"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

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Ok so you find that the approach of the equal pay mafia has been wrong, so they should get rewarded for it? So you like the idea that people who can't earn that money on their own complaining and smearing others in the media for what they feel entitled to just because they can? You think kids should be taught to ignore reason and logic or arguments against your point of view, attack your opponents personally and smear them, and hold out for money that you didn't and couldn't earn on your own; yes that is a real positive message for kids. If talent doesn't work find a way to commercially and legally extort someone else.

Thank god I loathe children and therefore won't have to worry about their minds filled with this type of nonsense.

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 inIMBL

Yes you are worried about the lower ranked men, so am I. The health of tour depends on mid and lower ranked pros being good enough to make contests of these matches and to be watchable on their own. A lot of money goes into that, a lot of mid ranking players who don't get those endorsements need an extra five or ten thousand in first or second round payday. In effect what you are supporting is a system that takes that five or ten thousand from the Stakhovsky's of the world and puts it into a big pot of money for the women, and the lion's share of that money first gets distributed out to Serena "Rosa Parks" Williams and Maria Sharapova. Wow, so tax the working male players and the rich male players and the poor male players, and then give the majority of it to the top tier of the WTA. Yeah this stance of yours is so fair and just, men have to pay, and women have to receive. Talk about outdated and discriminatory.

So zero evidence that the men's prize-money has actually suffered?

That's all I wanted to know really.

Grand slam events routinely make 9 figure profits, and you're concerned that a relatively small concession to the women's prize-money is the reason the 'lower ranked men' are suffering financially?

Lower ranked men are doing just fine financially (given on this forum 5-20 is lower ranked, anything below that are useless hackers and they should get another job.)

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

LOL, where did this come from?

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.

While - some poor choice of words notwithstanding - Moore was probably largely correct, I still think it only makes sense he got fired.  I do not particularly feel sorry for him.

socal1976 wrote:

Ok so you find that the approach of the equal pay mafia has been wrong, so they should get rewarded for it?

No, my decision to side with equal pay has not been influenced at all by Serena's (or anyone else's) campaign.

Yes you are worried about the lower ranked men, so am I. The health of tour depends on mid and lower ranked pros being good enough to make contests of these matches and to be watchable on their own. A lot of money goes into that, a lot of mid ranking players who don't get those endorsements need an extra five or ten thousand in first or second round payday. In effect what you are supporting is a system that takes that five or ten thousand from the Stakhovsky's of the world and puts it into a big pot of money for the women, and the lion's share of that money first gets distributed out to Serena "Rosa Parks" Williams and Maria Sharapova.

I'm not supporting the current system- as I said I'd want to see prize money on both men and women's increased for earlier rounds, and a decrease for the winner and runner up.
My reasons for wanting equal pay though are not financial, as I said tennis is a global sport and played in many countries where women are not treated equally, and certainly the culture for young women is not great in terms of taking up sports/athletics. I like that huge tournaments like Wimbledon have equal pay, as I think that sends a positive message.

djlovesyou wrote:So zero evidence that the men's prize-money has actually suffered?

That's all I wanted to know really.

Grand slam events routinely make 9 figure profits, and you're concerned that a relatively small concession to the women's prize-money is the reason the 'lower ranked men' are suffering financially?

Lower ranked men are doing just fine financially (given on this forum 5-20 is lower ranked, anything below that are useless hackers and they should get another job.)

Yes, I showed you that the women's purses have grown way faster than the Men's under this system. Please go back and look at it. The women have had their purse at Miami grow by 400 percent and the men by 260, what makes you assume that massive increase is due to the women? It is obvious it is because of this equality rule, an extra 140 percent of growth siphoned off by the WTA, that isn't prejudicing the men than I don't know what is prejudicing. Are you telling me that without the drawing power of the Men they could have achieved a 400 percent increase, far outstripping the Men's growth. Because every dollar you pay more to the Men now counts as two dollars for tournament director, because not only do you have to pay Mr. ATP more you also have to pay the same amount to the less profitable WTA.

