"I'd go down...... and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born"

Logged on to 606 fully expecting to see all manner of debate about these ahem somewhat provocative comments (albeit since retracted, it would seem).

But - unless I've completely missed it (?) - can't see a thread, or indeed any mention so far :

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/03/tournament-director-of-bnp-paribas-open-criticizes-wta-tour/57931/#.Vu9OamIaySN

It was not a debate, just a few comments from Raymond Moore, who later apologised. Some say he had drunk too much alcohol.

No, there hasn't been a debate.

All there has been is a load of people saying his comments are unacceptable without actually explaining why they are inaccurate.

Par for the course these days, really.

Serena: "If I could tell you every day how many people say they don't watch tennis unless they're watching myself or my sister, I couldn't even bring up that number."

Quite right! I don't watch men's tennis...I just watch the Williams sisters play. And I know a lot of people, especially in the Caribbean, who only watch Venus and Serena too.

There's a number of ways to react to this.

Firstly, of course, he is completely correct. Womens tennis does indeed depend on the health of the mens game - and no greater demonstration is needed than the Slams, where the women get huge payouts that their attractiveness to the paying customer doesn't come with a mile of justifying. Every time they have to stand alone at the Slams, the market speaks loudly:

http://www.aokwimbledonhospitality.com/debenture.asp

He's also correct about the attractive elements of the women's game. We all know this.

Secondly, if shivfan is correct that's just a pity.

Finally, I do think the women should be grateful to Roger and Rafa but I'm not sure I'd suggest they go down on their knees every night for it. Sounds a bit over the top to me and I'm not sure Roger or Rafa are up for it.

Federer/Nadal are a bit like Tiger Woods - they have almost certainly increased the amount of attention that tennis gains and the amount of money that all tennis players can benefit from - all tennis players should be grateful for that, including Djoko who has been inspired to overtake them and whose lustre gains significantly from the fact that part of his immense achievement has been overtaking them both.

The male/female thing is partly cyclical.  In my view enjoyment of tennis depends upon (i) great rivalries and (ii) enjoyable styles of tennis.  The women's game was more entertaining when there were duals between Navratilova/Lloyd Graf/Seles and Hingis/Williams's/Davenport/Capriati.  I enjoyed the brief period when we were watching Mauresmo vs. Henin as the top players with lovely and well-matched games to watch - of the current crop I particularly enjoy watching Radwanska, although I'd like to see her gain more success.

The women's game is at a nadir for me - too many 'power' players who can't quite handle the power both in terms of (i) controlling it whilst playing, so they make too many errors and try too hard to appear agressive including the stupid noises they make and (ii) avoiding injury.  This has been forced on the game by the need to compete with the excellence of the Williams sisters, and for all her brilliance, arguably the best female player to pick up a racquet, there is something unsatisfying to me about the on-off nature of the career of Serena Williams, perhaps there is an element of me underestimating the difficulty of going out and winning every time, but it seems that it's always on her racquet and in her mind which robs the "will she won't she" of a lot of interest for me.  The fact that she is 19-2 vs. the next most successful player on tour says much of it to me.

Anyway - whilst agreeing that there is something in the comments, crassly though Moore expressed himself, men's tennis needs to be careful what it wishes for in terms of pay because the time is coming when there may be more equal rivalries at the top of the WTA, the need for a power game to combat the overriding genius of Williams on the circuit may reduce and we might start seeing genuine rivalries between players with more variety of game because finesse starts getting more reward (here's hoping), whilst the medium-term future of the men's game looks a bit less secure from point of view of putting on a spectacle to captivate the public than it has done for some years.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/tennis/78089322/tennis-boss-says-women-players-should-thank-god-for-federer-and-nadal

Yes, for sure it would be funny if the men spent ages campaigning for prize money based on viewing figures, and then that came in, and then the women's game became more popular.

Sexism is still something pervasive in society and something we have be vigilant about, there are still plenty of people who won't watch women's tennis because they judge women based on physical appearance or just don't like women's sports full stop.

