"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

JuliusHMarx wrote: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.

That's a good point, but do you think that actually happens ? Would a joint Indian Wells really get more than double a men's Indian Wells ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote: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.

That's a good point, but do you think that actually happens ? Would a joint Indian Wells really get more than double a men's Indian Wells ?

Playing them together cuts down on a lot of overheads.

One big thing. They aren't the same event.
the ATP event is a Masters 1000
The WTA is a Mandatory Premier event
Its two separate tournaments, with I think separate tv deals and the like, that are in the same place.
The idea is, as Jhm says, powers combined will hopefully get more than the sum of them on their own, that's a clever idea, its a big payday for the place.

But the example changes based on the numbers.

Say its 20 and 10 mil respectively and a 40 mil combined event with 50% prize fund
The men gets the same 10 mil, and the women DOUBLE their payday,

More than that a 39 million combined event, the men get LESS than 10 mil.

Plus the ATP could turn around and say, we contributed at least more than half this revenue share, why don't we get more than half

The example isn't quite true though because its not revenue proportional anyway, its a set amount.

The key is that could the ATP have demanded a higher prize pool, a bigger cut into the tournies profits, if it didn't have to consider the equal pay rule, and that the tournament might refuse based on revenue share.
Or indeed, could they have made more money for themselves with an individual event

Its not that people are unhappy that women get paid the same, its that the rule that's been implemented MIGHT be stifling the ability for them to demand more
and With what Fedal did to the sport, some people may well think they should get more, but that's not a direct slant on the WTA at all.

temporary21 wrote:The example isn't quite true though because its not revenue proportional anyway, its a set amount.

The key is that could the ATP have demanded a higher prize pool, a bigger cut into the tournies profits, if it didn't have to consider the equal pay rule, and that the tournament might refuse based on revenue share.
Or indeed, could they have made more money for themselves with an individual event

I'm not too sure you quite understand the role of the ATP in World Tennis. That's why I'm finding it quite exasperating discussing this with you.

temporary21 wrote:Its not that people are unhappy that women get paid the same, its that the rule that's been implemented MIGHT be stifling the ability for them to demand more
and With what Fedal did to the sport, some people may well think they should get more,  but that's not a direct slant on the WTA at all.

It's not a rule. The ATP can't decide how much a tournament pays as a prize. They can only set how much is needed for an event to be classed where it's classed.

The tournaments can do what the hell the want, that's my point and has always been my point.

Slightly more realistic

30 combined pool, 15 and 10 individually, about a

individual pools are 7.5 and 5

30 combined pool they get 7.5 each, again no benefit to the ATP. They might have been able to ask for 8 or 9 mil of the take for an individual tourney, but for the same pay rule

temporary21 wrote:

30 combined pool they get 7.5 each, again no benefit to the ATP. They might have been able to ask for 8 or 9 mil of the take for an individual tourney, but for the same pay rule

Who are asking? I don't get it.

How does that change or address the point of my last posts though?

If they don't have to have equal money because the WTA have no power to enforce it somehow... thats worse,

It means they can use social issues to clip the wings of the mens games bargaining power of prize pools, given relative revenue they earn for the sport. They can make the mens game look "unprogressive" whenever they suggest it should go up more than it is given what they make.

I can understand why some might be annoyed at the tournaments for that, its not even a WTA issue to be frank.

They might have more power on the table in individual events if not for this accepted idea.

Whether what you say or is true, doesn't actually matter a jot. Whether its a strict rule or a guideline, or whatever, it can hurt the ATP

temporary21 wrote:How does that change or address the point of my last posts though?

If they don't have to have equal money because the WTA have no power to enforce it somehow... thats worse,

It means they can use social issues to clip the wings of the mens games bargaining power of prize pools, given relative revenue they earn for the sport. They can make the mens game look "unprogressive" whenever they suggest it should go up more than it is given what they make.

I can understand why some might be annoyed at the tournaments for that, its not even a WTA issue to be frank.

They might have more power on the table in individual events if not for this accepted idea.

Whether what you say or is true, doesn't actually matter a jot. Whether its a strict rule or a guideline, or whatever, it can hurt the ATP

Again..the problem is that we have zero proof that men's prize pools have ever been stifled by 'social issues' or the women's game in general.

