"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

Can't believe that Chris Evert stated it must be a "cultural" issue which led to Novak's comments.

Born Slippy wrote:Can't believe that Chris Evert stated it must be a "cultural" issue which led to Novak's comments.

Why? Maybe she's right. Maybe in Central Europe they are a few decades behind the further West in terms of being in thrall to this idiocy, and thus the roots of Djokovic's willingness to make a straightforward observation on the facts does indeed reflect the culture he was brought up in; one that has very recently had actual important things to worry about rather than contrived victim cultures like the 3rd wave feminist movement.

And why does that trouble you? What exactly is offensive about what she says?

What's not to believe? She is right, Djoko taking off his real mask and getting into a proper peasant mood, with $300M+ in the Bank and moans about more money and how ladies are worth and should earn less, which is exactly the way and the culture he was brought up, including t-shirt ripping, swearing at the public, hiding in tax-free countries, etc etc.

Djoko embarrassing the whole ATP tour and playing a smart a$$ for no reason, and then backtracking on whole thing with I am for equal pay yesterday.

Chicken little he is, accidental No:1 still trying to be loved.

And heeerrreeee comesssss Socal!

Not if Trump wins

socal1976 wrote:
I mean you keep talking like this is a win for the ATP tour and Federer, how, where is it, how much is it, how does it make up for a couple million in pilfering at each event through threats of blackmail? I have read hundreds of words from you on the issue and have yet to figure out what benefit the men, Federer or anyone on the ATP gets for being shaken down. Next you are going to tell me that the students at Trump University got something for their investment, Trump University was more beneficial than the supposed benefit that you talk about that no one but you can see. If the WTA had less or more money how would that have impacted the rise of Federer? I mean don't you state yourself that women like tennis and it has nothing to do with the WTA raking the ATP prize pool at events, so what benefit?

OK, I think we're not quite on the same wavelength on to his one; so we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think you slightly get what I'm saying; but not totally. It isn't that Federer himself now benefits from equal pay. As I said, Federer could easily boycott any 'mandatory' Masters 1000 now, and because he's a revenue raiser, he'd probably get a decent amount of money which would make him paid more than any female athlete and also the rest of the ATP tour.
But just like you argued that Federer shouldn't demand his proportionate amount from the ATP tour because the ATP helped him with their structure (i.e. it's obvious that throughout his career he's been 'ripped off' by mandatory tournaments in the fact that his prize money has not reflected revenue brought in); the WTA also indirectly helped his commercial success. My point about how the establishment of the women's game into the mainstream helped bring women to tennis is quite obvious, it's clear logic.

Socal, if it makes you feel any better, the people who are 'ripped off' due to prize money, are raking in the cash with huge sponsorship and appearance fees at non mandatory events. Djokovic is not in poverty, I'm not going to shed any tears if he could have made slightly more prize money when he gets tonnes of cash from other sources. Plus he himself has benefitted from Federer and Nadal raising profile of the game.
If you then say, oh it's not Djokovic I'm worried about but the lower ranked men who are struggling to make a living... you can't make an argument for the extra pay of the lower ranked on the basis of how prize money should be connected to revenue brought in. That's like arguing you need a McDonald at every street corner to try and tackle obesity.

summerblues wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:Pathetic. Symptomatic of so much that is wrong with our culture.

Absolutely brilliant.

With posts like this, it is hard to believe you are a Nole fan.  I guess nobody is perfect.

Not hard to believe that HM is a Nole fan- this forum has shown that Djokovic fans like their hero are very pragmatic and also have a sense of humour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35888159

Disappointed in Novak's climbdown but allow me to highlight some of the utter bilge in this article:

Djokovic said he had received a message from Murray on Tuesday and that they had spoken "very openly and frankly" about the issue.

What's it got to do with Andy "Oedipus" Murray? Get down of your high horse and start worrying about your second serve rather than someone else's opinion.

Chris Evert, an 18-time Grand Slam champion, pointed to Djokovic's cultural upbringing as a possible reason behind some of his views.

"The Europeans were behind the Americans when it came to accepting equality," Evert said.

"I doubt you'd hear that as much from the American men players and I'm sort of applauding America for that."

What self-satisfied sneering. Yes, look at those European troglodytes and their backward views.

