Equal pay in tennis for men and women?

First topic message reminder :

I am going to do an article on this (a lot more research required) but before I do I want your views.

1) The bo3 vs bo5 set argument. It's more down to scheduling now imo but as the men play bo5, should they get paid more? Atm it is the same and in some bo3 tournies women get more at the big events but less at the smaller ones. 

2) Market issue - Bums on seats, revenue, advertising, tv coverage. Now, the atp tour is more popular. If you split up slams, the fans would follow the men more than the women imo.

3) They get paid v well so I don't care really and I think it is good that there is a sport that gives women parity as despite male sports being a lot more popular, the disproportionate amount of money they earn is too stark imo.

Thoughts?

djlovesyou wrote:It's a pointless argument. Tennis tours and the individual tournaments are run as businesses, and they see fit to have the prize structure as it is now (for their own reasons).

The men's game is more popular, but that's a lot down to a very small number of players.

Would it be fair to half the prize-money for the men's winner if, for example, Simon and Isner made a GS final?

Because, given a lot of the reasoning, they don't deserve as much because they don't bring as many people in to watch as Federer or Nadal.

Maybe the British wildcards at Wimbledon should receive much more for losing in the first round than a Latvian qualifier, because their courts always seem to be packed.

Not only is it wrong to suggest it's pointless, but you're wrong on the facts. Isner & Simon don't make the GS finals because they are mediocre players. You might just as well ask whether we should consider two very low ranked players.

They don't bring in as many spectators because they don't win so much - and they receive lower prize money. I'm missing the part where there's a problem here.

The first paragraph of DJ's post struck me as a slightly bizarre argument. If the authorities are ok to set prize money at any level they like "for their own reasons" why was there such a furore when prize money was not equal? If the position was changed so that the men received 10 times the prize money of the women, I doubt DJ's view would be the same.

I've not read the rest of this thread, but no way should the women receive equal pay.

1) They don't play best of five.
2) They don't generate the revenue.

I think they should play best of five at least from say Quarter Finals onwards. In some ways Serena could just as easily be winning a masters or whatever as the biggest tournament in the game.

It's obvious that people pay more to watch mens tennis. Not just spectators but TV companies and advertisers too.

Before everyone piles into DJ.

I am assuming (could be wrong) that her/his point 'Pointless argument' is in the sense that pay structure is much more complex than restricting to it being a gender based issue in terms of distribution. So his example of the Latvian qualifier vs Homegrown unranked player at a Slam. I am thinking his point was the homegrown player was far more likely to put bums in seats (unless your name ended Bogdanovic ) than the Latvian and I think he/she was questioning that if the sport is a business and both players by equal rights will get the same money, is that correct when one player is bringing more spectators than the other?

I think the point is does the debate just end with it being stuck as a gender issue only?

It isn't certain men who bring in spectators, it's the mens game in general over the womens game. Right through the ranking that's how it works.

Diving in to certain players and specific circumstances, or asking whether John Isner brings in more than Serena Williams is of no help whatsoever because it's a false comparison. This doesn't have to be a gender issue alone, but then the disabled players aren't asking for equal prize money are they?

Well Simon and Isner are competing in the same event as Federer and Nadal, so on a prize money structure they reap the benefits if they over-perform.

Its clearly very difficult to accurately assess the relative worth of the mens and womens events. All we can really say is that there is no "sexism" reason why prize money should be the same. The strong inpression is that, based on standard economic principles, the men should be paid more.

bogbrush wrote:It isn't certain men who bring in spectators, it's the mens game in general over the womens game. Right through the ranking that's how it works.

Diving in to certain players and specific circumstances, or asking whether John Isner brings in more than Serena Williams is of no help whatsoever because it's a false comparison. This doesn't have to be a gender issue alone, but then the disabled players aren't asking for equal prize money are they?

I think that's the point DJ made with the comment "Pointless Argument" from the sense that all players are not paid the same in prize money. Say you bring the disabled players money in line with the men and women, does the equal pay argument stop there when say the high drawing players say "hey I am putting the most bums on seats, pay me a bigger share!"

Just trying to interpret DJ's comments in the sense that I don't think they were intended to be taken like they were.

DJ's "pointless argument" comment clearly relates to the remainder of that paragraph - its pointless because the powers that be (as businesses) have decided on the current structure.

His/her marketing point is distinct and in my view makes no sense. It would be the same as arguing that because Bournemouth will get the same prize money for winning the premier league as Man U would, its justification for the winners of Division 2 (an entirely separate event) to also get the same prize money for winning their league.