Have you thought for a second that a lot of tournaments would love to put on co-ed events, but are not able to?

OK....

Could someone who DOES know how this works answer these questions

1) Is prize money revenue proportional in events? Does it even factor into the equation, or is less than the total rev the only thing?

2) How much influence do the WTA and ATP have?
http://www.tennisworldusa.org/ATP-Tournaments-can-take-their-own-decisions-on-prize-money-WTA-We-will-not-tolerate-articolo31198.html
Heres some actual evidence,

"The ATP seeks to achieve fair compensation for its players by setting minimum prize money levels for ATP events in accordance with the revenues that are generated from men"s professional tennis. The ATP also respects the right of tournaments to make their own decisions relating to prize money for women"s tennis, which is run as a separate Tour,"

said the ATP. How can we interpret this important statement: ATP obviously does not agree with Moore"s quotes, who seemed to be clear when he said it. At the same time, when ATP says "we operate in the entertainment business", it means that TV ratings are as important as the attendance for men"s and women"s tennis matches. If there is difference in the stats, combined tournaments could have a separate prize money."

So tournies certainly cant just do whatever they hell they want, the ATP sets minimum requirements based on how much money the mens game earns. IT IS revenue dependent on the ATP.

Moreover tournies do indeed not have to give the same money. If both the WTA and ATP set up the same way, the minimum standards would be lower for the WTA, but it isn't, which tells us that either the WTA operate differently or the tournaments are being pressured to up the ante on the WTA side in co-eds
that might be construed as unfair.

The atp might still have more bargaining power without this pressure, that still stands.


Right Kyle Edmund has just played a blinding point, enough semantics for me, im going back to the tennis.

temporary21 wrote:OK....

Moreover tournies do indeed not have to give the same money. If both the WTA and ATP set up the same way, the minimum standards would be lower for the WTA, but it isn't, which tells us that either the WTA operate differently or the tournaments are being pressured to up the ante on the WTA side in co-eds
that might be construed as unfair.

No pressure. They just think it's relevant for their business model.

You do change your goalposts a lot, and you end up using stuff I've told you as part of your argument. Weird.

tbh ive no idea what youre on about anymore. What SPECIFICALLY is your deal in this debate?

My only goal here was to identify a potential unfairness, to point out this isn't cut and dry and I did so with every single situation that's been considered, despite nobody having all the facts.

I don't know what specific point youre making, you just seem to avoid answering my key point everytime, just talking about no proof all the time, but you don't appear to have any proof either, nor specify anything.

To that end its clear I am completely wasting my time here, without enough intimate knowledge of the system from anybody, and the depth of the trenches that have been built, theres no moving this on.

temporary21 wrote:tbh ive no idea what youre on about anymore. What SPECIFICALLY is your deal in this debate?

You thought you were arguing with an ardent feminist didn't you?

Basic economics supports the 'equal pay' situation (not that it's a situation).

That's my only point. No man has lost money because of it.

Following the comments of chief executive of Indian Wells, Raymond Moore, former tennis ace Virginia Wade has responded strongly over those comments. Wade expressed that tennis should be down on its knees in gratitude to Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal — not just the women’s game.

Virginia Wade believed that the comments were disrespectful in nature. According to Mail Online, Virginia Wade pointed out that their rivalry had helped enrich everyone in the sport over the past 10 years — male and female.

She said, “I think Novak was a bit disrespected when Ray referred to Roger and Rafa.” She added, “He might have been a bit miffed himself. But everyone should be down on their knees thanking God for those two.”

Agreeing to the fact that “men’s tournaments draw more people in than the women,” she also cleared that the competition in women’s tennis is very tough and the women work just as hard as the men. And regarding tennis superstars Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, Virginia Wade said, “It has been very unusual for the men’s game to have these megastars all at the top at once with the charisma of Roger and Rafa.” She further added, “… that is bound to put everyone else in the shade a bit.

http://www.movienewsguide.com/virginia-wade-roger-federer-rafael-nadal-thanked-tennis/182516

Exactly they are all a little bit in the shade of Federer and Nadal. Perhaps Virginia Wade is onto something when she speculates that Novak might have been miffed and that could have been behind some of the comments he made about the WTA

Federer and Nadal barely have any charisma beyond what is just hyped up by the media and sold to people. Djokovic's personality far outshines both of their's and like Federer his tennis skill is legit.