And yet, for all the furore in the media, I don't know anyone in 'real life' who is the least bit shocked by what Djokovic says.

Although as a millennial university student, can I just say that I've been triggered numerous times and am about to write a complaint to the admin of this website to try and no-platform anyone who disagreed with me so that 606v2 can continue to be a safe space.

It Must Be Love wrote:Although as a millennial university student, can I just say that I've been triggered numerous times and am about to write a complaint to the admin of this website to try and no-platform anyone who disagreed with me so that 606v2 can continue to be a safe space.  

I'm going to No-Platform you.
#RafaMustFall

HM Murdock wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Although as a millennial university student, can I just say that I've been triggered numerous times and am about to write a complaint to the admin of this website to try and no-platform anyone who disagreed with me so that 606v2 can continue to be a safe space.  

I'm going to No-Platform you.
#RafaMustFall

When was the last time you checked your privilege ?? Rafa is a Latino so therefore a minority so therefore he can't be criticised. #Rafacan'tfall

Your like of Rafa is quite clearly cultural appropriation and offends me.

Also, why are you calling Rafa "he"? You don't know which of the 82 genders Rafa identifies as. Your assumption shows your bigotry.

So Djoko after all talking to ladies, apologizing to them, and then changing his statement?

He should be banned from ATP for inciting hormonal & financial attack on females

Djokovic has form;

http://www.colombia.com/deportes/tenis/sdi/7782/rafa-nadal-y-nole-se-ganaron-el-corazon-de-los-colombianos

cultural appropriater*!


* as explained, Rafa is exempt as a minority.

HM Murdock wrote:Your like of Rafa is quite clearly cultural appropriation and offends me.

Also, why are you calling Rafa "he"? You don't know which of the 82 genders Rafa identifies as. Your assumption shows your bigotry.

Excuse me, the first thing I asked Rafa before I got his autograph is which of the 82 genders he was, and he confirmed he was pan-cis-trans gender and liked to be referred to as he.
And don't talk about cultural appropriation and support Djokovic, I still remember Djokovic's Nadal imitations with the grunting and forehand, that was the biggest case of cultural appropriation I've ever seen. What's the issue Djokovic and his supporters have with Nadal ? Are they Trump supporters ? Go and start building the wall on the southern border, it's gonna come in handy when everyone is so triggered when he's president that they try and escape to Mexico.

Sexist bigot.


Racist bigot.

bogbrush wrote:Djokovic has form;

http://www.colombia.com/deportes/tenis/sdi/7782/rafa-nadal-y-nole-se-ganaron-el-corazon-de-los-colombianos

cultural appropriater*!


* as explained, Rafa is exempt as a minority.

Djokovic should be banned from playing the French Open for the next decade to try and pay back some of his cis-white privilege and take away the guilt.

Also don't lie grandpa, we both know you're on your Blackberry, frantically trying to search up this new vocab millennials have introduced that HM and I are using.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Can't believe that Chris Evert stated it must be a "cultural" issue which led to Novak's comments.

Why? Maybe she's right. Maybe in Central Europe they are a few decades behind the further West in terms of being in thrall to this idiocy, and thus the roots of Djokovic's willingness to make a straightforward observation on the facts does indeed reflect the culture he was brought up in; one that has very recently had actual important things to worry about rather than contrived victim cultures like the 3rd wave feminist movement.

And why does that trouble you? What exactly is offensive about what she says?

Who said it was troubling me? I just find it quite amusing that, in debating a sexist comment, she made a sweeping generalisation based on nationality/culture. The clear implication was that those "backwards" Europeans just hadn't caught up with the enlightened views of the US. I'm sure she would be delighted if, in debating with her, someone said "I think you are wrong but that's understandable as you are a woman...".

HM Murdock wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35888159

Disappointed in Novak's climbdown but allow me to highlight some of the utter bilge in this article:

Djokovic said he had received a message from Murray on Tuesday and that they had spoken "very openly and frankly" about the issue.

What's it got to do with Andy "Oedipus" Murray? Get down of your high horse and start worrying about your second serve rather than someone else's opinion.

Chris Evert, an 18-time Grand Slam champion, pointed to Djokovic's cultural upbringing as a possible reason behind some of his views.

"The Europeans were behind the Americans when it came to accepting equality," Evert said.