Born Slippy wrote:DJ's "pointless argument" comment clearly relates to the remainder of that paragraph - its pointless because the powers that be (as businesses) have decided on the current structure.

His/her marketing point is distinct and in my view makes no sense. It would be the same as arguing that because Bournemouth will get the same prize money for winning the premier league as Man U would, its justification for the winners of Division 2 (an entirely separate event) to also get the same prize money for winning their league.

Yes, that's basically the reasoning behind the 'pointless argument' comment. Probably not the most tactful way of putting it giving the reaction.

As for your second part, that's not really analogous at all. League 2 is a separate event to the Premier League - but given the league structure of football, the prize money for League 2 is less because of the fact that it's an inferior league.

I'm guessing you don't think that women should receive less prize money because they're inferior - I think society on the whole is mature enough to accept that there are clearly physiological differences between the genders which will always keep the men's game faster and stronger - it's they should receive less because the men's game is more popular? I don't dispute the fact that the men's game is more popular.

My point is that, in a grand slam event at least, which is one event that is made up of various smaller events, that the Men's and Women's singles events have the same intrinsic prestige and therefore deserve the same prize for the winner (we can argue about the depth of the two events at tour level and indeed at grassroots level, but to me it's not that relevant.)

Also, to me, the 3 set, 5 set argument isn't relevant because it's still a case of winning 7 tennis matches against the best players in the world.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It isn't certain men who bring in spectators, it's the mens game in general over the womens game. Right through the ranking that's how it works.

Diving in to certain players and specific circumstances, or asking whether John Isner brings in more than Serena Williams is of no help whatsoever because it's a false comparison. This doesn't have to be a gender issue alone, but then the disabled players aren't asking for equal prize money are they?

I think that's the point DJ made with the comment "Pointless Argument" from the sense that all players are not paid the same in prize money. Say you bring the disabled players money in line with the men and women, does the equal pay argument stop there when say the high drawing players say "hey I am putting the most bums on seats, pay me a bigger share!"

Just trying to interpret DJ's comments in the sense that I don't think they were intended to be taken like they were.

If it is, he's wrong because

- the best player in the tournament gets paid the most
- the wheelchair guys DON'T get paid as much.

It's equal pay for women that is the anomaly.

djlovesyou wrote:It's a pointless argument. Tennis tours and the individual tournaments are run as businesses, and they see fit to have the prize structure as it is now (for their own reasons).

Fair enough - but only as long as you would view arguing for equal pay as similarly pointless.

djlovesyou wrote:Would it be fair to half the prize-money for the men's winner if, for example, Simon and Isner made a GS final?

Because, given a lot of the reasoning, they don't deserve as much because they don't bring as many people in to watch as Federer or Nadal.

No, this is a rather different reasoning than what people gave here. This is similar to the example I gave - if men and women competed in the same draw and the tournament said that the winner's check will be $2 million if a man wins and $1 million if a woman wins. I have not seen anyone argue for that.

I do support equal pay for men and women in Grand Slams, but I acknowledge there are very strong arguments opposing my view.

These are:
a) Men play best of 5, while women play best of 3 (i.e. the time/wage argument)
b) Men bring in more revenue on average than women (i.e. the pure economic argument)

So I can understand why people have the view men should get paid more in Slams, and it's certainly not sexist. I think personally though that both these points are outweighed by the social responsibility I feel tennis has. As a sport, I feel tennis is not just a business, but it's public good- I think having equal pay sends the right message to young girls who are thinking of taking up tennis.


Edit: I will add this, to those who claim that any of those two arguments (a or b) should be used in all cases. Would you agree that:
1/ Federer on average would play a match of less length (time-wise) than Nadal (even if you discount him taking 40 seconds to pick his bum, Bogbrush). So therefore on average, should Federer not be paid less per match than Nadal ? Also on average in slams the top seeds tend to have easy 3 set matches, while unseeded players on average against each other play in longer matches. So should they be paid more than the top seeds on average ? Presumably most of you think, as I do, no.
2/ Let's go back to Wimbledon 2013. Federer goes out Round 2 to Stak, and he gets the same prize money as all the other people who lost in Round 2. But really, he's brought in much more revenue than those players, so surely he should get more money than maybe Giraldo who also lost in Round 2 ? Once against, most of you think no I presume, as that is seen as socially unacceptable.

My point with those 2 examples is not that I think it proves women should get equal pay, but that I can see people make exceptions to both 'time/wage' and 'market revenue/wage' being applied in its absolute form, due what's best described as 'social factors'. And it's in similar light that I make exception to both these arguments in saying there should be equal pay. I've seen how many young girls were inspired by the powerful message equal pay sent out.