Hyped up?? Their charisma is obvious, I mean millions of people are not that blind!!

How does Djoko's personality outshine theirs? Do we know them personally to say that??

So, Nadal's tennis skill is not legit??

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Federer and Nadal barely have any charisma beyond what is just hyped up by the media and sold to people. Djokovic's personality far outshines both of their's and like Federer his tennis skill is legit.

Joke of the month this one, get into sixth gear, break

Djoko is a simple actor fighting to be loved and now he proved that he is a sexist guy who backtracks next day what he says.

Still crying for attention he is.

Djokovic for the last 6 years or so has been much more bland outside the court, I would agree that Federer and Nadal's interviews are quite bland as well- just very PR savvy.

Jahu you're dislike/hatred of djokovic has you siding with social justice warriors and political correctness:clap:

Federer and Nadal are popular because they win. Who said anything about knowing them personally? I'm going by what I've seen like everyone else. A lot more effort was put into selling the Federer Nadal rivalry than with Djokovic. All this bs makes me want him to continue destroying everyone.

7 Pages in I have yet to see a coherent counter argument to the idea that the side that is responsible for the most take, can't reasonably expect a bigger pot without gender politics coming into it.

Just because, or they can afford it are weak fob offs.

A real structured counterargument as to how the coed events benefit both bodies, and how to reasonably sell this the dominant financial party that they've gotten a better deal, despite this inconsistency, instead of having their own tourney is needed.

Our resident admin had the right idea, but it seems its not worked out that way.

Nothing to do with feminism or gender politics im afraid, no matter how much some want it to be about that,

Imagine two partners setting up a business, with one much wealthier than the other and putting in the lions share of the investment.
Its is not unreasonable to ask what the dominant partner is getting, what added value is that one getting from the other as opposed to going alone? You certainly would have to justify a 50/50 share of the take.

The main winner here is the tournament itself, that's not for debate, but the debate is why mens tennis should just accept it.

Djokovic is also winning now but I don't see his popularity rising to Fed/Nadal level. Its not just about winning, it's more to do with their charisma!

Thing is you sell Fed/Nadal as a pair don't you? You think of tennis you think of wimby 08, Aus 09, the many many classics they've brought. You cant sell Novak alone and top that... he needs a proper rival, which he hasn't got at them mo. Tbf Novak/Fed is always a huge draw still.

djlovesyou wrote: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.

Obviously there is no more than circumstantial evidence, but that does not necessarily make the argument flimsy.  Roughly, comparing socal’s viewpoint with your viewpoint, I see something like this:

socal: There is evidence that in gender-separate events men are the bigger draw than women.  Yet in co-ed events, women make the same money as men.  Ergo, women likely cost men some money without really earning it themselves.

you: Yes, men are a bigger draw in gender-specific events, and yes women and men earn the same in co-ed events, but co-ed tournaments may well be topping women up from what would otherwise be higher profits, thus costing men nothing.

Why would socal’s argument look any more flimsy than your argument?  It strikes me that your viewpoint stretches credulity further than his.  Maybe you are right in the end, but your argument seems the flimsier of the two.

djlovesyou wrote: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.

This strikes me as too simplistic.  Tournament makes the revenue but the tournament would not make that revenue without the participation of WTA and ATP.  I do not know how various negotiations go, but I would suspect ATP/WTA have a pretty strong hand in those negotiations.  Most tournaments likely depend on ATP/WTA far more than vice versa (just remember what happened to Hamburg when ATP downgraded it).

djlovesyou wrote: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 why should prize go with “achievement”?  Achievement, at least the way you define it, does not necessarily determine how the money comes in, so why would it determine how the money goes out?

While, on balance, I am strongly leaning on the side of the opinion that the current system (currently) gives ladies unfair advantage, I will present a few items that I can see as weighing on the other side of the equation:

1. JHM’s suggestion that co-ed events may make more money than the two gender-specific events would make.  I find this quite plausible (or else there would have been push to split them up, but just the opposite has been happening).  If that is so, the situation may be somewhat similar to a coalition government between a party with 100 seats and a party with 50 seats.  How should they split the power?  They both need each other, so it gets tricky.  Not quite obvious it should be 2:1.