"I doubt you'd hear that as much from the American men players and I'm sort of applauding America for that."

What self-satisfied sneering. Yes, look at those European troglodytes and their backward views.

And yet, for all the furore in the media, I don't know anyone in 'real life' who is the least bit shocked by what Djokovic says.

That bit about having a clear the air talk with Andy did amuse me. As you say, its hardly like Andy has any personal interest in the issue! His discussion with Stako on twitter was quite funny though.

Born Slippy wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35888159

Disappointed in Novak's climbdown but allow me to highlight some of the utter bilge in this article:

Djokovic said he had received a message from Murray on Tuesday and that they had spoken "very openly and frankly" about the issue.

What's it got to do with Andy "Oedipus" Murray? Get down of your high horse and start worrying about your second serve rather than someone else's opinion.

Chris Evert, an 18-time Grand Slam champion, pointed to Djokovic's cultural upbringing as a possible reason behind some of his views.

"The Europeans were behind the Americans when it came to accepting equality," Evert said.

"I doubt you'd hear that as much from the American men players and I'm sort of applauding America for that."

What self-satisfied sneering. Yes, look at those European troglodytes and their backward views.

And yet, for all the furore in the media, I don't know anyone in 'real life' who is the least bit shocked by what Djokovic says.

That bit about having a clear the air talk with Andy did amuse me. As you say, its hardly like Andy has any personal interest in the issue! His discussion with Stako on twitter was quite funny though.

Why hasn't got anything to do with Murray? Isn't he getting robbed of millions on a regular basis by the parasitic WTA or is that just Novak?

djlovesyou wrote:

Why hasn't got anything to do with Murray? Isn't he getting robbed of millions on a regular basis by the parasitic WTA or is that just Novak?

Murray and Novak are not owed anything. In fact they both owe Rafa and Roger.

hawkeye wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:

Why hasn't got anything to do with Murray? Isn't he getting robbed of millions on a regular basis by the parasitic WTA or is that just Novak?

Murray and Novak are not owed anything. In fact they both owe Rafa and Roger.

Yes. I know. It's what I've said all along.

Well - nobody owes anybody anything is more my point.

Of course they do, but he sends a few chewing gums as humanitarian aid every year

djlovesyou wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35888159

Disappointed in Novak's climbdown but allow me to highlight some of the utter bilge in this article:

Djokovic said he had received a message from Murray on Tuesday and that they had spoken "very openly and frankly" about the issue.

What's it got to do with Andy "Oedipus" Murray? Get down of your high horse and start worrying about your second serve rather than someone else's opinion.

Chris Evert, an 18-time Grand Slam champion, pointed to Djokovic's cultural upbringing as a possible reason behind some of his views.

"The Europeans were behind the Americans when it came to accepting equality," Evert said.

"I doubt you'd hear that as much from the American men players and I'm sort of applauding America for that."

What self-satisfied sneering. Yes, look at those European troglodytes and their backward views.

And yet, for all the furore in the media, I don't know anyone in 'real life' who is the least bit shocked by what Djokovic says.

That bit about having a clear the air talk with Andy did amuse me. As you say, its hardly like Andy has any personal interest in the issue! His discussion with Stako on twitter was quite funny though.

Why hasn't got anything to do with Murray? Isn't he getting robbed of millions on a regular basis by the parasitic WTA or is that just Novak?

I don't think I've suggested anyone is being robbed. My only point is that there could be valid reasons why the ATP players might consider they should receive a larger share of the money allocated as prize money and they should not automatically be deemed sexist for daring to suggest a different divide..

If Murray doesn't think that then that's his opinion but he isn't within the class of people directly affected by Novak's comments (if they were seen as inappropriate and worthy of an explanation/apology).

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Djokovic has form;

http://www.colombia.com/deportes/tenis/sdi/7782/rafa-nadal-y-nole-se-ganaron-el-corazon-de-los-colombianos

cultural appropriater*!


* as explained, Rafa is exempt as a minority.

Djokovic should be banned from playing the French Open for the next decade to try and pay back some of his cis-white privilege and take away the guilt.

Also don't lie grandpa, we both know you're on your Blackberry, frantically trying to search up this new vocab millennials have introduced that HM and I are using.

Don't diss my credentials for being down with the kids!

