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

First topic message reminder :

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

djlovesyou wrote:I think it's a bit of a fallacy that the whole equal prize-money issue is costing the men anything.

The big tournaments make a massive profit, making up the discrepancy between the men and women's prize pools is a drop in the ocean.

At no point did they raid the men's coffers in order to pay the women. Basically, as much as it makes you feel better to think it's true, Djokovic hasn't lost a single cent to the evil feminists.

He says it himself - he should be earning more but the women shouldn't be earning less. Maybe he's right. He just picked the wrong argument to whinge about it - if there is ever a good time, to be fair.

Should a man that picked up 21 million in a year is prize-money alone from being very talented at hitting balls be moaning about his lot in life, given how lucky he is to be supremely talented at one of the few endeavours that allows so much money to be earned? Of course not - ridiculous, uneducated behaviour.

So do you feel that for years when multimillionaire Serena and Maria complained for equal prize money was that ridiculous or uneducated behavior as well in your book? Sorry it does take money from their prize pot, while millions are involved the money is not unlimited. In fact the male players hurt the most are the guys who get knocked out early and who are hungry for that Masters money to keep going. Its like taking money from mid-level ATP tour pros to give Serena and the other top women an increase on their already massive checks. And yes it probably has cost Novak a couple of million in more, its easy for you to say he should give it away to Serena and not complain about it, but why? Why can Serena scream sexism falsely for years to get money and that is great and laudable, but Djokovic wanting to not have money siphoned from the ATP is called "uneducated". Sorry if anyone's actions are detestable it is the actions of Serena and the rest of the WTA that is just using sexism for a naked money grab that is cynical and actually discriminatory.

temporary21 wrote:That's a fine argument, but clearly that argument is about the interests of fairness of workload and market share, versus the profitability of making a statement to a business in getting both tours more money.

That's nowt to do with outrage at gender equality, despite what you want to think, so don't go taking shots across the bow like that with no valid argument. Goes for everyone

Makes no real sense to me.

Arguing against equal prize-money isn't sexist in itself - to suggest nobody on that side of the argument could ever be sexist is ridiculous.
 
It's like saying that nobody who wants stricter immigration laws could be racist, simply because there is a perfectly reasonable and non-racist argument to made for stricter immigration laws.

True, some parties in this debate may well have discrimination in mind, but nobody HERE has made any sexist remarks, you are in fact the person to drag in that ugly cat. So treat the others here with some respect and don't just poo poo their ideas with that sort of cop out. We don't wanna mod THAT kind of conversation. End of story

temporary21 wrote:True, some parties in this debate may well have discrimination in mind, but nobody HERE has made any sexist remarks, you are in fact the person to drag in that ugly cat. So treat the others here with some respect and don't just poo poo their ideas with that sort of cop out. We don't wanna mod THAT kind of conversation. End of story

I didn't attack anyone's ideas on here for being sexist.

My points were that this gentleman (you know, the one the story is about) made comments that were clearly rooted in sexism.

djlovesyou wrote:Think this old fella knew what he was saying with the words 'They should go down on their knees'. That's why he resigned.

As for the rest of the debate. I'm always amazed how emotional some people on here get at the thought of a few women earning as much as a few men in a couple of tournaments a year.

Incredible really.

That's reasonable. May I then amend this offending post to better reflect that you meant the Indian Wells guy, and not the forum?

djlovesyou wrote:

temporary21 wrote:True, some parties in this debate may well have discrimination in mind, but nobody HERE has made any sexist remarks, you are in fact the person to drag in that ugly cat. So treat the others here with some respect and don't just poo poo their ideas with that sort of cop out. We don't wanna mod THAT kind of conversation. End of story

I didn't attack anyone's ideas on here for being sexist.

My points were that this gentleman (you know, the one the story is about) made comments that were clearly rooted in sexism.

Which part was "clearly rooted in sexism"? I'm also not sure why you seem to have concerns about the phrase "going down on their knees to thank God" - what's wrong with that?

It's not sexist to say the women's game depends on the men's for much of its income. It's just factual.

This is where we've got to now. Sadly I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better. I think probably things have to get really bad generally before people remember what real problems are rather than this pseudo-victim obsession crap.

temporary21 wrote:

It is therefore FACTUALLY not a discussion about sexism, its just the usual cop out. Equality is brilliant, BUT it does mean that youre treated on level footing for better OR worse

If women were identical to men there would be no need for any talk about them being treated equally. The whole point is that they are different. I can think of lots of examples of their different play but from the top of my head Justin Henin and Del Potro. Henin has none of the power of Del Potro but I know I would rather watch Henin any day. I don't give a jot that if I watched Del Potro I would see him lumber about for five sets and if I saw Henin it would be three sets. Put them both on court at the same time and give me tickets for both ie on "level footing" and I would choose Henin every time. I am not trying to be politically correct with my choice and I'm aware that Del Potro can hit the ball much harder. My choice would be based on what I would find more entertaining.