2. Yvonne’s suggestion that WTA may be partly subsidizing women’s prize money.  I have never heard that, but that could make things reasonable I think.  Maybe they are talking about the difference between “Total Financial Commitment” that the tournament provides and the “Prize money”?  For example, while Prize money is the same for ATP/WTA in Miami, tournament’s total financial commitment is slightly more for men:  $7.04mil vs $6.84mil, so WTA would seem to be effectively giving up the difference.  That said, the difference between 7.04 and 6.84 still seems to be smaller than what the difference between ATP and WTA popularity would warrant.

3. The graph in the attached link compares the history of ATP and WTA revenue (at least it claims to do so, not sure how trustworthy it is):

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/11/23/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/ATP-revenue.aspx

Note that this is ATP/WTA revenue, not tournament revenue, but, still, the graph suggests that women’s tennis used to be closer to men’s tennis than it is now.  This would help explain both why women were able to get close to men in terms of prize money, as well as why men may be grumbling more now.

4. Finally, I believe the notion that men and women make the same amount of money in co-ed ATP/WTA tournaments is somewhat misleading.  There are three ATP Masters 1000 co-ed tournaments that are in the WTA “premier mandatory” category – IW, Miami and Madrid.  These three pay the same amount to men and to women.  The remaining co-ed Masters 1000 tournaments (Rome, Canada – if we count it as co-ed, Cincinnati) are in the lower WTA “Pemier 5” category, and, as far as I know they all pay men more than women.

To me, this can also be viewed as an indirect subsidy provided by WTA.  WTA only has four “premier mandatory” tournaments.  It can go to a tournament and say “look, if you give women same amount as men, you will be one of our top 4 tournaments”, whereas ATP only makes these tournaments one of their top 9 Masters 1000 tournaments.  Thus, these tournaments effectively get more from WTA than they get from ATP, which may be enough to convince them to pay women as much as men.

Nadal -Djokovic also a huge draw but nothing of this or Fed-Djokovic could compare with the rivalry that is Fedal. It's Fed or Nadal vs the others. Djokovic vs Murray for eg.not much of a draw....

temporary21 wrote:7 Pages in I have yet to see a coherent counter argument to the idea that the side that is responsible for the most take, can't reasonably expect a bigger pot without gender politics coming into it.  ...

Nice example of confirmation bias. It's believed to be genetically hard-wired hence the difficulty in avoiding it.

That's for certain SB. The tournament benefits greatly from being coed, that's of no debate. Im sure they are grateful for that and they pay the WTA side handsomely for that. BUT the WTA is no an equal financial partner in this setup to the ATP for the tournament,

so how do you sell the same prize pool to the dominant partner without it being financially unfair to them?

The only real way is to argue that the coed event allows them to pay the ATP side a bigger prize pool, than was possible with an individual event, so they benefit despite it.

Problem is, the way the ATP runs prize pools, they almost certainly wouldn't get a lesser pool if it was just them, so theyre getting the short end of the stick.

It all ends up looking like it does the WTA an the tourney a favour, which they might be happy with, bit I can understand the grumblings, beyond the gender argument.

Nore Staat wrote:Nice example of confirmation bias.

Where do you see confirmation bias in temp's statement?

temporary21 wrote:Thing is you sell Fed/Nadal as a pair don't you? You think of tennis you think of wimby 08, Aus 09, the many many classics they've brought. You cant sell Novak alone and top that... he needs a proper rival, which he hasn't got at them mo. Tbf Novak/Fed is always a huge draw still.

Federer and Nadal can fill up a tennis court no matter who they are playing. They get queues round the block for the chance to see them practice. When Novak plays either it's pretty obvious who the fans are there to support and they would still be there if someone else was across the net. Getting Federer and Nadal on the same tennis court is a bonus. IMO their final at the end of last year was perhaps one of the most entertaining of the year. That was their only meeting in 2015 but they did get paid $3.9 million each to play an exhibition match in the IPTL in December 2015. That was more than Djokovic won at the AO this year.

temporary21 wrote:7 Pages in I have yet to see a coherent counter argument to the idea that the side that is responsible for the most take, can't reasonably expect a bigger pot without gender politics coming into it.  ...