PS 400 percent since 1996, in the same period the men 260 percent, where did the extra 140 percent of growth come from the superior drawing power of the WTA?

djlovesyou wrote:So zero evidence that the men's prize-money has actually suffered?

That's all I wanted to know really.

Grand slam events routinely make 9 figure profits, and you're concerned that a relatively small concession to the women's prize-money is the reason the 'lower ranked men' are suffering financially?

Lower ranked men are doing just fine financially (given on this forum 5-20 is lower ranked, anything below that are useless hackers and they should get another job.)

You're moving off the point now.

What you see as zero evidence is actually pretty conclusive. Or can you identify the other reason why women's money has grown faster than men's through a period where the men's champions have been more marketable than ever before?

djlovesyou wrote:5-20 is lower ranked, anything below that are useless hackers and they should get another job

Yeah so the fairness and equality people now want to tax all the male players, not just the multimillionaires the players struggling to pay coaches, travel, and fitness trainers. Many of the ATP tours players are underwater financially and just chasing a dream. We should take a few grand away from them for qualifying pool it together and then pay out the lion's share of the money to Maria, Aza, and Serena Luther King. Because you know this whole equality thing is about fairness.

That's the only argument you've got.

There is no evidence that men have actually missed out on any money. I appreciate the women's money has gone up more in these events (it would have had to in order for the reward to become equal).

These events make a massive profit - they sacrificed a small amount of this profit it order to even things out, they didn't sacrifice money from the men's game, as much as you hope it does because it proves your point.

Your concern for the lower end of the men's game is admirable, it's almost as if you know who some of them are.

If you truly are concerned about the pay packets of the lower end of the top 100, you should look to the percentage the events give as prize-money compared to their profits for starters, or even (god forbid, I appreciate the thought of Novak's future starving children keeps you up at night) the share for early round losers compared to winner and finalist going up.

The WTA (and the women individually) are very convenient targets for your frustrations, but I feel their position has had zero bearing.

Lets simplify this.
We have shown that women only make about 35-40 % percent of the revenue for tournaments, but they gets close to the same prize pool.
First question, how is that possible? Second question, Is that actually equal?

If you cant keep personal sexist accusations out of this, then don't bother. WELL decide whether comments are motivated by sexism. Last chance

djlovesyou wrote:That's the only argument you've got.

There is no evidence that men have actually missed out on any money. I appreciate the women's money has gone up more in these events (it would have had to in order for the reward to become equal).

These events make a massive profit - they sacrificed a small amount of this profit it order to even things out, they didn't sacrifice money from the men's game, as much as you hope it does because it proves your point.

Your concern for the lower end of the men's game is admirable, it's almost as if you know who some of them are.

If you truly are concerned about the pay packets of the lower end of the top 100, you should look to the percentage the events give as prize-money compared to their profits for starters, or even (god forbid, I appreciate the thought of Novak's future starving children keeps you up at night) the share for early round losers compared to winner and finalist going up.

The WTA (and the women individually) are very convenient targets for your frustrations, but I feel their position has had zero bearing.

Its not a small sum of money since the push that started in the 90s and became full equality in 2005-07 the WTA has siphoned upwards of tens of millions of dollars at this rate maybe it has broken the 100 million mark or more  from the ATP tour ,disproportionately prejudicing the mid and lower level stars to feed the bulging wallets of Maria and Serena with the lion's share of that take. So are you telling me that Women's tour in the era of Fedal popularity outgrew the Men's tour by 140 percentage points, and the money came from nowhere as you claim? At least I have provided pretty irrefutable evidence that the men are losing growth in financial commitment to the women.

I also provided evidence that if you look at the analogous women's tournaments that are not coed, one example the 250s or entry level tournaments the women's events are at best receiving about 40 percent of the financial commitment that the men are for the separate 250s events that are not coed. Their format is a little different and not completely the same so I went with comparing the low end entry level for both tours. And in fact if you look at their second and third tier events the same differences in terms of financial draw exists at each level for the men.