Tennis is not a nationalised industry so the pay should be market forces pure and simple. Nothing to do with who spends more time on court, but that the demand for men's tennis is greater than women's. I so disagree with this equality nonsense because tennis players are essentially self employed. It's like someone going around making sure all self employed accountants get the same rate of pay. If women want equal pay, they should have to increase the demand.

greengoblin wrote:Tennis is not a nationalised industry so the pay should be market forces pure and simple. Nothing to do with who spends more time on court, but that the demand for men's tennis is greater than women's. I so disagree with this equality nonsense because tennis players are essentially self employed. It's like someone going around making sure all self employed accountants get the same rate of pay. If women want equal pay, they should have to increase the demand.

That is how it works !!!

I recently went to purchase a couple of armchairs.. they had the same chairs in different colours, but some were more expensive than others.. when I enquired why, I was told the most popular colours were the ones that were priced higher ..
"we get more demand for the popular colours thus we sell more" I was told... !!!!

It Must Be Love wrote:2/ Let's go back to Wimbledon 2013. Federer goes out Round 2 to Stak, and he gets the same prize money as all the other people who lost in Round 2. But really, he's brought in much more revenue than those players, so surely he should get more money than maybe Giraldo who also lost in Round 2 ? Once against, most of you think no I presume, as that is seen as socially unacceptable.

Socially unacceptable?  I think it would be perfectly socially acceptable, I do not think that is the issue.

But it makes me think of a general difficulty that professional sports are facing.  On one hand, more people will watch an event if the stars are doing well.  But on the other hand, people do not want the competition to be rigged - i.e., outside of the world of pro wrestling and such events, people would not watch the sports if the organizers guaranteed to them that they would make the superstars advance to the later rounds.

Which creates what the insurance industry would call "moral hazard" for the sports authorities.  Truffin says that he had seen pro boxing matches being rigged and - while I do not know independently whether that is true or not - I find it quite believable.  Or even closer in the land of traditionally gentlemen's (and ladies') sports, who knows if Tiger Woods's penalty would have been different at 2013 Masters if he had not been Tiger Woods.

Going back to the original theme - paying everyone strictly based on results is similar in my view.  If players play in the same competition, then paying them based on anything other than results has the feel of being "rigged".  Hence - as I had said before - nobody here would advocate a prize money for men and women to be different if they played in the same competition.  But as it is, they play two separate competitions.

summerblues wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:2/ Let's go back to Wimbledon 2013. Federer goes out Round 2 to Stak, and he gets the same prize money as all the other people who lost in Round 2. But really, he's brought in much more revenue than those players, so surely he should get more money than maybe Giraldo who also lost in Round 2 ? Once against, most of you think no I presume, as that is seen as socially unacceptable.

Socially unacceptable?  I think it would be perfectly socially acceptable, I do not think that is the issue.

Sorry, that was just the phrase I used for it. Maybe I could have a used a term which fit better; but overall I don't think the public would be happy if Federer got £200,000 for losing in Round 3, and Giraldo got £5000. It's seen as 'fair' that people who lose in the same round get the same amount of money; even if their revenue brought in is different. If we are strictly following the rule that pay should be based on revenue of the tournament, Federer should get far more than Giraldo for losing in Round 3. In terms of the market based argument, I don't see why it's relevant whether it's 'fairness' within 1 tournament or over 2 happening at the same time.

summerblues wrote:
Going back to the original theme - paying everyone strictly based on results is similar in my view.  If players play in the same competition, then paying them based on anything other than results has the feel of being "rigged".  Hence - as I had said before - nobody here would advocate a prize money for men and women to be different if they played in the same competition.  But as it is, they play two separate competitions.

Yes that's reasonable, it's an awkward debate in general, certainly not as clear cut as people are making out. I hope you can understand my point and why I support equal pay as I explained earlier.

I guess in the end it's up to the governing bodies. It's their money in the end that distribute. If they feel its good for business to make a social statement, and they are seen as the leading sport for women, then that's fair enough. I wouldn't blame the men for having done resentment towards that perhaps but I do see the business advantage

People here seem to misunderstand what the free market is. Free market doesn't mean employers have to set wage at the market wage rate (supply of workers for certain wage crosses demand at the wage), nor do they have to match the revenue individual workers make; in fact employers can set whatever wage rate they like.
There are many reasons why in a free market employers could set the wage rate above the market wage rate in many firms and businesses (to ensure staff loyalty, stay ahead of rival firms etc.)