Any case, most of you millenniels* would die for what some of us wiser heads have; complete and utter disinterest in how we're perceived by others. I tell you, if I could be younger I'd only take it on condition I get to keep where my head is now!

* present company excepted, I think there's some secure heads on here.

Poor Raymond Moore. Perhaps the Slams and MSes should be separated along the gender lines for a season as an experiment to see what the gate revenues are.

laverfan wrote:Poor Raymond Moore. Perhaps the Slams and MSes should be separated along the gender lines for a season as an experiment to see what the gate revenues are.

Perhaps the tournaments should also have the seedings for the women's event decided by the TD as to which ones he thinks are the most 'attractive prospects'.

His comments were not appropriate for a person in his position, and he needed to resign. No sympathy here.

HM Murdock wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35888159

Disappointed in Novak's climbdown but allow me to highlight some of the utter bilge in this article:

Djokovic said he had received a message from Murray on Tuesday and that they had spoken "very openly and frankly" about the issue.

What's it got to do with Andy "Oedipus" Murray? Get down of your high horse and start worrying about your second serve rather than someone else's opinion.

Chris Evert, an 18-time Grand Slam champion, pointed to Djokovic's cultural upbringing as a possible reason behind some of his views.

"The Europeans were behind the Americans when it came to accepting equality," Evert said.

"I doubt you'd hear that as much from the American men players and I'm sort of applauding America for that."

What self-satisfied sneering. Yes, look at those European troglodytes and their backward views.

And yet, for all the furore in the media, I don't know anyone in 'real life' who is the least bit shocked by what Djokovic says.

By the way the headlines walked back his comments a bit, but I have seen different quotes and he didn't retract his statement. He still mentions that "we should fight for what we think is right" and he also mentioned how the ratings and numbers are better for the men. It was not quite a complete apology or retraction, although he tried to walk it back he did restate the main point of his argument that are numbers are better and we should stand up for something different. But of course the media simply reported as a complete renunciation of his terrible mistake.

It Must Be Love wrote:
My point about how the establishment of the women's game into the mainstream helped bring women to tennis is quite obvious, it's clear logic.

And I don't agree with this at all if the WTA made less or more money at tournaments that would have no impact whatsoever for Federer's rise. Lets see why the ATP should be partners with Federer 1. He got a lot of paydays in 01,02,03 when he wasn't the draw and became famous on the men's tour
2. He got 100 million in prize money (plus multimillions in appearance fees). And what the WTA has given Federer 1. ZERO

By the way the WTA existed for 32 years without raking and raiding the pot of Male athletes through false charges of sexism, and in fact they were a better tour then they are now.

What people are missing in this argument completely is that rewarding this behavior is what sends a disgusting and odious message not only to young women but society as a whole. Serena and the WTA stars are sending the message that if you smear and use false charges of victimization and sexism, if you are vocal enough, if you resist logic and reason against your position, and if you mercilessly destroy in the media anyone who argues against you; then you can appropriate money from others that you yourself can not earn. I agree unfortunately that many women have this sense of entitlement today as many men do as well. The odious conduct of Serena, Martina, BJK and the rest of them who are using a media campaign of terror to extort money that in no other field would they get paid is what is destructive to the sport and society at large. Frankly, the negative message to society is not by the comments of Moore, Simon, or Djokovic but in the awful actions of the WTA.

Furthermore, they are by piggy backing on to feminism and civil rights when in actuality there is no sexism at work here just a naked money grab by already well compensated athletes; they actually drown out real instances of discrimination and discredit the rest of the real cases. Its the boy who cried Wolf analogy, by crying sexism to cover their naked money grab over and over again they basically increase societies tolerance for real oppression. Because when the next person who has a real case of sexual discrimination speaks out people will react just like how BB, Murdoch, and I reacted. "Oh god not this scam again". Because it is now being used as a weapon to get over regardless of fairness.

laverfan wrote:Poor Raymond Moore. Perhaps the Slams and MSes should be separated along the gender lines for a season as an experiment to see what the gate revenues are.