In short, the women have siphoned off 1/3 of the financial growth at all the tournaments since the 90s equal prize money movement started to gain traction. Or we can just believe your hypothesis that all these extra tens and probably hundreds of millions in the last two decades just magically appeared from nowhere.

There I produced two facts that the show without doubt that the money comes from the men, the women can't earn it on their own or they would in their separate events, and that they are damaging the men with these equal pay for less profitibality model they are pushing by sucking up the lion's share of the growth at the live events. That is exactly two more factual references in my argument compared to your argument that all these extra millions year in and year out comes from nowhere, which you supported by producing nothing because as long as the men grow faster than inflation they aren't being harmed.

socal1976 wrote:

the WTA has siphoned upwards of tens of millions of dollars at this rate maybe it has broken the 100 million mark or more  from the ATP tour

The ATP don't pay the players - the tournaments do.

Disproportionately prejudicing the mid and lower level stars to feed the bulging wallets of Maria and Serena with the lion's share of that take

Again, only if you believe the prize-money for the men's game has been hit in the slightest by equal prize-money (it hasn't by the way)

So are you telling me that Women's tour in the era of Fedal popularity outgrew the Men's tour by 140 percentage points

,

Nobody has said that. Where has anyone said that (besides you who keeps on saying people are saying that.)

and the money came from nowhere as you claim?

Wimbledon makes $75 million profit per year - a couple of million to even out the prize pools (and the good press that comes with it) is hardly a massive problem for them. Is it too much of a stretch the believe they sacrificed a small amount of their profit instead of 'stealing' from the men? Think for a second.

At least I have provided pretty irrefutable evidence that the men are losing growth in financial commitment to the women.

No, you've provided evidence that the prize pool for the women (in these 7 or so events) has risen more than the men (which, if they go from non even prize-money to even prize-money it would have to, doesn't take a mathematically genius.

I also provided evidence that if you look at the analogous women's tournaments that are not coed

Absolutely, true, I agree the men's tour is more successful, I never disagreed. Also irrelevant when compared to the coed events though.

In short, the women have siphoned off 1/3 of the financial growth at all the tournaments since the 90s equal prize money movement started to gain traction. Or we can just believe your hypothesis that all these extra tens and probably hundreds of millions in the last two decades just magically appeared from nowhere.

Or the events just sacrificed a small amount of profit (did I mention the large profits these events make?)

There I produced two facts that the show without doubt that the money comes from the men.

Read above.

Ok right just a heads up

I don't appreciate getting sh*tty PM's from people due to this thread whilst im finishing up my thesis, so Ill make this clear

1) Not agreeing with equal prize money does not automatically make you a sexist. On the other hand, agreeing with it doesn't make you a feminazi either. Theres a debate about social statements versus profit and revenue here.

2) If we cant get over this hump of accusing people of discriminating one sex over another when things get heated, then this may well get locked, cos its going nowhere

Or worse, Ill get Ziggler to moderate it...

djlovesyou wrote:

The WTA (and the women individually) are very convenient targets for your frustrations, but I feel their position has had zero bearing.

Is that the comment you're taking issue with?

It's quite clear that socal blames the WTA and some of the big name players (at least to a reasonable degree) for the men not making as much money as he feels they should. He would agree with me on that one.

I didn't for a second suggest it was because he was sexist.

summerblues wrote:

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

LOL, where did this come from?

Things like this are a lot more clear cut, so much so that another user quoted it for me.
Back to the conversation

temporary21 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

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

LOL, where did this come from?

Things like this are a lot more clear cut, so much so that another user quoted it for me.
Back to the conversation

That's not clear cut at all, DJ could just be talking about how the importance of ATP pot vs WTA pot seems to be inflated compared to the importance of tournament profit vs ATP & WTA pot combined.

It was directly asked if Socal felt that it only mattered to him that men got more than women. Which isn't relevant, unlike the point you make there, but it also cant really be taken another way.

temporary21 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

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

LOL, where did this come from?

