate...to be conducted by PM, I hope

Where would the fun in that be?

KR,

I couldn't be more neutral on the subject! Simply because I do not know nearly enough about the situation. And would not pretend to.

The point being it was the BBC creating their own news. In the same way as this sport survey.

As we are seeking gender equality, can men enter the Women's Snooker World championship?

Now now Julius... my anti-imperialist hate speech is confined to the dustbowls of the departed Off Topic, and News sections.

I was just curious.

The equal pay/prize money issue is nonsense.

Women's football is dire. The goalkeepers especially are at an elite level of hopelessness. There's no way in the world it could be as successful a product and generate the same profit as the men's game. Less profit = less pay. It's really that that simple.

The truth is that, overwhelmingly, women's sport is a less impressive spectacle than men's.

When you seen the best male athletes, you are seeing the best in that discipline in the world. The same cannot be said of female athletes.

By way of example, I used to swim competitively as a teenager. As a 16 year old boy, my time for 100m backstroke was quicker than the women's world record for that event. I was nowhere near the men's world record.

I would say though, that tennis is a sport where the potential of the women's 'product' is perhaps not far behind that of the men. Given a choice of watching, say, Berdych v Raonic or Halep v Radwanska, I'd probably choose the women.

Yes, that's the problem with the clock, isn't it? Tennis doesn't have one, so you can only judge the standard of play in relation to the opponent. As an aside, while I don't personally have a problem with equal pay, I think the idea that anybody who disagrees is merely jealous because a woman is as better than them in a sport is way off. My best 100m time in high school was 10.7s which would have won me an Olympic gold medal in the women's race. Similarly I can't look at women's cricket and listen to a serious argument in which I could be convinced the world champs wouldn't be smashed by my old high school side (no shame in that though, we were a top ten national school that year, I'd fancy us to give many county second XI's in England a run).

veering a little. Anyway, I've probably watched more WTA this year than ATP... So whatever I guess. Had Kerber had a better year, I'd have watched more WTA than any other sport by a country mile.

HM Murdoch wrote:
By way of example, I used to swim competitively as a teenager. As a 16 year old boy, my time for 100m backstroke was quicker than the women's world record for that event. I was nowhere near the men's world record.

You were a very good junior international though. So, not bad.

kingraf wrote: My best 100m time in high school was 10.7s which would have won me an Olympic gold medal in the women's race.

You know you would have just about made the final of the World Youth Championships last year with that time?

You would definitely been selected for South Africa's team if you were running that quick, both for the Youths and the Juniors.

It really comes down to this in my view.

Money In sport comes from external sponsorship from advertisers and media companies.

Less media attention, and less advertising revenue, then absolutely of course less money for the womens side of the game.

The way to fix that is not to force equal pay for women, giving them money from a pot that their side of the sport doesnt have, but appeal for better marketability, and make it more lucrative to advertisers. In other words im of the opinion of most of you here.

No I wouldnt have, as it would have had an "A". More than that, ASA's qualification for juniors 100m is 10.55s. Never got closer than 11s at sea level. Much like Simón Makgweka, who ran an "A" 9.98 a few months back, but has barely broken 10.2 since. I only say I ran 10.7 because, well I did. It has no bearing on anything else, other than the fact that I'm blitz. That said, athletics in South Africa doesn't have any cash. Certainly not worth pursuing if I only had a 10.7s. A guy I go to the gym with, ran 10.03s earlier this year. Still living with his mama. It's actually a real pity, as there are some kids who have proper after burners on them, who instead take up rugby, or football,as no parent is going to allow their child to try out in a sport with such a small financial window, and a sports organisation in this much trouble. Think Athletics South Africa has had seven new boards in as many years. A Guy like Seabelo Senatla ran 10.6s (legitimately) and never even went to African juniors. ASA runs pretty close for the most useless organisation ever.

It seems to me all women only sports should essentially stand or fall on their own. Women's football is a separate product to the men's equivalent. Its the same as comparing rugby and football and saying its unfair that rugby players get paid less.

Consequently, I agree with MfC that women's sport needs greater visibility. However, I see the onus on the sports concerned to do that - just in the same way as for a minority sport like bowls or squash. Simply saying we're women and we should get paid better doesn't cut it for me.

I'd also just take issue with the view that male sport fans don't watch female sport because they are sexist. The main reason I think is probably because it isn't as good. Really, the focus should be on trying to get more women playing (and consequently interested in) sport.

HM Murdoch wrote:The equal pay/prize money issue is nonsense.

Women's football is dire. The goalkeepers especially are at an elite level of hopelessness. There's no way in the world it could be as successful a product and generate the same profit as the men's game. Less profit = less pay. It's really that that simple.