Unfortunately, there is a flip side to that, which is less important but still notable (mostly only in Western society and especially in the media) which is to be excessively politically correct to the point where the not-sexist comments reported by certain people are reported in the media as if they are sexist.

And by the way, Serena Williams. Any chance she gets to brand someone as sexist or racist by mis-interpreting their comments and coming out with inflammatory marks,she loves it. She should let her tennis do the talking, because she is just not smart and un-prejudiced enough to make productive and sensible comments about difficult issues.

It's clear that when women's tournaments have to stand on their own they attract less prize money. Personally, I think Wimbledon had it right some years ago. They offered the women around 90% of the prize money at one stage, for being on court 70% of the time that the men are and attracting say 70% of the interest that the men do. That was a good balance between market forces and promotion of equality. Serena Williams still has the option to earn more money at Wimbledon that the men by playing doubles events.

However, at this point, it is better to let it lie. Equal prize money at slams and elsewhere is about sending a message to women the world over about their status, and therefore is a reasonable policy at this point in a world where sexism, especially outside the developed world, is still far from eradicated.

shivfan wrote:Serena: "If I could tell you every day how many people say they don't watch tennis unless they're watching myself or my sister, I couldn't even bring up that number."

Quite right! I don't watch men's tennis...I just watch the Williams sisters play. And I know a lot of people, especially in the Caribbean, who only watch Venus and Serena too.

I don't see why anyone would pay to watch Serena and Venus play tennis over Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. Of course overly patriotic Americans will buy a ticket to watch them.

You tend to see no empty seats in mens matches except in China, but in the womens game in the big events like French Open you have usually 40% empty seats in the later rounds.

Henman Bill wrote:Yes, for sure it would be funny if the men spent ages campaigning for prize money based on viewing figures, and then that came in, and then the women's game became more popular.

Sexism is still something pervasive in society and something we have be vigilant about, there are still plenty of people who won't watch women's tennis because they judge women based on physical appearance or just don't like women's sports full stop.

Unfortunately, there is a flip side to that, which is less important but still notable (mostly only in Western society and especially in the media) which is to be excessively politically correct to the point where the not-sexist comments reported by certain people are reported in the media as if they are sexist.

And by the way, Serena Williams. Any chance she gets to brand someone as sexist or racist by mis-interpreting their comments and coming out with inflammatory marks,she loves it. She should let her tennis do the talking, because she is just not smart and un-prejudiced enough to make productive and sensible comments about difficult issues.

It's clear that when women's tournaments have to stand on their own they attract less prize money. Personally, I think Wimbledon had it right some years ago. They offered the women around 90% of the prize money at one stage, for being on court 70% of the time that the men are and attracting say 70% of the interest that the men do. That was a good balance between market forces and promotion of equality. Serena Williams still has the option to earn more money at Wimbledon that the men by playing doubles events.

However, at this point, it is better to let it lie. Equal prize money at slams and elsewhere is about sending a message to women the world over about their status, and therefore is a reasonable policy at this point in a world where sexism, especially outside the developed world, is still far from eradicated.

Equal pay is not about that, it's about sending a message to the media and sponsors that there will be no negative publicity to their brands from being associated with tennis when the harridans of 3rd wave feminism come calling.

I'm tired of social justice warriors, backed up by the mainstream media, whining about sexism in the West. There isn't any - the "gender pay gap" is a complete fiction - and if there is it's found in Family Courts where men get shafted routinely. If people want to get upset about the way women are treated they need to get out of the US or UK and go to places where women are counted as inferior to men as sanctioned by religion, or have their genitals mutilated and are expected to cover themselves up all in the cause of making them the personal property of men. Yet the loud voices always seem so quiet on those subjects, don't they?

My take on the issue: hammering Ray Moore for some ill-formed comments about the WTA does exactly the opposite of what women's tennis needs...

http://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2016/03/indian-wells-isms-and-schisms.html

Henman Bill wrote:Yes, for sure it would be funny if the men spent ages campaigning for prize money based on viewing figures, and then that came in, and then the women's game became more popular.

Sexism is still something pervasive in society and something we have be vigilant about, there are still plenty of people who won't watch women's tennis because they judge women based on physical appearance or just don't like women's sports full stop.