Things like this are a lot more clear cut, so much so that another user quoted it for me.
Back to the conversation

That's how it used to be though.

The difference in the Wimbledon prize funds was less for the women, but only by a small amount to the point that it seemed like a symbolic difference. It also, despite the whole 'market share' argument, was never a bone of contention for the people who don't want equal prize-money - the small difference was enough to keep people happy (or indeed, completely ambivalent to any of it).

I feel the campaign against this was completely justified and the prize pots were correctly adjusted.

And besides, it was a question. The person I was asking was free to answer it as they pleased.

temporary21 wrote:It was directly asked if Socal felt that it only mattered to him that men got more than women. Which isn't relevant, unlike the point you make there, but it also cant really be taken another way.

I think I asked bogbrush to be honest. And he answered the question - which I accepted.

Fair enough, ill accept that explanation this time. For future reference asking someone if it only matters to them than one gender gets more than another is directly asking them if theyre being discriminatory, which isn't great.

temporary21 wrote:Fair enough, ill accept that explanation this time. For future reference asking someone if it only matters to them than one gender gets more than another is directly asking them if theyre being discriminatory, which isn't great.

I have an issue with political correctness, it's quite annoying, and obviously in this debate I do think it's silly to assume that the argument against pay equality is sexist; but if you take anti-political correctness to these sorts of levels it gets silly as well- people should be allowed to ask whatever questions they like.

We live in sexism world, we make sex sometimes too, no forum can change that, let alone Djoko's comments

Temp, thanks for vigilance that question did have some insinuation in it, I don't know what you deleted but so far I think DJ has tried to keep it substantive. Again I don't know what goes on in pms or what has been deleted

socal1976 wrote:Temp, thanks for vigilance that question did have some insinuation in it, I don't know what you deleted but so far I think DJ has tried to keep it substantive. Again I don't know what goes on in pms or what has been deleted

Nothing's been deleted.

Absolutely, true, I agree the men's tour is more successful, I never disagreed. Also irrelevant when compared to the coed events though.



Quote from dj


Stop right here, in every sport, entertainment, or sales/marketing oriented field your statement is completely wrong. In fact ratings and drawing power determines in all these fields who gets the biggest cut of the revenues. If the world operated in the way you deem appropriate then Sally Field should demand equal money as DDL, because she acted in a starring role in the same movie. Or the best salesman would have to make the same as lesser salesmen. The odds are that while Sally has fans most people bought a ticket for DDL and not for Sally, therefore he makes a lot more. It is why the NFL can demand tens of billions in a TV contract and girl's lacrosse can't. So what you deem irrelevant is not only relevant but in every other Sport/business/entertainment it is by far the most relevant issue. If we can't agree on this basic assumption, which frankly I think is obvious to anyone that those who generate the most money should make the most money, then we won't agree on anything. You make a lot of other points in your response that I feel are incorrect. But from my perspective this is your fundamental error which makes it impossible for you or I to agree. You think the most relevant issue in the business of sports is irrelevant, and that the ladies deserve more for producing less just because you feel that is right. Fair enough, then we can agree to disagree, because if you want to claim ratings and who generates the revenue is irrelevant well we just won't get anywhere.

No deletion, no need
Fair play, perhaps its over pc from me, I don't like that either, but when you have a debate like this, it can get out of hand really fast in that way.

temporary21 wrote:No deletion, no need
Fair play, perhaps its over pc from me, I don't like that either, but when you have a debate like this, it can get out of hand really fast in that way.

Agreed but so far it has been fine by me

I'm pretty sure I'd read several times before (although unfortunately can't find anything to back this up) that at the Premier Mandatories, where the prize money has to be set at the same level as the joint ATP tournament, the WTA pays the tournaments to make for the lower WTA revenue. No idea how they calculate the payment given all that's been discussed before about sponsor income and ticket sales being for the tournament as a whole, with only TV rights being sold separately.

If I'm right on that, then indeed the women are not taking anything from the men. Or not on the regular tour anyway.