I've seen a lot of arguments that male players in general should receive a larger portion just because they happen to be the same sex as Federer and Nadal.

Where? and doesn't that sort of confirm what me and Noore are saying? Can we not debate this from the finance standpoint without the sex?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:All this bs makes me want him to continue destroying everyone.

I hope not, I know you can think for yourself and not what media pushes through us.

And anyway, you're sounding like a Djoko fan, as most Djoko fans are those who hate Fed/Nadal, and not that Djoko in anyway fulfills their tennis pleasure

summerblues wrote:4. Finally, I believe the notion that men and women make the same amount of money in co-ed ATP/WTA tournaments is somewhat misleading.  There are three ATP Masters 1000 co-ed tournaments that are in the WTA “premier mandatory” category – IW, Miami and Madrid.  These three pay the same amount to men and to women.  The remaining co-ed Masters 1000 tournaments (Rome, Canada – if we count it as co-ed, Cincinnati) are in the lower WTA “Pemier 5” category, and, as far as I know they all pay men more than women.

To me, this can also be viewed as an indirect subsidy provided by WTA.  WTA only has four “premier mandatory” tournaments.  It can go to a tournament and say “look, if you give women same amount as men, you will be one of our top 4 tournaments”, whereas ATP only makes these tournaments one of their top 9 Masters 1000 tournaments.  Thus, these tournaments effectively get more from WTA than they get from ATP, which may be enough to convince them to pay women as much as men.

This is important. These are the prize pools for the ATP masters (according to wiki), sorted largest first:
Indian Wells Masters $5,381,235
Miami Open $5,381,235
Shanghai Masters $4,783,320
Madrid Open $4,672,586
Paris Masters $4,276,141  
Monte-Carlo Masters $3,671,314
Italian Open $3,671,314  
Cincinnati Masters $3,826,655
Canadian Open $3,587,490

IW/Miami/Madrid are in the top 4, along with Shanghai (which is in a strange situation, in that the Beijing WTA Premier Mandatory has to match its prize pool).

Obviously it's difficult to compare events as they are in different locations, different points in the calendar, have different histories as well as IW/Miami having larger draw sizes - but it does give more credence to DJ's assertion that the ATP prize money is not adversely affected by the equal prize money and less credence to socal's assertion that if the women were paid less or the ATP dropped the women from the joint events and went it alone that the men would earn more.

Nice work that DOES help.

It is sadly hard to tell how much of that comes from being coed, as IW/Miami are taken almost as the 5th and 6th slams, they've always been a step above the others. Th bigger draw probably has a fair bit to do with that

Given that revenue sets the minimum prize pool for the ATP, I assume tv deals and the like mean that minimum is different for each tournament, given their status and history, that might have a lot to do with it too.

The only way to ever know is to split the coed even and see what happens...

Total revenue would be great to see, but I imagine they leave that confidential...

I already posted the conclusive evidence on page 1. The debenture tickets for different days at Centre Court show that people will pay around 3-4 times to watch the men play.

Every day that plans to feature any mans game - that's any day in the whole two weeks - sells for more than the women's final.

The market speaks.

summerblues wrote:

djlovesyou wrote: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.

Obviously there is no more than circumstantial evidence, but that does not necessarily make the argument flimsy.  Roughly, comparing socal’s viewpoint with your viewpoint, I see something like this:

socal: There is evidence that in gender-separate events men are the bigger draw than women.  Yet in co-ed events, women make the same money as men.  Ergo, women likely cost men some money without really earning it themselves.

you: Yes, men are a bigger draw in gender-specific events, and yes women and men earn the same in co-ed events, but co-ed tournaments may well be topping women up from what would otherwise be higher profits, thus costing men nothing.

Why would socal’s argument look any more flimsy than your argument?  It strikes me that your viewpoint stretches credulity further than his.  Maybe you are right in the end, but your argument seems the flimsier of the two.