Unfortunately, there is a flip side to that, which is less important but still notable (mostly only in Western society and especially in the media) which is to be excessively politically correct to the point where the not-sexist comments reported by certain people are reported in the media as if they are sexist.

And by the way, Serena Williams. Any chance she gets to brand someone as sexist or racist by mis-interpreting their comments and coming out with inflammatory marks,she loves it. She should let her tennis do the talking, because she is just not smart and un-prejudiced enough to make productive and sensible comments about difficult issues.

It's clear that when women's tournaments have to stand on their own they attract less prize money. Personally, I think Wimbledon had it right some years ago. They offered the women around 90% of the prize money at one stage, for being on court 70% of the time that the men are and attracting say 70% of the interest that the men do. That was a good balance between market forces and promotion of equality. Serena Williams still has the option to earn more money at Wimbledon that the men by playing doubles events.

However, at this point, it is better to let it lie. Equal prize money at slams and elsewhere is about sending a message to women the world over about their status, and therefore is a reasonable policy at this point in a world where sexism, especially outside the developed world, is still far from eradicated.

Very well written post, I would agree.
Political correctness has gone too far, and the social justice warriors are certainly pests. However I still support equal pay for women.

The argument in Slams about Best Of 5 vs Best Of 3 are not valid at all; tennis is an entertainment sport, not manual labour. Federer matches last probably half the amount of time as an average Ferrer match; frankly time spent on court is not a particularly strong argument in creating an inequity in pay levels. No one would argue that Federer should get paid less than Ferrer.
The other argument, the one Djokovic made, about the men's game bringing in more money holds some more credibility. You could argue that we live in a capitalist society, and thus it's odd that players who bring in less money get paid the same.
However that argument unfortunately falls under it's own standards. In capitalism, there's no mandate that workers should get paid the wages that they bring in. Tennis tournaments are businesses, and they may feel that equal pay creates good publicity, brings in more women and thus overall viewers who buy their products increase, and thus they get a bigger profit. So that argument, despite being more valid, isn't really the trump card its' made out to be.
Plus, if you really believed that people should be paid for what they'd bring in, then Federer should be paid much more than Giraldo, even if they both lose in Round 2. I find it slightly odd that people seem to apply the principle of rewarding people more if they create more demand to men vs women; but not stars vs the rest.

Inevitably the absurd BBC champions the right-on cause

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35863208

Good of them to slip this in amongst their ridiculous ramping of women's football (nobody watches), women's rugby (ditto), women's cricket (see the pattern?).

True equality champions would be campaigning for the pooling of snooker, darts, and many other sports where it makes no difference what sex you are.

Amrit, since half the debates are about all the money going to the top your final point makes no sense.

Djokovic is correct, he (or she) who creates the value should dominate the spoils.

The fact is that this is even more relevant since one of the two big draws on the women's side, arguably the biggest draw Maria is no longer participating and will probably never be the draw she once was. So the WTA is really being carried at this point by the men and mostly by fedal. I think BB is right on this issue, it is lame political correctness to claim that women who generate less revenue should get paid the same as the men, well just because they are women.

I mean there is real oppression of women, the worst cases of that being in the developing and Islamic world. I am sure Kurdish women hiding in the hills from ISIS are not worried about multimillionaire western women making a little bit less at these events, and I am sure they aren't crying tears for Maria and Serena. Serena Williams getting an undeserved 20 or 30 percent winning increase at a major does nothing to solve real oppression of women in the real world. Serena, Maria, Aza, none of these ladies are oppressed by sexism, in fact most of the money Maria makes is because she is really nice to look at, she doesn't seem to complain about all the extra endorsement money she gets because she is young, blonde, blue eyed, tall and slim. Tennis is still the only entertainment industry that I can think of where lower box office stars can be guaranteed equal pay simply because they are one gender or the other.

Exactly.

Anna Kournikova.

bogbrush wrote:Amrit, since half the debates are about all the money going to the top your final point makes no sense.

Djokovic is correct, he (or she) who creates the value should dominate the spoils.