YvonneT wrote:I'm pretty sure I'd read several times before (although unfortunately can't find anything to back this up) that at the Premier Mandatories, where the prize money has to be set at the same level as the joint ATP tournament, the WTA pays the tournaments to make for the lower WTA revenue. No idea how they calculate the payment given all that's been discussed before about sponsor income and ticket sales being for the tournament as a whole, with only TV rights being sold separately.

If I'm right on that, then indeed the women are not taking anything from the men. Or not on the regular tour anyway.

Yes they are because now every dollar increase to the men you have to increase a dollar for women, therefore this acts as areal disincentive to increase the men's prize money or at least slow its growth. I have actually in any article I have read on the subject seen what you are arguing about them giving money back to the tournament. There is simply no way you can slice a system that demands equal compensation for the higher rated draw and the lower rated one , and have it not be a prejudice to the higher rated tour. But if you can provide a site that specifically tells us what that contract term is I would be very happy to see it, because it could be nothing or could be significant based on how it is written

socal1976 wrote:But if you can provide a site that specifically tells us what that contract term is I would be very happy to see it, because it could be nothing or could be significant based on how it is written

Can't find anything unfortunately, as it'd be interesting to see the detail.
However, surely you can compare how the prize fund has increased in recent years at IW/Miami/Madrid, where there is equality, against Cinci/Canada/Rome where the WTA prize fund is independent of the ATP's, or against Paris/Monte Carlo where the ATP go it alone to see if this arrangement is holding back increases for the men.

socal1976 wrote: those who generate the most money should make the most money

Then we're back to Federer and then Nadal who should make the most money, regardless of how they do and then Djokovic after that.

Oh wait....no....Djokovic gets to hang on their coat tails cause he's played them a few times.

The logical fallacy though here is that they are two separate entities basically. The ATP is its own thing, and the WTA is also.

Whats being argued here is because they are almost completely separate entities, there should not be pressure for both to be identical, the ATP should consider the prize pot for their event/part of the event, based on their tournaments revenue, and the same for the WTA.

That would mean of course that it would be hard for the WTA prize pots to be as good, through lower revenue, but that is NOT a social issue, its just how business works. It being a similar entity does not entitle the WTA to the same prize pots, just because of progressive attitudes, business should come first.

Hence this is NOT the same as sharing out prize money between people in the organisation. Despite the money being mostly made by the top ten, each entoty takes the decision, to invest in the lower ends, to help make careers and build future stars for its health

In short, they are separate, and need to take separate decisions on prize money. There should be no pressure for them to act the same, and if one IS taking money from the other, that's probably not fair.


OF COURSE the grand slams are different, men and women are both represented by the ITF there, hence they probably see it as good business to promote both equally, and set the same prize money. They COULD in theory, assert that one side makes more revenue than the other and set the prize pots accordingly
but they realise an equal stance makes them look great, and gets a lot more revenue and exposure for gs's as a whole.

EDIT: Also note that gender doesn't crop up in this dilemma at all. Gender is incidental, not central to the debate.


phew....

temporary21 wrote:The logical fallacy though here is that they are two separate company basically. The ATP is its own thing, and the WTA is also.

Whats being argued here is because they are almost completely separate businesses, there should not be pressure for both to be identical, the ATP should set the prize pot for their event/part of the event, based on their revenue, and the same for the WTA.

They're not businesses at all. they're sporting governing bodies.

The individual tournaments are businesses.

Bad terminology, but they ARE separate entities, with separate resources across tournaments. So the point still stands completely.

They do also need to consider the financial health of their respective games as well, so decisions based on business need be considered

temporary21 wrote:Bad terminology, but they ARE separate entities, with separate resources across tournaments. So the point still stands completely.

They do also need to consider the financial health of their respective games as well, so decisions based on business need be considered

So do you think it would be a good business decision for Indian Wells to take 2 million of it's female prize-money and add that on to the men's purse?

temporary21 wrote:Bad terminology, but they ARE separate entities, with separate resources across tournaments. So the point still stands completely.