The truth is that, overwhelmingly, women's sport is a less impressive spectacle than men's.

When you seen the best male athletes, you are seeing the best in that discipline in the world. The same cannot be said of female athletes.

By way of example, I used to swim competitively as a teenager. As a 16 year old boy, my time for 100m backstroke was quicker than the women's world record for that event. I was nowhere near the men's world record.

I would say though, that tennis is a sport where the potential of the women's 'product' is perhaps not far behind that of the men. Given a choice of watching, say, Berdych v Raonic or Halep v Radwanska, I'd probably choose the women.

Probably the best way of assessing women goalies is to observe that while one proposal in the men's game to make it most exciting has been to widen the goals, a sound idea in womens is to make them smaller.

To be fair, researchers have shown that the gene for ball catching is recessive in women.It's the same as how they can only carry haemophilia.

My ex was quite gifted at ball catching...

djlovesyou wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:
By way of example, I used to swim competitively as a teenager. As a 16 year old boy, my time for 100m backstroke was quicker than the women's world record for that event. I was nowhere near the men's world record.

You were a very good junior international though. So, not bad.

I was good within my age group but, as a spectacle, I doubt it attracted much interest.

Unless people wanted to laugh at my Speedos.

What annoys me in this debate is the way in which the pro equal pay argument is promoted as the progressive, right thing to do, and consequently anyone who opposes this view (for many legitimate reasons) is painted as some kind of sexist, Neanderthal (not referring to any posters and their views here - just the general debate). Whilst there may be some men who fall into the latter category, I would bet the vast majority don't watch many women's sports because IT'S BLOODY BORING.

The standard is much lower. It's the same reason I'm not too interested in watching juniors.

Why must they inflict this on us! The BBC website seems to be flooded with articles about women's football, cricket and the like. Why? Who the hell cares? Stop spamming the internet with pointless articles that no one gives a monkeys about (ok that would obviously mean closing down the website).

It's bad enough that we have to be subjected to that horse faced, horse riding Balding woman periodically



emancipator

and your melon sized prostate?

emancipator wrote:... I would bet the vast majority don't watch many women's sports because IT'S BLOODY BORING.
The standard is much lower. It's the same reason I'm not too interested in watching juniors.

If the Women's events were isolated from scheduling/venue perspective from Men's, the boring parts may not be obvious.

For example, take a slam say, W 2014 finals, if one saw Djokovic v Federer first and then Bouchard v Kvitova, the pace is different, the game is slower on the same surface. Someone in the audience, who wants to see a "faster-paced" game, watching the Ladies Final says, hey the Gentleman's final has more "excitement", good speed, some very interesting shots, etc.

If the order is reversed, then the second Final does not make the first one seem so incongruous.

If the same pattern is repeated 11-months-a-year, the person who likes the "fast" tennis (say emancipator,) will look at WTA less and less (unless of course KR is in the house to see Kerber, Goerges, Hantuchova, Larsson,  Kirilenko.,.....).

If Stacy Allaster wants more money, she will need to sell WTA harder. Currently, there is more interest in O2 than there has been in Singapore.

If BBC wants to Champion the cause, let them put their money where their mouth is, and let them come with Prize Money for  Ladies W2015 and Venus Rosewater Dish.

Prize money and wages get confused. I like the boxing "purse" analogy. If WTA can generate enough revenue, more power to them, and they can raise the Prize Money for the Ladies to be more than Gentlemens' .

As others have said, the Wimbledon Debenture prices reveal all

https://www.wimbledondebentureholders.com/buy-wimbledon-tickets/wimbledon-centre-court-tickets

The cheapest tickets are the week 2 ladies days - week 1 days are all more expensive. Even the ladies final is cheaper than Day 1.

I'm not slating them, but this is reality. The BBC is an absurd organisation with a value system only possible in an organisation that does not have to earn its income.

Matthew Syed has written about the women's pay in sport in The Times today. OK, it's a Murdoch paper and therefore fiercely anti-BBC. But there's a lot to digest in his piece on page 62.
The BBC are now not only covering more women's sport but they have taken to putting the Scottish scores in their Saturday afternoon running football scores immediately after the Premier League and the Championship.
This means that teams getting around 800 or 900 fans for home games are getting precedence over the likes of League 2 side Portsmouth which are pulling in around 15,000.

bogbrush wrote:The BBC is an absurd organisation with a value system only possible in an organisation that does not have to earn its income.

BB, you have the uncanny knack of expressing in one sentence an opinion that I can only express in a long rant.