Not only stretching credulity, it is spaghettifying credulity. The idea that every TD during the peak of the fedal era having to increase 2 dollars prize money, for every 1 dollar increase to the ATP; and that this system wouldn't act as a huge disincentive to grow the ATP prize money and be a financial loss for the men is completely nonsensical. It is siphoning off the growth of the ATP and requiring that their revenues grow at an equal rate acts to repress male tournament pools not only at the coed events BUT ACROSS THE BOARD. Because the coed masters will set the comparable FMV for even the non-coed masters. Not only does this system act to artificially inflate the women's prize money, it deflates the men's prize money over time by providing a disincentive to all TDs to increase the prize pool for the ATP. Furthermore, it also brings the comparable Fair Market Value down across the board at EVEN NON COED EVENTS. This policy damages the men all year round.

temporary21 wrote:It is sadly hard to tell how much of that comes from being coed, as IW/Miami are taken almost as the 5th and 6th slams, they've always been a step above the others. Th bigger draw probably has a fair bit to do with that

Neither would have that 5th slam label if they weren't joint though. It's the 2 week, men & women tennis festival thing that defines a slam.

YvonneT wrote:

temporary21 wrote:It is sadly hard to tell how much of that comes from being coed, as IW/Miami are taken almost as the 5th and 6th slams, they've always been a step above the others. Th bigger draw probably has a fair bit to do with that

Neither would have that 5th slam label if they weren't joint though. It's the 2 week, men & women tennis festival thing that defines a slam.  

They purposely chose the most financially and traditionally strong masters to make co-ed, hence why Indian Wells and Miami are coed mandatories and not Shanghai or Paris. If you want to squirrel away some revenues it has to be at the biggest and most financially well backed of the masters.

By the way the reason there is no difference between separate Masters ATP money and Coed is because the Coed masters repress the fair market rate for the ATP tour masters level not only at the coed events but across the board. It is like selling your home in a certain neighborhood a comparable house of the same floorplan in the same neighborhood will bring the price up or down for other homes. Once the ATP tour money is repressed as growth is siphoned off for the women then their market price has been repressed for the other analogous events.

Additionally, the splitting cost argument is not economically sound either as a benefit to the male tour. While having two tours in one venue saves some costs that is not very significant because of 2 reasons. 1. The costs for tournament for the tour is not very high compared to total financial commitment and pots, if it was neither tours model would work 2. You lose some revenue like parking, concessions, and merchandise by combining the two events. I mean there are some fans who will go to both events, but when they can go to both at one time it isn't like they will pay for parking twice or drink twice the beer or eat two meals or buy two souvenirs, because two tours are playing. But if they went to separate events they would have to.

And on the cost side there simply is not much of a cost other than renting the facility and paying a few officials and organizers. 1. These tournaments have years of experience at the same venue. 2. A lot of the infrastructure is already in place 3. A lot of the infrastructure involved in covering the events is paid for by broadcasters. 3. It is a type of business that doesn't require a lot of costs other than pricey labor, the courts are built, the broadcasters take care of the tv and radio, local infrastructure and cops take care of security. Hell even the balls are free. 4. A lot of the work is done by free volunteers and ball kids.

YvonneT wrote:

temporary21 wrote:It is sadly hard to tell how much of that comes from being coed, as IW/Miami are taken almost as the 5th and 6th slams, they've always been a step above the others. Th bigger draw probably has a fair bit to do with that

Neither would have that 5th slam label if they weren't joint though. It's the 2 week, men & women tennis festival thing that defines a slam.  

The thing, above all, that really defines a Slam for me (ie. in contrast to all other Tour events) is the roller-coaster intrigue that so often comes with the thrills & spills of five-set clashes ...... the exciting comebacks from two sets down or dramatic losses after being two sets up - depending on your perspective or favoured player.

That's what characterises a Slam for me. And of course the fact that it's a mixed sexes 'festival' thing too. Oh ....hang on a minute .......I almost forgot. The women don't actually play five sets ......

lags72 wrote:

YvonneT wrote:

temporary21 wrote:It is sadly hard to tell how much of that comes from being coed, as IW/Miami are taken almost as the 5th and 6th slams, they've always been a step above the others. Th bigger draw probably has a fair bit to do with that

Neither would have that 5th slam label if they weren't joint though. It's the 2 week, men & women tennis festival thing that defines a slam.  