But no, this isn't true. The tournaments are the ones with the resources, not the ATP or WTA.

In the co-ed events, they bring in sponsors based on the fact that they're co-ed. Maybe they're more interested in sponsoring the men, maybe they're not. But that's a simple fact.

Don't know, I actually don't really care too much, it being a co-ed event you could argue its a micro version of the situation with the ITF I guess. It DOES however create the situation which is causing the problem in which the ATP side is creating the more revenue, but ISNT seeing all the money. So two sitchs

1) some of the relative revenie from the ATP is going into the WTA prize pot, which is the argument at hand
2) the ATP is getting its prize pool fairly based on revenue, and the difference in the WTA pool is coming from somewhere else. Which one might argue is a false impression of equality, and hurts whoever is funding it.

In either case I don't really mind, but their merits should be debated without gender being any issue at all. Because THAT isn't an issue

temporary21 wrote:Don't know, I actually don't really care too much, it being a co-ed event you could argue its a micro version of the situation with the ITF I guess. It DOES however create the situation which is causing the problem in which the ATP side is creating the more revenue, but ISNT seeing all the money. So two sitchs

1) some of the relative revenie from the ATP is going into the WTA prize pot, which is the argument at hand
2) the ATP is getting its prize pool fairly based on revenue, and the difference in the WTA pool is coming from somewhere else. Which one might argue is a false impression of equality, and hurts whoever is funding it.

In either case I don't really mind, but their merits should be debated without gender being any issue at all. Because THAT isn't an issue

No.

The tournament makes the revenue and they distribute prizes as they see fit.

There is no revenue coming from the ATP that is going to the WTA pot.

I appreciate discussion on actual tennis matches between actual tennis players is rare on this forum, but at the end of day if a tournament is co-ed you see two identical tournaments (male and female) both with 50% of the population eligible to play - both where you have to win the same amount of matches to win the trophy.

If a prize is to do with achievement - give me a good reason why the winner of both events shouldn't get the same prize?

but the WTA set the rules for the prize pots, they assign tournaments to certain tiers, which comes with a set prize pool,
In these cases they share the venue, they share the prize pool but the separate events clearly indicate the revenue made is NOT split 50/50, see points 1 and 2 beforehand, that has to come from somewhere, which is whats being discussed

Prize money and achievement are correlated, they are not equivalent. Else we are saying a regular tour win is less of an achievement than a regular tour atp win, and the main point is were trying to avoid that.

More prestigious prizes come with more interest, which leads to a bigger prize pool in general, but available funds is still the driving force behind how much is earned.

temporary21 wrote:but the WTA set the rules for the prize pots, they assign tournaments to certain tiers, which comes with a set prize pool,
In these cases they share the venue, they share the prize pool but the separate events clearly indicate the revenue made is NOT split 50/50, see points 1 and 2 beforehand, that has to come from somewhere, which is whats being discussed

The tournaments don't have to be co-ed. they're private clubs, they can do whatever they want. These tennis clubs are not being forced to put on events.

If Indian Wells didn't want a women's event, they can just say - 'Hey, we don't want a women's event' and it would be all over. Would it make good business sense? I dunno, I guess not because it seems to be permanent fixture.

As for the WTA and ATP setting rules. Yes of course. They say 'you pay xxx money and you're a certain tier' It's up to the tournament as to whether they can provide that.

I think that's what people are not quite understanding. These are private clubs and every event is a separate entity. They're not being forced into anything.

Ok well this isnt getting anywhere, and hasn't been for days, so ill try this one

Indian wells agrees to be a coed tourney. This locks them onto an equal prize pool for both WTA and ATP. They get money from sponsors and all the like, these are also in large part given by the governing bodies. Most likely more money is made from one side than the other.

NOW the ONLY way equal pay is fair to both sides financially, is if the proportionate revenue form each side is enough to pay for the prize pools on their own. If it isn't then of course the ATP would be partly funding the WTA coed pool, which is bad.