Moores comments have certainly been interpreted as being sexist. Novaks too. Not a good message to send to either the fans or the female players. Shocking to have a tournament director attack half of his players.

These titles are not good news for tennis


Novak Djokovic and Serena Williams embroiled in Tennis' sexism row

Raymond Moore: Indian Wells CEO steps down amid outrage over sexist remarks

Indian Wells CEO Raymond Moore quits after 'sexist' comments

What The Reaction To Raymond Moore's Comments Reveals About Sexism In Tennis

There are hundreds similar...

Looking at the WTA tour schedule it is amazing that by far, by far the biggest paydays on their calendar are the events with the men. My own eyeballing of their paydays is that at minimum they are getting 15-20 percent more money in prize money because they are taking from the male tour. Its hard to compare events because they have a different categories for events and a different format than the male tour. Their premier mandatories are only a few events, which are all surprisingly coed events. Djokovic has lost millions to Serena and Maria, so maybe he has a right to complain. I mean their prize pools in their 250 and their non-mandatory events are almost laughable like glorified challengers. At minimum they are getting a 20 percent pay increase directly from the pocket of the male players, and if you are a man and you complain they will denounce you as sexist. If the shoe was on the other foot and the WTA was more successful would they volunteer 20 percent of their payday or more to the men to be equal to them? The men are getting simply robbed by a shakedown. They should boycott the next co-ed masters till this gets corrected. But of course they won't because they don't want have thousands of articles denouncing them as a sexist like Djokovic has been getting. Its funny how generous all these journalists and how enlightened they are with Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray's money. The WTA parasite is sucking our tour dry, it isn't a small amount go look at the WTA's paydays for events they don't do with the men and tell me its not a big deal.

This is where we have come to in society, the extortionists are the victim and the guy who has lost millions in prize money to the WTA Djokovic (the victim of extortion) is the bad guy sexist. Its not a small sum of money I invite any of you to download the laughable paydays of the WTA in their own events to see how many millions they are siphoning off at each coed event.

socal1976 wrote:Its funny how generous all these journalists and how enlightened they are with Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray's money.

If you want to take that line then I believe it is Rafa's and Rogers money. Haven't heard any protests from them about sharing it around.

hawkeye wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Its funny how generous all these journalists and how enlightened they are with Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray's money.

If you want to take that line then I believe it is Rafa's and Rogers money. Haven't heard any protests from them about sharing it around.

Yeah, either way if not for this silly false pay equality rule Novak and Murray as well as all the male players are losing millions in each coed tournament. It is not a small sum of money. I mean if the WTA is such a draw and so great on their own why do most of their 250s pay like challengers, and why is it that their prize money is so much lower at all the non-coed events than the analogous male event? Novak is mentioned because he is the one being criticized, those criticizing him haven't lost a couple million or more to the WTA tour like Novak has. Maybe if you had been prejudiced to the tune of millions like Djokovic you would have a right to at least question the policy without being smeared by self righteous WTA stars who would never, ever consider giving up 15-20 of their prize money if the shoe was on the other foot. The real villains are the WTA stars who are falsely claiming sexism and extorting the men's tour for money that they themselves would never give back if the situation was reversed and their tour was more successful.

If you went by the old formula in the 80s and 90s the male champions would often in coed events make as much as 50 percent more. For most of the 2000s it was about a 15 to 20 percent gap. Therefore Djokovic probably has lost ten million or more in prize to this silly rule, roughly. Maybe he has a right to complain, how many of these smug journos would want to donate 20 percent of their salary to their female coworkers in order to make a statement against sexism, they sure are generous with Novak's money though.

I'm presuming that as the female prize money has become closer to the men's prize money in these events, the male prize money has either remained at the same level or dropped?

It seems like it must have given you're adamant that the men are actually losing money to the women.

So what if the prize money has gone up, if they are the bigger draw they should make more money. The available prize money would be increased if they didn't have to be equal to the women's tour at coed events. If it is true that the WTA is an equal partner why are their paydays laughable in comparison to the analogous ATP event when the event isn't coed? Novak has lost millions to subsidizing the WTA and he makes the most bland and soft complaint about the millions being siphoned out of his pocket through coercion and false accusations of sexism, and he is the bad guy. He should love to give up millions of dollars to Serena to make a statement against sexism. What a joke if you ask me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35878010

Murray bigging up Serena.

socal1976 wrote: The available prize money would be increased if they didn't have to be equal to the women's tour at coed events. 

Show me some evidence of this and I'll believe you.

djlovesyou wrote:

socal1976 wrote: The available prize money would be increased if they didn't have to be equal to the women's tour at coed events. 

Show me some evidence of this and I'll believe you.