In this case it may be that Grand Slams feel their revenue overall will be better if they have a good image, so it may be in their commercial interest to have equal pay. So it may be that from a purely market perspective it makes sense for them to give equal pay, irrelevant of revenue brought in by the worker.

People keep saying 'pay' which I think is a bit confusing. It's not 'pay' as such, it's not a salary. It's a prize for winning a tournament.

As I said before, winning the women's championship (50% of the world's population) and winning the men's (the other 50%) should hold the same intrinsic level of prestige regardless of which of these two events is the most popular. It's fair that at a GS event, that the two are at the same level. (Unless of course that you feel that women are inferior to men and therefore deserve less, which I'm afraid is always the underlying basis for the argument.)

As for the men holding resentment, you think that they're losing out on money because of the women? Get real.

No they're losing on money because of the set format. They can't reasonably play doubles or mixed as well

temporary21 wrote:No they're losing on money because of the set format. They can't reasonably play doubles or mixed as well

The top players don't bother anyway. You think if the Men played BO3 then Federer or Nadal would start playing doubles a lot? The not so top players get knocked out of singles so therefore get to play all the doubles they want.

Not the point. They have the chance to play the doubles then an opportunity currently not given to them. No one here's opinion has anything to do with gender. It's mostly set play, their market value or just business, the sexism angle does no justice to what's been said. At all

My big issue is that I feel that this is one rule that adds to the financial imbalance in tennis between the top players and the mid level guys on tour. Of course the top men could care less about a pittance they get for mixed doubles or doubles. But it is the mid-level guy ranked lets say 20-100 that is really hurt by this. The slams are a huge payday for these guys in the top 100 who aren't getting into Masters automatically. It is the difference between a guy lets say ranked in the 80s being able to stay on tour for a year longer. To get the coaching he needs to be better etc. It is literally like ripping off the mid level men players to push extra money into the pockets of the Serena's and Sharapova's of the world because of political and legal pressure that is unfounded. It adds to this incredibly top heavy world in Tennis where Fed makes 70 million but a good pro after expenses who is ranked in the top 100 is making like 70k after expenses. Of course fed is the draw but watching good players challenged by a strong field adds to the entertainment value as well. Meanwhile the backup goalkeeper on a crap football side who isn't even the 100 best player at his position forget about the game as whole will make seven figures.

Of course people come to see the big names, but real fans of the game want to see the game as a whole advance and see players who like Stakovhsky or Rosol or whoever who are not consistent but on their day have the game to pull off big upsets. We don't want to see glorified club players getting rolled bagels and love all the time.

djlovesyou wrote: (Unless of course that you feel that women are inferior to men and therefore deserve less, which I'm afraid is always the underlying basis for the argument.)

I agree with equal pay and have explained why, but I don't think this statement from you is right, certainly not with the majority of those opposing equal pay. It's wrong to play this card without real evidence, basically accusing people of being sexist, there are reasons for unequal pay that aren't remotely sexist.

socal1976 wrote:My big issue is that I feel that this is one rule that adds to the financial imbalance in tennis between the top players and the mid level guys on tour.

Surely we should be helping the financial imbalance on both the ATP and WTA tour for the mid and lower ranked ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:My big issue is that I feel that this is one rule that adds to the financial imbalance in tennis between the top players and the mid level guys on tour.  

Surely we should be helping the financial imbalance on both the ATP and WTA tour for the mid and lower ranked ?

Yeah but it doesn't work that way. The slams are huge part of the money made for players in the 70s and 80s etc. So deflating the mid-level male player a great deal by taking a chunk out of his and every first and second rounders pay check and giving a piece of it to Serena and Sharapova who have more money than god. Since the lion's share of the money taken from every single male player ends up in the pocket of the top finishing women. Yes the female mid level players get a little bit as well, but not nearly the benefit Serena does. It is like a tax on the middle class of the game with most of the benefit going to the millionaire class in the women's game.

If a guy ranked 80 wants to play doubles, he'll play doubles. He'll be most likely knocked out of singles before the draw even starts.

Has the men's prize money ever actually gone down Socal?

No. The women are not taking money from anyone.

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:My big issue is that I feel that this is one rule that adds to the financial imbalance in tennis between the top players and the mid level guys on tour.  

Surely we should be helping the financial imbalance on both the ATP and WTA tour for the mid and lower ranked ?