The thing, above all, that really defines a Slam for me (ie. in contrast to all other Tour events) is the roller-coaster intrigue that so often comes with the thrills & spills of five-set clashes ...... the exciting comebacks from two sets down or dramatic losses after being two sets up - depending on your perspective or favoured player.

That's what characterises a Slam for me. And of course the fact that it's a mixed sexes 'festival'  thing too. Oh ....hang on a minute .......I almost forgot. The women don't actually play five sets ......

Fair enough, but playing BO5 is certainly not why IW and Miami have at times been given the label of the 5th slam.

Socal, I'm just struggling to believe that the ATP, in it's players union role, allows equal prize money at a few joint tournaments to repress the prize money at ATP-only tournaments, thus presumably letting these other events away with bigger profits (since they don't have to "subsidise" the women). Really? They are doing a terrible job then.

Just to add, I consider myself a feminist and all for women's rights, but am not too fussed about equal prize money in tennis. I do enjoy women's tennis and part of why I follow the sport is watching as a girl in the seventies and seeing women athletes being taken seriously, when in most other sports they were non-existent or there to be draped over the cars in F1 or similar. The current WTA players have a lot to thank BJK for in ensuring that. But it didn't bother me that BJK, Evert or Cawley were getting less prize money for their wins than the men, so long as the title felt equivalent. It doesn't bother me if I watch the women's matches at Cinci that they aren't paid the same as the men. I do think there are some good reasons for the men to get more prize money - these have been covered already.

But I'm still not convinced by the evidence that the men are losing out because the women's prize money has gone up. Intuitively it feels like they are, but the evidence doesn't show that (for the tour events anyway).

YvonneT wrote:Socal, I'm just struggling to believe that the ATP, in it's players union role, allows equal prize money at a few joint tournaments to repress the prize money at ATP-only tournaments, thus presumably letting these other events away with bigger profits (since they don't have to "subsidise" the women). Really? They are doing a terrible job then.

Just to add, I consider myself a feminist and all for women's rights, but am not too fussed about equal prize money in tennis. I do enjoy women's tennis and part of why I follow the sport is watching as a girl in the seventies and seeing women athletes being taken seriously, when in most other sports they were non-existent or there to be draped over the cars in F1 or similar. The current WTA players have a lot to thank BJK for in ensuring that. But it didn't bother me that BJK, Evert or Cawley were getting less prize money for their wins than the men, so long as the title felt equivalent. It doesn't bother me if I watch the women's matches at Cinci that they aren't paid the same as the men. I do think there are some good reasons for the men to get more prize money - these have been covered already.

But I'm still not convinced by the evidence that the men are losing out because the women's prize money has gone up. Intuitively it feels like they are, but the evidence doesn't show that (for the tour events anyway).

It does repress it across the board, you can't just reduce the men's prize money at IW by siphoning off some growth for the women and expect the tournament owners at MC, Shanghai, or Paris to pay over what has been established to be the fair market value of 1000 point event. That is why this prize money sharing is so damaging and terrible to the men. Once you break your price as a seller for one customer of the same size and repress growth of ATP pots, then the other less financially strong Masters are going to go off of that comparable price. And that is precisely where the prejudice comes about. A tournament director at these events when budgeting for increased financial commitment has to price every dollar increase to the men as a two dollar cost because he will have to up the women. And over time this system represses the growth of ATP pots at all events because it brings the ATP price down, (2 dollars for every 1 remember).

This is the common sense analysis that any person involved in business can understand. You can't go to a financially weaker Shanghai and say pay me 20 percent more than Ellison because you don't have to pay the gals, they will say whatever Ellison gives you will give you 10 percent less that is what we can spend, you were willing to play a week and half for Ellison for X, then play for us for one week at .85X. It is a rule that represses the long term growth of ATP pots. The lower growth of the ATP pots becomes the comparable market rate and the price is broken for all 1000 point tournament owners. This is part of the reason why this rule is so entrenched, it is an absolute cash cow for all the big tournament owners as well as for the women.