The evidence is clear in their own events they can't command nearly the same money as the men when no coed event takes place. If they are so wonderful at negotiating sponsors in just increasing their financial commitment by a couple of million without taking it from the men, why have they been unable to do it at their own events? Do you believe that tournaments have unlimited money to just increase their investment in women's prize money and have it not impact the men?  But no I don't have the smoking gun, because I am not part of the negotiations at all these events. But to assume that the money comes from nowhere or is an increase that has nothing to do with the men is belied by the fact that they don't have anywhere near the pull with tournaments and sponsors without the men in their own events. Your idea that the money comes from nowhere is less believable, what evidence do you have in support for that assumption?

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

Some nice stats to mull, the prize money is pretty similar until you get to the very top

Also noted that the heavy disparity between both viewership and revenue, favouring the ATP close to 3 times more, does raise a good point.

Whether equal pay cuts into the mens pool at shared events will depend on how much of the revenue goes into the prize pool. Given the revenue disparity, there is a case that the mens could be higher in theory.

temporary21 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35863208

Some nice stats to mull, the prize money is pretty similar until you get to the very top

Also noted that the heavy disparity between both viewership and revenue, favouring the ATP close to 3 times more, does raise a good point.

Whether equal pay cuts into the mens pool at shared events will depend on how much of the revenue goes into the prize pool. Given the revenue disparity, there is a case that the mens could be higher in theory.

Wimbledon, for example, makes about a £40 million profit every year.

Do you think that when they altered the pay structure so that men and women earned the same (remember the gap wasn't that big) that they took it from the men?

The big events can afford it.

Novak has lost nothing to the women - maybe he's lost something to tournament greed, but to blame the WTA and call them 'parasites' seems a bit extreme. (I appreciate he holds your opinion, so it's fine to be so provocative).

temporary21 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35863208

Some nice stats to mull, the prize money is pretty similar until you get to the very top

Also noted that the heavy disparity between both viewership and revenue, favouring the ATP close to 3 times more, does raise a good point.

Whether equal pay cuts into the mens pool at shared events will depend on how much of the revenue goes into the prize pool. Given the revenue disparity, there is a case that the mens could be higher in theory.

Yeah the men's TV deal is about 250 percent more than WTA broadcast deal, all the analogous ATP tourneys with non coed WTA events has more prize money for the men, so the idea that this money doesn't come from the male tour is a little bogus considering that they can not command anywhere near these sums of money for their own events without the men. Frankly based on these facts it is pretty hard to claim that the WTA isn't being carried at these coed events. Why exactly can't they get anywhere near the TV money for their own tour if they aren't gravy training the ATP? It is clear by these numbers that the ATP is the draw, if you go based on the TV deal about three quarters of the money is brought in by the ATP, yet the ATP stars collect half of the money when it comes to tournament winnings. This is not a small sum of money, I do not want the WTA sucking our tour like a leach when I don't watch a second of it.

The disparity is even worse now since by far the biggest draw on the Women's tour Sharapova is basically out of the game and will never be the same kind of draw again. I mean if 75 percent of the draw was the men before, now you are probably looking at the men being 80 or 85 percent of the draw at these events.

My view is that if the ATP accept being part of a mixed event, they must accept being paid equally with the women, and the reason is purely economic. By Djokovic's claim, the logical solution to being a bigger draw would be to have their own event - but they don't do that. Even if (which I absolutely believe is the case) the women are getting a much better bump by the joint events, the men still benefit.

There's a 25 year old Harvard Business Case about the rivalry between BSB and Sky Broadcasting in the 90's. I can't recall which was the larger entity, but eventually they agreed to a 50/50 merger, where the smaller competitor wound up making out like a bandit, because the larger competitor calculated that half of the entire market was worth more than all of their current market share, even though current market share was much bigger than their competitor's. In the end, everyone made more money, so they made the deal to the significantly greater benefit of the weaker competitor.

I suspect something along those lines is happening with the joint ATP and WTA events - otherwise why would the ATP do it? So while the argument is framed by many as an issue of fairness, I think that's hogwash - it's strictly economic where the men are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Even though I agree that the men are the much bigger draw and the women need the joint events more than the men do, if both tours benefit economically and they agree to joint events, they must accept an equal share of the prize money.

I don't agree that the women "deserve" equal pay - if the economics justify it, they'll get it - if it doesn't they won't. The interesting thing is either one could call the other's bluff, but nobody really wants to do this because of the money both will lose. Because this is framed (by the women) as a moral/social issue, the bargaining position of the men is weak so the ball is in their court. The men can put their money where their mouths are and walk away, but it will cost them a lot, which they don't want to while the iron is hot (i.e. Federer and Nadal are still playing). I suspect if tennis experiences a dip economically (like when Federer and Nadal retire) they will go ahead and drop the joint events.

MMT1 wrote:My view is that if the ATP accept being part of a mixed event, they must accept being paid equally with the women, and the reason is purely economic.  By Djokovic's claim, the logical solution to being a bigger draw would be to have their own event - but they don't do that.  Even if (which I absolutely believe is the case) the women are getting a much better bump by the joint events, the men still benefit.