Federer brings in more people to the stadium than Djokovic. Should Federer get more prize money for winning a Slam than Djokovic ?
If Federer, Nadal, and Grannolers all lose in Round 3 of a Slam, should Federer and Nadal get paid more ?

If you take a principle, surely you have to follow it through ? People seem to selectively apply to it average male vs average female, but not for stars vs others.

Oh be serious; there are two competitions, a men's and a woman's. The men's one is entered by all the men who share prize money based on success. The women all enter the women's, ditto.

At separate events the prize money relates to marketability. Fair enough. The tricky part is that at shared locations (not separate events) it isn't. You're trying to conflate two unrelated issues.

Like socal says, nobody complains that Maria out-earns almost every man by selling what she's got.

bogbrush wrote:Oh be serious; there are two competitions, a men's and a woman's. The men's one is entered by all the men who share prize money based on success. The women all enter the women's, ditto.

Why is it based on success ? Why isn't it based on marketability ?
Isn't it unfair for Giraldo to be getting extra money that was actually earned by fans who came to watch Federer and Nadal ?

Yes, I agree, lets remember Roger and Rafa are the bigger draws but we can't just sell tickets to watch them hit with hitting partners or play against each other in exhos. To get their exalted position they had to first dominate a tour of professionals that they need around to compete against. The pot of money generated by them can only be broken up in terms of prize money based on making the pot larger for all successful participants. Exhos, appearance fees, and endorsements are where they can bank completely on individual drawing ability. In terms of prize money they require a functioning, male tour of worthy competitors to be measured against and compete against. The ATP tour helped make them, therefore deserves its share of the spoils now. The same can't be said of the relationship of the WTA to fedal.

On a sidenote, Djokovic getting absolutely hammered by the mainstream media, the freaking Guardian compared his comments and those of IW official to the comments you hear at a Trump rally, please this is PC gone to the extent of a being nuts.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Oh be serious; there are two competitions, a men's and a woman's. The men's one is entered by all the men who share prize money based on success. The women all enter the women's, ditto.

Why is it based on success ? Why isn't it based on marketability ?
Isn't it unfair for Giraldo to be getting extra money that was actually earned by fans who came to watch Federer and Nadal ?

Marketability???

How are you going to measure that exactly? On the amount of RF t-shirts in the crowd?

I think the male players should boycott one of the co-ed masters and when the ratings go down into the toilet and the broadcasters and tournament directors lose millions then it would be an excellent measure of who is the drawing power. If the women did the same thing at IW or Miami in retaliation then we could see who on their own is a bigger draw. But it is unlikely to happen because through terror of the kind of media coverage we are getting now it is unlikely the men will have the balls to do it.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Oh be serious; there are two competitions, a men's and a woman's. The men's one is entered by all the men who share prize money based on success. The women all enter the women's, ditto.

Why is it based on success ? Why isn't it based on marketability ?
Isn't it unfair for Giraldo to be getting extra money that was actually earned by fans who came to watch Federer and Nadal ?

Marketability???

How are you going to measure that exactly? On the amount of RF t-shirts in the crowd?

It wouldn't be exact. But just as you can work out that men's tennis on average is more popular than women's tennis, it's pretty obvious that Federer and Nadal bring more people to the stadiums than people like Giraldo, Granollers, and Lacko.

socal1976 wrote:On a sidenote, Djokovic getting absolutely hammered by the mainstream media, the freaking Guardian compared his comments and those of IW official to the comments you hear at a Trump rally, please this is PC gone to the extent of a being nuts.

The Guardian is a joke. It would be deeply disappointing if they don't demand he be banned from entering Britain for Wimbledon. They're just idiots. The MSM will close ranks like crazy over this; this is key liberal establishment fundamentals being challenged here.

I've never felt better towards Novak!

The tournament pool is based on money earned through its marketability, which helps determine its status to some degree. You obviously then pay based on how far people get, not how popular they are, or you defeat the point of getting far into a tournament.

The consensus is that the WTA use shared venues to help siphon some of the marketability of Fedal to up their own prize money, WTA exclusive events aren't generally quite as successful.