PS I to am a feminist and think there are a lot of areas where fighting sexism and discrimination is important. This isn't it. In fact, it is counterproductive. Because every cause has a certain amount of political capital, women's rights should not be thrown in with these extortive multimillionaires who are asking for money they can't earn on their own and have no right to. There are hundreds if not thousands of issues in the world bearing on women's rights that deserves attention. But women getting behind this issue that is substantively not fair, and not discrimination because of sex but discrimination for a good reason that you don't earn as much money; will actually damage the cause of women. You see it right here on this site, when we liberals who care about an issue press this type of case that breaks down when you look at the substance and fairness, we give the critics of equality and fairness the exact ammunition they need to denounce all of our issues and causes as a scam. Because this case certainly is, Serena is no civil rights champion she is self interested and wants the biggest checks she can get even if it means falsely extorting that money from less financially successful male coworkers. If those of us who do believe in women's equality forward this type of cynical, and unfair money grab then the next time someone has a real discrimination case most people's reaction will be, "not this scam again".

I am not a feminist because it's unnecessary and fosters an insatiable victim mentality that will never stop (indeed it's continued harping on about fictions like the gender pay gap shows that). Victim mentality is never good for people.

Our laws are more than adequate.

Feminism in its current incarnation is about misandry and social disturbance and is very bad for women. Thankfully more women recognise this, and fewer - especially the young - are identifying as feminist. It's just their older (and, usually, uglier) sisters who hang onto it. Oh, and an awful lot of beta males (not you, socal).

Where women are appallingly treated in the World it's more a matter of insane religious fanaticism and general tyranny, but 3rd wave feminism is conspicuously silent in these matters because it conflicts with their other social justice priorities: 'oppressed' other religions trumps women's rights for them, so suffer in silence, sisters in Middle East, Cologne, Sweden.

bogbrush wrote:I am not a feminist because it's unnecessary and fosters an insatiable victim mentality that will never stop (indeed it's continued harping on about fictions like the gender pay gap shows that). Victim mentality is never good for people.

Our laws are more than adequate.

Feminism in its current incarnation is about misandry and social disturbance and is very bad for women. Thankfully more women recognise this, and fewer - especially the young - are identifying as feminist. It's just their older (and, usually, uglier) sisters who hang onto it. Oh, and an awful lot of beta males (not you, socal).

Where women are appallingly treated in the World it's more a matter of insane religious fanaticism and general tyranny, but 3rd wave feminism is conspicuously silent in these matters because it conflicts with their other social justice priorities: 'oppressed' other religions trumps women's rights for them, so suffer in silence, sisters in Middle East, Cologne, Sweden.

Totally agree with this part I put in bold, those people that are truly for freeing humanity from cruelty, bigotry, oppression and violence should realize that the real enemy is the bizarre institutionalized superstition and tribalism represented by organized religion. There is a sense of entitlement and victimhood that exists among highly educated middle class and up women in the western world that doesn't actually jive with the actual state of women in these advanced nations. I do think there are cases of it still in the western world but if you want to talk legally speaking, the idea that the laws discriminate against women in most western countries just doesn't jive with reality, in fact most legal frameworks go out of there way to protect women in almost a paternalistic manner.

How this pertains to tennis, well as I stated before every movement or political force has limited political capital, do we really want to use the political capital of the women's rights movement to help the Serena's and Maria's of the world get more millions from their male counterparts for money they could never earn on their own. And at the same destroy the careers and lives of well respected individuals for just simply questioning the policy. One day the men will just get tired of it and like I said will demand that ATP end all coed tournaments, that day will probably come when the Fed gravy train is over and resources get tight. They will drop the WTA at non-slam events like a bad habit and this will damage the WTA and put them in a much worse position then if they never got used to the easy and unearned money in the first place.

Being a feminist just means supporting equal rights and equal opportunities for women. No need to sign up to all other feminists' ideas and priorities.

On the religious fundamentalism, more often than not, it's just used a tool to keep the masses (men and women) in line rather than faith being the driver. But we definitely digress from tennis now.

Would defining myself as a masculinist indicate my commitment to equality?

Perhaps a definition in terms of one sex is kind of the opposite of equality, it implies bias.

And this subject is relevant as it is the single reason offered for equal prize money.