There's a 25 year old Harvard Business Case about the rivalry between BSB and Sky Broadcasting in the 90's.  I can't recall which was the larger entity, but eventually they agreed to a 50/50 merger, where the smaller competitor wound up making out like a bandit, because the larger competitor calculated that half of the entire market was worth more than all of their current market share, even though current market share was much bigger than their competitor's.  In the end, everyone made more money, so they made the deal to the significantly greater benefit of the weaker competitor.

I suspect something along those lines is happening with the joint ATP and WTA events - otherwise why would the ATP do it?  So while the argument is framed by many as an issue of fairness, I think that's hogwash - it's strictly economic where the men are trying to have their cake and eat it too.  Even though I agree that the men are the much bigger draw and the women need the joint events more than the men do, if both tours benefit economically and they agree to joint events, they must accept an equal share of the prize money.  

I don't agree that the women "deserve" equal pay - if the economics justify it, they'll get it - if it doesn't they won't.  The interesting thing is either one could call the other's bluff, but nobody really wants to do this because of the money both will lose.  Because this is framed (by the women) as a moral/social issue, the bargaining position of the men is weak so the ball is in their court.  The men can put their money where their mouths are and walk away, but it will cost them a lot, which they don't want to while the iron is hot (i.e. Federer and Nadal are still playing).  I suspect if tennis experiences a dip economically (like when Federer and Nadal retire) they will go ahead and drop the joint events.

The only economic benefit the ATP gets from the WTA and the joint events is that by paying extortion to the WTA stars they won't have Serena, and all the past and present women stars tarnishing their brand with charges of misogyny and sexism. That isn't an economic "bump" to the men unless you consider protection money paid to the mafia to benefit both the mafia and the store owner, I mean the mafia gets money and the store owner doesn't get his store burned down, you see its a win win. I hate Serena and the WTA even more than before and I thought that was impossible. Frankly, her repulsive use of false charges of sexism to extort money from her male coworkers in a cynical money grab that she pretends is like some sort of civil rights or equality fight for her is disgusting. Yeah when I think of great fighters for the oppressed I think of Cesar Chavez fighting for migrant farm workers and Serena Williams extorting extra millions for herself by threatening to crap on the brand of the ATP with false allegations of sexism.

To me I lost what little respect I had for Serena and the women's tour from this whole bogus lets couch our extortion as fighting sexism nonsense. Sorry, your post is nonsensical, because I can't think of single economic benefit to the ATP tour when they are like 75-80 percent of the draw, you just made that up using an analogy that makes no sense and frankly isn't analogous.

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35878010

Murray bigging up Serena.

It's odd isn't it? You don't hear the male snooker players going on about Reanne Evans do you? Serena Williams is a very low standard tennis player as a human being, but she's at the top of the less able subset with XX chromosones.

As for this nonsense about rate of ticket sales at the US Open, how disingenuous can you get? She's AMERICAN you idiot!!!!! The US media goes into meltdown at the mention of her name because they've got nothing else in the sport apart from the Bryans.

The ATP are free to do what they want. If everyone shared socal's view then very few people would care what Serena and the WTA said about them, and the ATP could simply ignore them. Charges of sexism and misogyny from a small minority, whose views are shared by very few, would not hold any weight, and would not affect them economically to any great extent. Perhaps the ATP cave in for no good reason (because they are run by the weaker sex?).

However, others hold the view that tennis is the product, not the ATP or the WTA, and that the men benefit from the likes of Serena, Venus, Steffi, Chrissie, Li Na etc. If the future of men's tennis is as bleak as some say, the ATP will be needing some female stars to prop it up pretty soon. Indeed, in the boring serve-fest 90s, which many people think was a big turn off, the women should probably have been paid more.

Obviously in some respects the women were a bigger draw at the US Open last year (given the speed of ticket sales for the respective finals) - so maybe they should have been paid more than the men in that case.

What about mixed doubles at the Grand Slams - should a popular male player get paid more than his partner, who may be less of a draw to the public?

Extortion is a criminal offense, by the way. Socal, would you like to press charges?

JuliusHMarx wrote:The ATP are free to do what they want. If everyone shared socal's view then very few people would care what Serena and the WTA said about them, and the ATP could simply ignore them. Charges of sexism and misogyny from a small minority, whose views are shared by very few, would not hold any weight, and would not affect them economically to any great extent. Perhaps the ATP cave in for no good reason (because they are run by the weaker sex?).

However, others hold the view that tennis is the product, not the ATP or the WTA, and that the men benefit from the likes of Serena, Venus, Steffi, Chrissie, Li Na etc. If the future of men's tennis is as bleak as some say, the ATP will be needing some female stars to prop it up pretty soon. Indeed, in the boring serve-fest 90s, which many people think was a big turn off, the women should probably have been paid more.