Yes lost in this is that this guys near life long commitment to building the best Masters and the biggest tourney on the entire West Coast is forgotten. And he was ruined and smeared for actually just telling the truth. This is the cost of the mafiaoso conduct of vile people like BJK, Martina, and Serena who demand not only to get millions they can't earn on their own, but who will destroy anyone who even questions their right to other people's money.

 disgusting and odious message

 

mercilessly destroy in the media

 

The odious conduct of Serena

 

using a media campaign of terror

the awful actions of the WTA.

Haha. And I got a reprimand for the mere suggestion that this was a topic that got people a 'little bit emotional'.

socal1976 wrote:And what the WTA has given Federer 1. ZERO

We will have to agree to disagree Socal, I don't think we will reach a common position on this one.
I don't think the WTA have given Federer 'zero'- I'm not saying that equal pay itself has helped Federer's commercial success; but the fact the WTA has been well established for many decades has indirectly helped Federer by expanding tennis' outreach.

What people are missing in this argument completely is that rewarding this behavior is what sends a disgusting and odious message not only to young women but society as a whole.

I fully agree with that, I don't like how this is being played out in the media, making it seem like those against equal pay are against equality which is clearly not the case.
Bearing that in mind, I still think I'm being reasonable when I believe in:
a) Equal pay in joint events, as it sends a good message out to younger generations who are thinking of taking up tennis
b) Less pay for the winners and runners up in events, and increase in pay for those who lose in lower rounds

I recognise that both things I'm suggesting above have strong arguments against them- namely that neither would make it more proportional to the revenue the players bring in. But this is a sport, it's not a normal industry- if you have a cleaner then you can have a clearly defined formula: If you clean this area for a certain amount of hours, you'll get £xyz; but sport is more complicated than that. Sport is a public good, the fact they are playing doesn't help anyone else in itself, but it's entertaining for others and can be positive on society if more people feel encouraged to take it up.
Life is tough for the world number 200 in men's, they have probably sacrificed a lot and are incredible at tennis to be in the top 200; but financial problems can mean they have to quit the sport. It's even worse for the world number 200 WTA player. If parents, coaches, fans see many cases of how risky choosing tennis as a career is, maybe they will start to not take the risk. Frankly I wouldn't cry too much if the ITF/ATP/WTA decreased the income of Nadal so he can't buy a second Ferrari, and gave it to a lower ranked women player who is struggling with the costs.

djlovesyou wrote:

 disgusting and odious message

 

mercilessly destroy in the media

 

The odious conduct of Serena

 

using a media campaign of terror

the awful actions of the WTA.

Haha. And I got a reprimand for the mere suggestion that this was a topic that got people a 'little bit emotional'.

Not by me. As long as you don't post personal insults to other posters I would have no problem with you vociferously arguing your position with strong and forceful language. But I am not the moderator.

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote:Poor Raymond Moore. Perhaps the Slams and MSes should be separated along the gender lines for a season as an experiment to see what the gate revenues are.

Yes lost in this is that this guys near life long commitment to building the best Masters and the biggest tourney on the entire West Coast is forgotten. And he was ruined and smeared for actually just telling the truth. This is the cost of the mafiaoso conduct of vile people like BJK, Martina, and Serena who demand not only to get millions they can't earn on their own, but who will destroy anyone who even questions their right to other people's money.

"I think the WTA have a handful -- not just one or two -- but they have a handful of very attractive prospects that can assume the mantle. You know, [Garbine Muguruza], Genie Bouchard. They have a lot of very attractive players. And the standard in ladies' tennis has improved unbelievably."

"I mean both. They are physically attractive and competitively attractive. They can assume the mantle of leadership once Serena decides to stop. I think they've got ... they really have quite a few very, very attractive players."

It's not appropriate for a TD. This is completely apart from the other stuff you're angry about - the resignation was only in a small part about his comments on equal prizes.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Djokovic has form;

http://www.colombia.com/deportes/tenis/sdi/7782/rafa-nadal-y-nole-se-ganaron-el-corazon-de-los-colombianos

cultural appropriater*!


* as explained, Rafa is exempt as a minority.

Djokovic should be banned from playing the French Open for the next decade to try and pay back some of his cis-white privilege and take away the guilt.

Also don't lie grandpa, we both know you're on your Blackberry, frantically trying to search up this new vocab millennials have introduced that HM and I are using.

Don't diss my credentials for being down with the kids!