Yeah but it doesn't work that way. The slams are huge part of the money made for players in the 70s and 80s etc. So deflating the mid-level male player a great deal by taking a chunk out of his and every first and second rounders pay check and giving a piece of it to Serena and Sharapova who have more money than god. Since the lion's share of the money taken from every single male player ends up in the pocket of the top finishing women. Yes the female mid level players get a little bit as well, but not nearly the benefit Serena does. It is like a tax on the middle class of the game with most of the benefit going to the millionaire class in the women's game.

So we can solve that by changing the pay structure, giving more to the middle on both men and women.

djlovesyou wrote:People keep saying 'pay' which I think is a bit confusing. It's not 'pay' as such, it's not a salary. It's a prize for winning a tournament.

As I said before, winning the women's championship (50% of the world's population) and winning the men's (the other 50%) should hold the same intrinsic level of prestige regardless of which of these two events is the most popular. It's fair that at a GS event, that the two are at the same level. (Unless of course that you feel that women are inferior to men and therefore deserve less, which I'm afraid is always the underlying basis for the argument.)

As for the men holding resentment, you think that they're losing out on money because of the women? Get real.

I thought it was agreed that, when it comes to tennis, women are physically disadvantaged and therefore not as good? In pretty much every other walk of life, you would therefore expect them to receive less remuneration. Like it or not (and this has nothing to do with sexism) the reason why women's sport is generally less popular is because viewers want to see the very best person on the planet - not the best woman. That's not to take away from the wonderful talent of the top female athletes - its just the way of life. Similarly, the top female models earn far more than their male counterparts - I don't see any complaints about that.

djlovesyou wrote:As I said before, winning the women's championship (50% of the world's population) and winning the men's (the other 50%) should hold the same intrinsic level of prestige regardless of which of these two events is the most popular.

Why should they?  How is "intrinsic prestige" defined if not by popularity?  Tennis money does not grow on trees, it comes from people who follow the sports.  If more people follow men's tennis than women's tennis, then there is no reason why the pay should be the same - unless one wants to impose same pay ideologically.

Women's soccer holds a tiny fraction of the men's soccer's intrinsic prestige - and it properly shows in the relative pay.  In fact, the same holds true in just about all big money sports.  If and when women's sports become as popular or more popular than men's sports, female athletes should (and presumably would) equal and exceed men's pay.

BB touched on an interesting point, above.

If we get equal pay for men and women why not equal pay for wheelchair players.

Why not equal play for doubles?

Why not equal for seniors and juniors.

If it's sexist to not pay women equally, is it age-ist to not pay juniors equally, or anti-disabled people not to pay wheelchair equally?

I think, fundamentally, the pay women less argument has more logic to it, although there are strong arguments on both sides.

The other key point, again as discussed, is this is all an interesting but rather moot argument. The decision was already taken and there doesn't seem much appetite to change it back.

Yawn...this old chestnut again. It's a pointless discussion, because while tennis fans in Britain and India moan about female players getting equal pay with the men, the rest of the world doesn't care, and the fee structure will remain the same.

FYI, when the world-wide TV ratings were released for the Australian Open this year, it seems that more people world-wide watched the women's final between Serena and Sharapova than watched the men's final between Djokovic and Murray. And there's a good reason why the US Open stages the women's final on Sunday, and the men's final on Monday - the women's final is the bigger draw.

To say nothing of the appeal of the Williams sisters in Africa and the Caribbean, where they talk more about women's tennis than about men's tennis.

There's a world out there outside of Britain and India.....

Any sources, stats to back any of that up? Want to address ANY of the other points nothing to do with gender thats have arised from the thread?

Womens sport on the whole isnt nearly as popular, thats the rub whether anyone likes it or not, anomalous results notwithstanding, most sports that operate on media interest reflect that.

Good work temp.

shivfan wrote:And there's a good reason why the US Open stages the women's final on Sunday, and the men's final on Monday - the women's final is the bigger draw.

I'm pretty sure that's not the reason why the men's final is on Monday and the women's final is on Sunday.

It Must Be Love wrote:

shivfan wrote:And there's a good reason why the US Open stages the women's final on Sunday, and the men's final on Monday - the women's final is the bigger draw.

I'm pretty sure that's not the reason why the men's final is on Monday and the women's final is on Sunday.

They've changed the schedule this year... 1st round no longer played over 3 days... woman final on saturdy, mens on Sunday.. finally they fixed that stupid 1st round stuff.

Some USA comms were saying it was originally done for TV... usa has such deep pool of players - they wanted to be able to space out USA player matches over several days.

Edit: Sorry wrong thread

Is that where you get your jinxing from?