Obviously in some respects the women were a bigger draw at the US Open last year (given the speed of ticket sales for the respective finals) - so maybe they should have been paid more than the men in that case.

What about mixed doubles at the Grand Slams - should a popular male player get paid more than his partner, who may be less of a draw to the public?

Extortion is a criminal offense, by the way. Socal, would you like to press charges?

Great, so equal prize money for wheelchair tennis is only logical?

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The ATP are free to do what they want. If everyone shared socal's view then very few people would care what Serena and the WTA said about them, and the ATP could simply ignore them. Charges of sexism and misogyny from a small minority, whose views are shared by very few, would not hold any weight, and would not affect them economically to any great extent. Perhaps the ATP cave in for no good reason (because they are run by the weaker sex?).

However, others hold the view that tennis is the product, not the ATP or the WTA, and that the men benefit from the likes of Serena, Venus, Steffi, Chrissie, Li Na etc. If the future of men's tennis is as bleak as some say, the ATP will be needing some female stars to prop it up pretty soon. Indeed, in the boring serve-fest 90s, which many people think was a big turn off, the women should probably have been paid more.

Obviously in some respects the women were a bigger draw at the US Open last year (given the speed of ticket sales for the respective finals) - so maybe they should have been paid more than the men in that case.

What about mixed doubles at the Grand Slams - should a popular male player get paid more than his partner, who may be less of a draw to the public?

Extortion is a criminal offense, by the way. Socal, would you like to press charges?

Great, so equal prize money for wheelchair tennis is only logical?

I would have no objection if any tournament decided that it was in their overall best interests to pay wheelchair players the same prize money - would you?

What's the point of this argument / debate?  What are people arguing for?

Are they arguing for a CHANGE in policy at the slams & other tournaments where men & women competitions are held at the same time?  To change from an equal prize money split betw. men & women competitions to some differential split?  How likely is it that this will be implemented?

Are they arguing for NO CHANGE but some sort of recognition for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal amongst women tennis players, were all the women tennis are forced to get on their knees and perform certain deeds, symbolic or not so symbolic, to publicise their appreciation of these two men?

Are they arguing that life is UNFAIR?  That tennis is unfair against MEN in comparison with the Women?

So when push comes to shove - what is it all about?

Nore Staat wrote:What's the point of this argument / debate?  What are people arguing for?

Are they arguing for a CHANGE in policy at the slams & other tournaments where men & women tournaments are held at the same time?  To change from an equal prize money split betw. men & women competitions to some differential split?  How likely is it that this will be implemented?

Are they arguing for NO CHANGE but some sort of recognition for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, were all the women are forced to get on the knees and perform certain deeds to publicise their appreciation of these two men?

Are they arguing that life is UNFAIR?  That tennis is unfair against MEN in comparison with the Women?

So when push comes to shove - what is it all about?

Are you trying to suggest that discussions on here have no bearing on what happens in world sport? Well I never

MMT1 wrote: Because this is framed (by the women) as a moral/social issue, the bargaining position of the men is weak so the ball is in their court.

An interesting thing here is that although the MSM and the usual suspects make it a moral/social issue, the female players themselves tend not to.

Their first argument tends to be that their tennis has the same commercial worth as the men's.

This is currently complete nonsense (although it may, of course, change in the future).

But they can never be called on it because they are surround by the fire blanket of MSM presenting it as moral issue, thereby implying that that those who oppose it must therefore be immoral.

kingraf wrote:Are you trying to suggest that discussions on here have no bearing on what happens in world sport? Well I never

On a separate matter I am not sure what Raymond Moore was on about:

I hope he didn't mean that the male (& female?) tennis spectator would rather pay to watch men play tennis (notably Federer & Nadal) but not pay to watch women play tennis - instead the male tennis spectator would rather pay to have women get on their knees in front of them to show their appreciation for that payment.  One wonders whether some think that such tournaments should have only male tennis competitions, with the women performing some other spectacle such as mud wrestling or something for a comparable payment / entrance fee (Raymond Moore did make a big thing about the women having other "attractions" other than the straight tennis competitive play).

If the argument is that spectators would pay more to watch men play tennis rather than women, then they should have separate tournaments.  You can't just add women to a male tournament for decorative purposes.  You either include them in the tournament on an equal basis or you don't include them at all.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35878010

Murray bigging up Serena.

It's odd isn't it?

Murray does like a powerful female role model, doesn't he?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The ATP are free to do what they want. If everyone shared socal's view then very few people would care what Serena and the WTA said about them, and the ATP could simply ignore them. Charges of sexism and misogyny from a small minority, whose views are shared by very few, would not hold any weight, and would not affect them economically to any great extent. Perhaps the ATP cave in for no good reason (because they are run by the weaker sex?).