IF IT ISNT, and the WTA revenue can fully fund the prize pool. THATS STILL BAD, the ATP players can complain that they're getting a poor deal, their pool could be bigger, if not shackled by having to have an equal prize pool to another body with less money to play with. THAT was what Novak was hinting at probably. It can be unfair no matter what way you slice this.

The equal pay rule is hurting the revenue of ATP in every coed event, either explicitly, or implicitly, because people are concerned that women are being devalued, where really its about financial added value to the mens game, not a gender issue at all, and no attempt to demean the womens game.

temporary21 wrote:Ok well this isnt getting anywhere, and hasn't been for days, so ill try this one

Indian wells agrees to be a coed tourney. This locks them onto an equal prize pool for both WTA and ATP. They get money from sponsors and all the like, these are also in large part given by the governing bodies. Most likely more money is made from one side than the other.

NOW the ONLY way equal pay is fair to both sides financially, is if the proportionate revenue form each side is enough to pay for the prize pools on their own. If it isn't then of course the ATP would be partly funding the WTA coed pool, which is bad.

IF IT ISNT, and the WTA revenue can fully fund the prize pool. THATS STILL BAD, the ATP players can complain that they're getting a poor deal, their pool could be bigger, if not shackled by having to have an equal prize pool to another body with less money to play with. THAT was what Novak was hinting at probably. It can be unfair no matter what way you slice this.

The equal pay rule is hurting the revenue of ATP in every coed event, either explicitly, or implicitly, because people are concerned that women are being devalued, where really its about financial added value to the mens game, not a gender issue at all, and no attempt to demean the womens game.

So you think they would be giving more money to the men at these events if they gave less to the women too?

Do I have to mention the massive profits again?

The pool could be bigger for every player, the reason why it's not is because these tournaments want to keep as much as humanly possible for themselves. Simple as that.

That's what I mean when I say people are scapegoating the women's tour for the perceived loss of earnings that having these events is producing.

temporary21 wrote:

Indian wells agrees to be a coed tourney. This locks them onto an equal prize pool for both WTA and ATP. They get money from sponsors and all the like, these are also in large part given by the governing bodies. Most likely more money is made from one side than the other.

That's daft anyway. Sponsors sponsor a tournament. They don't say...'We'll give you 4 million dollars, but only 1 million of it is for the women.' Their logos appear around the grounds, on the courts regardless of what match is going on.

Maybe they're interested in Federer, some might be interested in Serena's profile? There is no way of saying.

Loss of earning for who? The tournaments? That's not the argument at all...

The argument is that the tournaments could be losing more money, by not acknowledging the higher revenue of the ATP, in short, that they are shafting the mens tour in the guise of equal prize pool.
Another way of saying it is that if coed events became ATP only, the prize pool might be a lot higher, despite the loss of revenue from the WTA, because the equal prize rule couldn't be used to hold it back.

That's (probably) not the WTA's fault but we wont know because there aren't any numbers we can see on it. gain though, that's not a personal dig at women or the WTA

Pure theory - Let's say IW was men's only and the revenue was 20 million dollars. And they did a women's only and the revenue was 15 million dollars. But a coed event generates 45 million dollars and the prize money of each event is in proportion to the revenue - say, half of the revenue
Even at a 50:50 split the men get an extra 1.25 million prize money. Of course, the women get an extra 3.75 million.
It can be argued that the 50:50 split is not fair, but it cannot be argued that the men don't benefit from the women being there. The presence of the women would actually increase the prize money that the men get.

temporary21 wrote:

The argument is that the tournaments could be losing more money, by not acknowledging the higher revenue of the ATP, in short, that they are shafting the mens tour in the guise of equal prize pool.
Another way of saying it is that if coed events became ATP only, the prize pool might be a lot higher, despite the loss of revenue from the WTA,  because the equal prize rule couldn't be used to hold it back.

No, these tournaments are trying to make a profit.

They give the minimum prize pool that they're allowed to maintain their same status as an event.

But if you think you know their business better than them, I'm sure they'd like to hear from you.