Any case, most of you millenniels* would die for what some of us wiser heads have; complete and utter disinterest in how we're perceived by others. I tell you, if I could be younger I'd only take it on condition I get to keep where my head is now!

* present company excepted, I think there's some secure heads on here.

Bogbrush, you were clearly out of control as a youngster and I believe still very wild until recently, when my calm and sobering influence saw you let go of your rabid Fed-worshipping libertarian-glorifying lifestyle and become the sane wise man we see today.

We will have to agree to disagree Socal, I don't think we will reach a common position on this one.
I don't think the WTA have given Federer 'zero'- I'm not saying that equal pay itself has helped Federer's commercial success; but the fact the WTA has been well established for many decades has indirectly helped Federer by expanding tennis' outreach.
IMBL




Hold it right here, the WTA starting raiding the male pots in the mid 2000s, is their tour better now than it was prior to that point? And the WTA had their own profitable tour that is still profitable before and after this rule. So this rule, is unfair, and doesn't actually support the goal you are trying to forward. Women were involved in tennis and fighting to make it as a pro long before this rule, so why should we keep a rule that you agree is unfair to men? Do you want to send 20 percent of your bonus or salary to a woman coworker to send a message? The WTA existed long before this rule and if you change it, it will still exist. So why are you even arguing the establishment of the WTA as value in favor of this rule, one thing doesn't cause the other and never has?[/quote]

Hold it right here, the WTA starting raiding the male pots in the mid 2000s,

But the male prize money never stopped rising at a rate well above inflation. In fact since the mid 2000s the male prizemoney has risen faster than it did before Novak starting getting fleeced for millions.

If you can provide any evidence that if the female prize money was lower than the men's that the men's prize-money pot would be higher now, I'd appreciate it - otherwise....it kinda leaves the whole 'raiding the male pot' argument as being rather flimsy.

I fully agree with that, I don't like how this is being played out in the media, making it seem like those against equal pay are against equality which is clearly not the case.
Bearing that in mind, I still think I'm being reasonable when I believe in:
a) Equal pay in joint events, as it sends a good message out to younger generations who are thinking of taking up tennis

IMBL


So you agree that not only is the rule unfair to male players, it is also damaging and destructive that proponents of equal pay for less ratings and the media are attacking those who oppose it unfairly. Yet then your conclusion is that because it sends some "right" kind of message it is ok. No, it isn't ok because it sends the exact wrong kind of message to kids. If you want to send a positive message to kids you would tell WTA stars to shut up and if they can earn that kind of money go earn it at their own events. Being reasonable wouldn't be saying that the proponents are wrongly using sexism smears and demanding money that is not appropriately earned, so then we need to do what they ask because we want to send a positive message to kids? No I want to send kids the exact opposite message that just being the loudest and nastiest complainer doesn't mean you are entitled to other people's money.

socal1976 wrote:
So why are you even arguing the establishment of the WTA as value in favor of this rule, one thing doesn't cause the other and never has?

Sure, let me clarify
-You recognised that Federer has not got in prize money from the ITF/ATP, what he has brought in to the ITF/ATP tournaments are revenue. This is obvious, throughout his career there is a deficit for Federer financially between him and the ATP, you could argue he's been ripped off.
-But you said that this deficit was defensible, justifying it on the grounds that the ATP set up the structure that gave Federer to the opportunity to succeed. Remember Stakhovksy also has the same infrastructure of the ATP, but he's probably gained money because of people like Federer- (earned more in prize money than he's individually brought in); you thought it was ok for Fed to be in a deficit and Stak to be in a surplus because the ATP helped Federer in a general aspect.
-I'm also arguing that the establishment of the WTA into the mainstream has helped Federer, by bringing more women into the sport, and thus increasing the number of Federer fans and overall revenue for the ATP as well as ITF. The link is not as direct, that is clear, but to say that WTA has not helped the commercial success of Federer or the ATP is obviously untrue. So just like you justified Stak having a surplus at the expense of Federer's financial deficit- I think the same for the WTA vs Federer.
-The main parts of my arguments re funding in tennis are stated at my post at 6:11, and you can counter them if you wish. I am not saying people who disagree with me are bigoted, there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate.

socal1976 wrote:
So you agree that not only is the rule unfair to male players, it is also damaging and destructive that proponents of equal pay for less ratings and the media are attacking those who oppose it unfairly. Yet then your conclusion is that because it sends some "right" kind of message it is ok. No, it isn't ok because it sends the exact wrong kind of message to kids. If you want to send a positive message to kids you would tell WTA stars to shut up and if they can earn that kind of money go earn it at their own events.