However, others hold the view that tennis is the product, not the ATP or the WTA, and that the men benefit from the likes of Serena, Venus, Steffi, Chrissie, Li Na etc. If the future of men's tennis is as bleak as some say, the ATP will be needing some female stars to prop it up pretty soon. Indeed, in the boring serve-fest 90s, which many people think was a big turn off, the women should probably have been paid more.

Obviously in some respects the women were a bigger draw at the US Open last year (given the speed of ticket sales for the respective finals) - so maybe they should have been paid more than the men in that case.

What about mixed doubles at the Grand Slams - should a popular male player get paid more than his partner, who may be less of a draw to the public?

Extortion is a criminal offense, by the way. Socal, would you like to press charges?

Great, so equal prize money for wheelchair tennis is only logical?

I would have no objection if any tournament decided that it was in their overall best interests to pay wheelchair players the same prize money - would you?

It's not my tournament so they can do what they like.

I'd think it was absolutely stupid and mock them for it, and react very furiously if anyone suggested I should stop saying that because of presumed ism to disabled people. I'd also happily argue with anyone who thought it made sense, and might well go on a moan about the corrosive effects of stupid people.

I'm just delighted to get some progress on the fact that equal prize money is either stupid in principle or correct for all classes of event, not just for the women's game.

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The ATP are free to do what they want. If everyone shared socal's view then very few people would care what Serena and the WTA said about them, and the ATP could simply ignore them. Charges of sexism and misogyny from a small minority, whose views are shared by very few, would not hold any weight, and would not affect them economically to any great extent. Perhaps the ATP cave in for no good reason (because they are run by the weaker sex?).

However, others hold the view that tennis is the product, not the ATP or the WTA, and that the men benefit from the likes of Serena, Venus, Steffi, Chrissie, Li Na etc. If the future of men's tennis is as bleak as some say, the ATP will be needing some female stars to prop it up pretty soon. Indeed, in the boring serve-fest 90s, which many people think was a big turn off, the women should probably have been paid more.

Obviously in some respects the women were a bigger draw at the US Open last year (given the speed of ticket sales for the respective finals) - so maybe they should have been paid more than the men in that case.

What about mixed doubles at the Grand Slams - should a popular male player get paid more than his partner, who may be less of a draw to the public?

Extortion is a criminal offense, by the way. Socal, would you like to press charges?

Great, so equal prize money for wheelchair tennis is only logical?

I would have no objection if any tournament decided that it was in their overall best interests to pay wheelchair players the same prize money - would you?

It's not my tournament so they can do what they like.

I'd think it was absolutely stupid and mock them for it...

But that would assume that you know better than they do what is in the overall best interests of their tournaments. If you made a business decision for your company, wouldn't you feel better placed to make that decision than the tournament director of Indian Wells?

Bogbrush wheelchair disability point is a worthy point.  

What can be said is that men and women's wheelchair singles competition have identical prize money.  

But this prize money is less than the men and women's open singles competition (abled bodied).  

But the structure of the competition is different for wheelchair tennis and the "able bodied" tennis: less rounds and no qualifying - the wheelchair competition itself is smaller (less rounds, less competitors).  It is also a one week competition rather than a two week competition played from the beginning of the second week.  

It is these difference that can be used to legitimate the difference in prize money between the able bodied and the wheelchair competition within the same umbrella tournament.

Ps: It could also be argued that wheelchair tennis is a different sport to "tennis". Is wheelchair tennis open to able bodied people - people that are not wheelchair bound and have perfectly functioning legs?

I'm not sure I'm following JHM's point. Surely the reason why the tournaments decided to pay equal prize money is a relevant consideration.

If the main concern was negative publicity from a vocal section of society and an "easy life", then that's a decision in their power to make. However, that doesn't alter the underlying question of whether that vocal section of society had a valid point to start with.

One only has to see the backlash Novak has received to understand why that easy life is preferable.

Nore Staat wrote:But the structure of the competition is different for wheelchair tennis and the "able bodied" tennis: less rounds and no qualifying - the wheelchair competition itself is smaller (less rounds, less competitors).  It is also a one week competition rather than a two week competition played from the beginning of the second week.  

It is these difference that can be used to legitimate the difference in prize money between the able bodied and the wheelchair competition within the same umbrella tournament.

If the size of the workload is a valid argument, then 7 rounds of bo5 should be paid more than 7 rounds of bo3.

BB's logic is rock solid here. Either:

- there's a moral obligation to pay all competitors the same. In which case wheelchair and doubles should receive the same payment as the singles.

or

- there's a recognition that different competitions have different financial values. In which case there is no obligation for the women's competition and men's competition to have identical prize money.

HM Murdock wrote:

MMT1 wrote: Because this is framed (by the women) as a moral/social issue, the bargaining position of the men is weak so the ball is in their court.

An interesting thing here is that although the MSM and the usual suspects make it a moral/social issue, the female players themselves tend not to.

Their first argument tends to be that their tennis has the same commercial worth as the men's.