Amrit, you're still conflating two completely separate subjects; marketability of THE MENS EVENT versus that of THE WOMENS EVENT, the proceeds of each are distributed to the participants in relation to their success in the event.

bogbrush wrote:Amrit, you're still conflating two completely separate subjects; marketability of THE MENS EVENT versus that of THE WOMENS EVENT, the proceeds of each are distributed to the participants in relation to their success in the event.

They're only separate subjects because you've arbitrarily decided it so.
You say it's unfair on men players that the men's event on average brings in more cash and thus subsidises the pay of the average women player. Ok.
But then we also have Federer subsidising many of the other men's players. Basing it on success in the event does not match the proportion of money they bring in, Fed should get more for losing in Round 3 of a slam than Cilic does for winning the USO.

My point is that you are being selective with the principle of 'players being rewarded with what they brought in.'

There is a symbolism in having equal pay between men and women, especially as across the world particularly in poorer nations women are not yet treated equally, and tennis is such a global sport. I like that personally, but it's fine if others don't.

What I'd also add is that the reason for equal pay is probably a commercial one. You love free markets BB, and you'd know that there's nothing mandating firms:
-paying their workers per hour worked (although it is the norm in many 'labour' rather than 'entertainment' industries)
-paying their workers what they've brought in individually
That's not how the free market works. Businesses can pay the wage rate they want for a whole variety of different reasons, and workers can choose to not work for that firm if they don't want to.
I suspect they made the calculated decision that having equal pay would not turn anyone off coming to the tournament, but the good publicity of this would bring in more people (women in particular) than if there was the bad publicity surrounding unequal pay). So despite it looking like a nice decision based on political correctness, it's probably more cunning and savvy than we realise.

They aren't as successful, and that reflects in the prize pools, much more so in the "premier 5" than the mandatory masters.

Having them at the same venue helps market them next to eachother, to help gain some exposure.

Also whats an amrit?

I agree that sexism is worse in Middle East, Africa, and other poor countries, and that that should get more focus overall, but that is not an argument that justifies ignoring sexism in the west. It is a classic situation where you attempt to get people to ignore or justify the wrong by pointing out a worse one.

I have to disagree with BB that there is NO sexism in Western society. That seems complacent. You can argue it's 80-90% gone, but that still leaves the other 10-20%.

The women on the board (if I'm right about who is what sex) never comment much when I or others mentioned sexism. Am I raising a non-issue when I do it, or do you agree but don't fancy confrontation?

BB does make a good point about the brands though. You are right, the last thing coca cola (or whoever the sponsors are, I couldn't even tell you or care less) is to be in the news because some feminists are chanting outside of their headquarters asking why they don't support equal pay.

Also this discussion is going pretty fast, not going to be able to keep up with all of it by the looks of it.

temporary21 wrote:
Also whats an amrit?

It's holy water in some subcontinental Asian religions. Bogbrush fondly calls me that because he's a very religious man. Also was my old nick.

Oh? I vaguely remember the username, they think that's me? They've been basing responses based on that? Well that's factually incorrect im afraid.

Sexism in the West has been largely addressed, it mostly limited to smaller cases and finer margins, but most importantly the attitude of the West has been changed fundamentally. It will organically get better over time, which is a good thing

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Oh be serious; there are two competitions, a men's and a woman's. The men's one is entered by all the men who share prize money based on success. The women all enter the women's, ditto.

Why is it based on success ? Why isn't it based on marketability ?
Isn't it unfair for Giraldo to be getting extra money that was actually earned by fans who came to watch Federer and Nadal ?

Marketability???

How are you going to measure that exactly? On the amount of RF t-shirts in the crowd?

It wouldn't be exact. But just as you can work out that men's tennis on average is more popular than women's tennis, it's pretty obvious that Federer and Nadal bring more people to the stadiums than people like Giraldo, Granollers, and Lacko.

I am loving it!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
How are you going to measure that exactly? On the amount of RF t-shirts in the crowd?

It wouldn't be exact. But just as you can work out that men's tennis on average is more popular than women's tennis, it's pretty obvious that Federer and Nadal bring more people to the stadiums than people like Giraldo, Granollers, and Lacko.