No, I don't think the rule is unfair to male players. As I expanded on the bit you quoted, I don't necessarily see tennis's pay structure as one that should proportionately reflect what you bring in as revenue. It's a sport, they're not firefighters or freelancing bankers.
Yes, I do agree it's damaging that they oppose it on the grounds of sexism, I'm with you on that.
And finally, yes I do think that it (equal pay, not the whining by Serena) sends the right message to the younger generation; tennis is a global sport and played in many countries where women have not made progress like they have in a lot of the western world.

Out on grandstand Mathieu/Giraldo playing on a court that is jam packed. The commentators saying it says how popular these two players are Of course nothing to do with Nadal playing a doubles match next up.

This argument about distinguishing Federer / Nadal within the men's game is stupid. So ridiculous I can't be sure whether it's just a deflection.

No, it's not stupid, it's just you aging and becoming more mellow

temp, stop baning me for things you don't comprehend and that are factually true.

Getting residence in a tax shelter country is tax avoidance. See, I did not say tax evasion, thats something else.

But who am I explaining these to, drop the solicitor act, asap.

Jahu wrote:No, it's not stupid, it's just you aging and becoming more mellow

Yeah, it's dim. Just an attempt to deflect from the absurdity of equal prize money for men and women but nit for wheelchair, doubles, mixed doubles, etc.

Agree, take the top 2, and use it as ammunition to knock any argument over the isle.

bogbrush wrote:

Jahu wrote:No, it's not stupid, it's just you aging and becoming more mellow

Yeah, it's dim. Just an attempt to deflect from the absurdity of equal prize money for men and women but nit for wheelchair, doubles, mixed doubles, etc.

Do you think Wimbledon had it right when they gave about 10% more to the men?

Do you feel it doesn't really matter the how much more they give to the men, only that men get more than women?

I'm generally a fan of people getting what they earn through performance rather than extortion. On that basis, and given that the men indisputably have a market value about 3.5 - 4 times that of the women, 10% more would be tantamount to equal prize money.

djlovesyou wrote:

Hold it right here, the WTA starting raiding the male pots in the mid 2000s,

But the male prize money never stopped rising at a rate well above inflation. In fact since the mid 2000s the male prizemoney has risen faster than it did before Novak starting getting fleeced for millions.

If you can provide any evidence that if the female prize money was lower than the men's that the men's prize-money pot would be higher now, I'd appreciate it - otherwise....it kinda leaves the whole 'raiding the male pot' argument as being rather flimsy.

Well you have to get a context of the history. In the 80s and early to mid 90s the male champion would often receive 60 percent more than the female champion. This reflected the difference in the drawing power, the current TV deal for the men is somewhere around 260 or 270 percent larger than the Women's TV deal. In the 90s the protests started to gain traction and even prior to complete equality in 2007 we had the tournaments under huge pressure to cut the gap, so the gap went down to very close to equal from the 90s to mid 2000s.

So if you look at the women's total financial commitment in 1996 it was 62 percent lower than the Men's financial total commitment. (they don't give straight historical prize money on their site) The male financial commitment has gone up from 260 percent since 1996. From 1996 on the Tournament starting shrinking the gap due to pressure and then went fully equal in 2005. Since this policy has been enacted the Women's total financial commitment went up 400 percent. Where does the extra 140 percent of growth since the early successes of the equal prize money movement come from?

http://www.miamiopen.com/prize-money

Are you suggesting that in the Fedal golden age that the WTA just grew faster than the ATP since the mid 90s? Where does this money come from if not from the ATP's drawing power? And if it doesn't come from the ATP drawing power and its the WTA's drawing power why are they power less to get anywhere approaching that money on their own?

You see that if you look at the Financials of both tours compared to each other, most Women's 250s have a TOTAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT that is around a quarter of a million dollars. That is almost challenger money for the men. So its clear they haven't just outgrown the men's game since the mid 90s and clear that the bigger paydays they get in the coed events isn't due to their drawing power but the men's.