This is currently complete nonsense (although it may, of course, change in the future).

But they can never be called on it because they are surround by the fire blanket of MSM presenting it as moral issue, thereby implying that that those who oppose it must therefore be immoral.

I'm not sure about that. Venus very much focussed on morality in her 2006 attack on Wimbledon's prize money structure. Serena's comments yesterday were in a similar vein (would Novak want to tell a daughter that she was worth less than a son...). It's an easy win and avoids dealing with the real issues.

HM Murdock wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:But the structure of the competition is different for wheelchair tennis and the "able bodied" tennis: less rounds and no qualifying - the wheelchair competition itself is smaller (less rounds, less competitors).  It is also a one week competition rather than a two week competition played from the beginning of the second week.  

It is these difference that can be used to legitimate the difference in prize money between the able bodied and the wheelchair competition within the same umbrella tournament.

"A" If the size of the workload is a valid argument, then 7 rounds of bo5 should be paid more than 7 rounds of bo3.

"B" BB's logic is rock solid here. Either:

- there's a moral obligation to pay all competitors the same. In which case wheelchair and doubles should receive the same payment as the singles.

or

- there's a recognition that different competitions have different financial values. In which case there is no obligation for the women's competition and men's competition to have identical prize money.[/b]

"A" "Workload" has long been discredited as a sensible argument.  Walkovers, 6-0 6-0 6-0, etc, time spent on court.  It's a nonsense argument because it is a competition with the sole objective of winning rather than losing.

"B" You haven't engaged with what I said so I will leave it there.

Born Slippy wrote:I'm not sure about that. Venus very much focussed on morality in her 2006 attack on Wimbledon's prize money structure. Serena's comments yesterday were in a similar vein (would Novak want to tell a daughter that she was worth less than a son...). It's an easy win and avoids dealing with the real issues.

True.

But Serena's first responses were about how many times people tell her that they only watch her and Venus. I believe she also made similar comments to Andy Mummy about how much interest she generated at the USO.

Nore Staat wrote:[a] "Workload" has long been discredited as a sensible argument.  Walkovers, 6-0 6-0 6-0, etc, time spent on court.  It's a nonsense argument because it is a competition with the soul objective of winning and losing.

[b] You haven't engaged with what I said so I will leave it there.

I agree about the workload argument being discredited.

What was the distinction you were making about the wheelchair competition having fewer rounds and fewer competitors though? Why does that merit lower prize money if not on the grounds of workload?

Why have prize money in a tournament for players at all ?
Instead of basing it on how far players go through a tournament, why not base it on the estimated amount of revenue lost if that individual player didn't play ? That way it's totally fair and no one is stealing from each other like the mafia mob.
Djokovic would have to start paying his huge prize money back to Federer, and maybe send an apology for keeping it in his bank for this time ?

It Must Be Love wrote:Why have prize money in a tournament for players at all ?
Instead of basing it on how far players go through a tournament, why not base it on the estimated amount of revenue lost if that individual player didn't play ? That way it's totally fair and no one is stealing from each other like the mafia mob.
Djokovic would have to start paying his huge prize money back to Federer, and maybe send an apology for keeping it in his bank for this time ?

You keep reverting to this analogy in which players are freelancers, rather than employees contracted to the ATP. They sign up to compete under the terms the ATP negotiates.

This argument is about why one company receives the same amount as money as another company which generates more income for the host tournament.

You'll note also, that in the non-mandatory events, players can be freelance to an extent. See the appearance fees that Federer racks up from playing at places like Rotterdam and Halle.

HM Murdock wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:I'm not sure about that. Venus very much focussed on morality in her 2006 attack on Wimbledon's prize money structure. Serena's comments yesterday were in a similar vein (would Novak want to tell a daughter that she was worth less than a son...). It's an easy win and avoids dealing with the real issues.

True.

But Serena's first responses were about how many times people tell her that they only watch her and Venus. I believe she also made similar comments to Andy Mummy about how much interest she generated at the USO.

Which have validity (although there is a potential argument that the real comparison would be if an American man had been going for the grand slam). I suspect, given the focus on ticket sales in that specific year, that the usual position is that tickets for the men's final sell more swiftly than the women's.

I don't actually have an issue with equal prize money. It sends a good message. Its only when people start arguing that its sexist/unfair for women to potentially receive a lower sum (or indeed even for anyone to suggest that it might be) that I think its a debate worth having.

If Wimbledon suddenly produced data showing that their revenue over the past 10 years could be shown to be split 60%-40% in favour of men and announced they were splitting prize money in that way, would there be any reason to challenge that position (other than challenging the figures)? I've no doubt though that it would be heavily criticised for diminishing the women's event. Ironically, if the same situation arose in reverse, and the WTA was due to receive 60% of prize money, I suspect it would be seen as a victory for equality for women.