I am loving it!

Look LK; you can't work how the exact difference between what men and women bring in to a joint event like Indian wells throughout the week.
However you can make an estimate, looking at data comparing just ATP tournaments vs just WTA tournaments throughout the year, or look at a few examples of which final sold out quicker. You would probably conclude that men on average bring in more to a joint tournament than women.
Just like this, if you looked at data for individual players, you could conclude that the big stars like Federer and Nadal bring in the most interest- for example basing estimates on data for how full the stadiums are when certain players are playing.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
How are you going to measure that exactly? On the amount of RF t-shirts in the crowd?

It wouldn't be exact. But just as you can work out that men's tennis on average is more popular than women's tennis, it's pretty obvious that Federer and Nadal bring more people to the stadiums than people like Giraldo, Granollers, and Lacko.

I am loving it!

Look LK; you can't work how the exact difference between what men and women bring in to a joint event like Indian wells throughout the week.
However you can make an estimate, looking at data comparing just ATP tournaments vs just WTA tournaments throughout the year, or look at a few examples of which final sold out quicker. You would probably conclude that men on average bring in more to a joint tournament than women.
Just like this, if you looked at data for individual players, you could conclude that the big stars like Federer and Nadal bring in the most interest- for example basing estimates on data for how full the stadiums are when certain players are playing.

The point you were making was a non starter by then looking at the marketability of players in one sex group. BB was merely stating that men's events and womens events be divided accordingly. Didn't explain specific ways in determining that or how it is segregated. You come at it and a totally confusing angle about how people don't pay to watch a Lacko that they would a Nadal.

Separate the men's and women's events when playing the same venue (which of course would be a cost nightmare for tournament organisers) however, it would give an indication who wins the battle of the sexes. My experience from attending the many tennis tournaments is that people find themselves fortunate to see a match given they wait so long and pay so much to see a preferred player, that they settle for anyone with a racquet!

socal1976 wrote:On a sidenote, Djokovic getting absolutely hammered by the mainstream media, the freaking Guardian compared his comments and those of IW official to the comments you hear at a Trump rally, please this is PC gone to the extent of a being nuts.

That will be The Guardian which is hemorrhaging money and having to lay off 250 journalists to make ends meet.

It's a ridiculous journal preaching to an ever smaller choir.

They're only separate subjects because you've arbitrarily decided it so.
You say it's unfair on men players that the men's event on average brings in more cash and thus subsidises the pay of the average women player. Ok.
But then we also have Federer subsidising many of the other men's playersAmrit

Sorry, IMBL this statement is so wrong. Did Federer get famous playing matches against Serena for grandslam titles? No Federer became Federer, Nadal became Nadal, and Djoko became Djoko on the ATP tour. If he didn't face a quality competition tour and win tournaments against them that the ATP Tour owns and franchises out then how would we have even heard of them? Federer used the name and infrastructure of the pro tour like every other champion to become famous. Therefore if the whole of the ATP TOUR gets extra payback then it is a return on their investment in Federer. But Federer has never participated ever in a single women's event, and has never got a dime from the WTA as a young junior coming up or ever, why should the WTA and their stars siphon millions off of Federer and Nadal? Fed has made a lot of money from the ATP tournaments, has made zero from the WTA. The relationship of Djokovic or other ATP pros to Fedal is not similar in anyway to the relationship of fedal to the WTA. Just because you say and Orange is an apple it doesn't become so.

Henman Bill wrote:I agree that sexism is worse in Middle East, Africa, and other poor countries, and that that should get more focus overall, but that is not an argument that justifies ignoring sexism in the west. It is a classic situation where you attempt to get people to ignore or justify the wrong by pointing out a worse one.

I have to disagree with BB that there is NO sexism in Western society. That seems complacent. You can argue it's 80-90% gone, but that still leaves the other 10-20%.

The women on the board (if I'm right about who is what sex) never comment much when I or others mentioned sexism. Am I raising a non-issue when I do it, or do you agree but don't fancy confrontation?

BB does make a good point about the brands though. You are right, the last thing coca cola (or whoever the sponsors are, I couldn't even tell you or care less) is to be in the news because some feminists are chanting outside of their headquarters asking why they don't support equal pay.

Also this discussion is going pretty fast, not going to be able to keep up with all of it by the looks of it.

No one is arguing that sexism is gone in the west, we are arguing that Serena, Maria, and AZA multimillionairesses who also make money off of their feminine appeal to the opposite sex, are not victims that affirmative action or discrimination in favor of is appropriate. Sure there is sexism in the west, this just isn't it and this unfair policy does nothing to address real sexism. In fact Serena and Maria are hurting the cause of those that oppose real sexism here and abroad by gravy training on the bandwagon to get an extra undeserved pay day. This kind of fake outrage over money at how they are so oppressed actually does take away from real instances of sexism because people, especially some men will eventually get to the point where they believe that sexism charges are used selectively, unfairly, and to advance the private interests of these stars who are not the victims of any sexist abuse by the ATP tour or WTA. Therefore it drowns out actual, more appropriate instances where outrage is justified. Serena Williams getting an extra million or two in prize money or not getting it doesn't change society one way or the other, she just wants the money and is gravy training onto the cause of real women who have faced real oppression. She aint it.

temporary21 wrote:Oh? I vaguely remember the username, they think that's me? They've been basing responses based on that? Well that's factually incorrect im afraid.

No, BB calls IMBL Amrit (from a past life)

Anyway it's a free market isn't it? Tournament directors, governing bodies pay what they want to whoever they want.

socal1976 wrote:They're only separate subjects because you've arbitrarily decided it so.
You say it's unfair on men players that the men's event on average brings in more cash and thus subsidises the pay of the average women player. Ok.
But then we also have Federer subsidising many of the other men's playersAmrit

Sorry, IMBL this statement is so wrong. Did Federer get famous playing matches against Serena for grandslam titles? No Federer became Federer, Nadal became Nadal, and Djoko became Djoko on the ATP tour. If he didn't face a quality competition tour and win tournaments against them that the ATP Tour owns and franchises out then how would we have even heard of them? Federer used the name and infrastructure of the pro tour like every other champion to become famous. Therefore if the whole of the ATP TOUR gets extra payback then it is a return on their investment in Federer. But Federer has never participated ever in a single women's event, and has never got a dime from the ATP as a young junior coming up or ever, why should the WTA and their stars siphon millions off of Federer and Nadal? The relationship of Djokovic or other ATP pros to Fedal is not similar in anyway to the relationship of fedal to the WTA. Just because you say and Orange is an apple it doesn't become so.

Yes it's true Federer benefitted from the ATP tour. But someone like Federer is individually irreplaceable, if he was to retire there would be a clear decrease in viewership and ticket sales. However if someone ranked 72 dropped out of Indian Wells, there would probably be very little decrease in sales or viewership, probably 0.001% of the amount of decrease if Federer didn't play. Even if you take into account that Federer needs competitive players or the viewership of his matches may go down (so the figure of the lower ranked player being paid 0.001% of Federer isn't fair either), the difference in interest brought on an individual basis is undeniable.
Meanwhile I would also that it is possible the ATP and WTA are linked in more ways than you imagine. Right now women's tennis isn't particularly inspiring, but over time I'm sure players like Graf, Henin, and Serena still in the US have brought in millions of tennis fans; and these tennis fans now watch both men's and women's tennis.
So they're not exactly the same, but I still think there are odd double standards being applied if you claim for men vs women we have to look at interest generated on average, but won't apply that to individual players vs other players who are of the same gender.
Also Socal, do read my post on how this could be a savvy business decision by the tournaments. This is capitalism in action in many ways; there's nothing which says workers are rewarded exactly what they bring in for a business.

No IMBL the double standard is WTA players demanding a portion of the male player's prize pool when in no way would the opposite ever be stood for by any of those WTA stars. So what about Graf or Everett? Federer played in ATP tour events and his dominance of the ATP is what made him famous, he didn't become famous playing Serena. You know if the male players earnings were down the WTA would in no way consent to their stars giving up part of their purse for the male players.