HM Murdock wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:[a] "Workload" has long been discredited as a sensible argument.  Walkovers, 6-0 6-0 6-0, etc, time spent on court.  It's a nonsense argument because it is a competition with the soul objective of winning and losing.

You haven't engaged with what I said so I will leave it there.

I agree about the workload argument being discredited.

What was the distinction you were making about the wheelchair competition having fewer rounds and fewer competitors though? Why does that merit lower prize money if not on the grounds of workload?

BIB: Womens & Mens Singles are equivalent competitions the only difference is in the sex.  Doubles is not an equivalent competition to the Singles.  Wheelchair tennis is not equivalent to the Singles (as I considered in one of my previous comments which includes number or weeks played and number of rounds).  Equivalent competitions in the same tournament have the same prize money.  Non-equivalent competitions in the same tournament have different prize money.

In another comment of mine I suggested that if one wants to offer different prize money based solely on the sex of the competition then that should be done in separate tournaments - which could be the same venue but displaced in time.

The three set - five set argument has also long been discredited because the women are prepared to play in five set competitions but five set competitions are not offered to them by the tournament organisers etc.  It's like women having to race 100 metres hurdles rather than 110 metres hurdles in athletics or women having to ride side-saddle rather than astride in Equestrian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:STACE-Esther_M.jpg

JuliusHMarx wrote:
But that would assume that you know better than they do what is in the overall best interests of their tournaments. If you made a business decision for your company, wouldn't you feel better placed to make that decision than the tournament director of Indian Wells?

Not at all, I just reserve my right to mock people for their bad calls. In this case it would be for their inability to run their businesses on rational grounds.

Nore Staat wrote:Bogbrush wheelchair disability point is a worthy point.  

What can be said is that men and women's wheelchair singles competition have identical prize money.  

But this prize money is less than the men and women's open singles competition (abled bodied).  

But the structure of the competition is different for wheelchair tennis and the "able bodied" tennis: less rounds and no qualifying - the wheelchair competition itself is smaller (less rounds, less competitors).  It is also a one week competition rather than a two week competition played from the beginning of the second week.  

It is these difference that can be used to legitimate the difference in prize money between the able bodied and the wheelchair competition within the same umbrella tournament.

Ps: It could also be argued that wheelchair tennis is a different sport to "tennis".  Is wheelchair tennis open to able bodied people - people that are not wheelchair bound and have perfectly functioning legs?

Oh so it relates to hours on the Court? Like playing bo3 rather than bo5?

The real reason is unintentionally given in your last sentence; "It is these difference that can be used to legitimate the difference in prize money". Can be used to defend something that only needs a contrived defence because the common sense defence undermines the "case" for equal womens prize money.

EDit: Oops, just read back and saw that Murdock had already eviscerated this argument.

Born Slippy wrote:I'm not sure about that. Venus very much focussed on morality in her 2006 attack on Wimbledon's prize money structure. Serena's comments yesterday were in a similar vein (would Novak want to tell a daughter that she was worth less than a son...). It's an easy win and avoids dealing with the real issues.

I'm sure he wouldn't, but that's completely off the point anyway since payment for tennis has nothing to do with a persons worth..

He might well be prepared to explain to his daughter that her tennis had less commercial value than her brother's. No harm in that.

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Bogbrush wheelchair disability point is a worthy point.  

What can be said is that men and women's wheelchair singles competition have identical prize money.  

But this prize money is less than the men and women's open singles competition (abled bodied).  

But the structure of the competition is different for wheelchair tennis and the "able bodied" tennis: less rounds and no qualifying - the wheelchair competition itself is smaller (less rounds, less competitors).  It is also a one week competition rather than a two week competition played from the beginning of the second week.  

It is these difference that can be used to legitimate the difference in prize money between the able bodied and the wheelchair competition within the same umbrella tournament.

Ps: It could also be argued that wheelchair tennis is a different sport to "tennis".  Is wheelchair tennis open to able bodied people - people that are not wheelchair bound and have perfectly functioning legs?

"A" Oh so it relates to hours on the Court? Like playing bo3 rather than bo5?

The real reason is unintentionally given in your last sentence; "It is these difference that can be used to legitimate the difference in prize money". Can be used to defend something that only needs a contrived defence because the common sense defence undermines the "case" for equal womens prize money.

EDit: Oops, just read back and saw that Murdock had already eviscerated this argument.

"A" No it doesn't relate to hours on the court. Murdock didn't eviscerate my comment.

As you haven't engaged with what I have written I will stop here.

HM Murdock wrote:
You keep reverting to this analogy in which players are freelancers, rather than employees contracted to the ATP. They sign up to compete under the terms the ATP negotiates.

Yes, and why does the ATP not split the money fairly ? And by 'fair' I mean base it on revenue each player brings in ?

HM Murdock wrote:
You'll note also, that in the non-mandatory events, players can be freelance to an extent. See the appearance fees that Federer racks up from playing at places like Rotterdam and Halle.

See, exactly my point.