PS you can call it capitalism if you like I call it a shakedown and an unjust shakedown.

Maybe that idiot need to go down on his knees and thank apartheid. Maybe if it wasn't for apartheid he would not be where he is today.

Tennis should be proud of equal prize money. It is great that they lead the way in pay equality in sports. Nothing to be ashamed off.

I now called for equal pay for male adult actors and model.

Equal prize money isn't going to change and nor should it. It sets a good message.

However, that doesn't mean that it's sexist to suggest an alternative. Men and women are competing in different competitions and it would therefore be entirely justifiable to pay one less than the other.

Frankly, my usual view is that the WTA isn't concerned about true equality (Bo5 against Bo3 strikes me as something true feminists would be up in arms about). It's just all about the cash.

If the WTA wanted true equality rather than tokenism, they'd be asking to compete against the men.

The moment you separate the tours, the moment you have to recognise you are selling a different product.

HM Murdock wrote:If the WTA wanted true equality rather than tokenism, they'd be asking to compete against the men.

Unfortunately the men would then win, even if the women worked much harder in the practice courts.
It's about pragmatism as well as equality; people could be in favour of true equality without wanting to merge the singles tours.

I could write for days on this subject, but I'll try to be brief(ish).

- Discussing equal pay in tennis is not in any way misogynistic.

- Questioning equal pay for women is tennis is also not necessary sexist, as there are reasonable arguments around commercial value, competitive level etc. I do think it becomes sexist when the idea that there is a viable market for any women's sport is dismissed out of hand. Clearly there are plenty of people interested in women's tennis. Interest in women playing other sports can be built up too, but there should be no sense of entitlement about it.  

- If you're not going with equal prize money at slams, there should be some way to ensure the split is fair, rather than just choosing an artibrary number because "more people want to watch the men". It is possible that factors (e.g. another Li Na) will mean the commercial revenues generated by the women's draw would be higher. At joint tournaments outside the slams, this is more straightforward as the rights are separate. I would say I disagree with HB on the 90% - this is the percentage that the women's prize money was prior to Wimbledon finally changing to equal money and to be frank, it is not worth the arguments over just a 10% difference.          

- To a large extent, Raymond Moore's specific comment about "riding on coattails" is true in recent times. I don't mean finally getting equal prize money agreed at the slams, but the significant increases from 2011 onwards which were brought about by the ATP player power on the back of Federer/Nadal rivalry. As I recall, the ATP threatened to strike if the proportion of revenues at slams paid out in prize money wasn't increased. The WTA were not involved in this action but nevertheless benefited from it.

- That said, the way that this was phrased by Raymond Moore was terribly patronising. It was also a rather Gerald Ratner-ish; he's meant to be selling a joint tournament, but tells us to all intents and purposes that half the tournament's a bit crap really. As far as I can see, he made the remarks during a press conference to promote the improvements to the Indian Wells facility and press for it to be considered as some sort of super-masters, and was asked if the WTA side of the tournament should be set apart as well. I mean, to answer that by effecting say "nah, not bothered about that side" is just poor for a CEO. I don't think he need to be hounded for it, but it's a poor decision nonetheless.

- The WTA does have work to do to promote itself and its stars - but promoting them as sportstars and athletes rather than fashion icons. I think it's been heading in the right direction now there are fewer articles on Maria appearing on various red carpets and promoting Sugarpova. They also need to make sure they have the best sporting product they can have. The current top 10 actually cover a variety of styles (Radwanska, Kerber, CSN, Bencic, Azarenka quite different from Muguruza, Kvitova, Serena) so they've got something to go on there. I'd cut out on-court coaching, try to find a way to limit the worst of the screaming (I don't think it's that bad bar a few players) as a start. The other major issue needing tackling is the mess of the tournament layers and the calendar which is way more complicated than the ATP structure and leaves many tournaments open to late withdrawals.

Also, bit cheeky of Lags to be looking for "all manner of debate" on this subject and then not give his (or her) opinion if I may say so. Do join in!

Good comments Yvonne. And always one of the politer ones also!