"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

The comments Raymond Moore made appeared like the comments of a drunken aged man, and he apologised later.  I don't know why it is has been made out to be such a big thing.  The esteemed BBC created two seemingly identical stories on it and opened up two comments sections on it.

Anyway I'll add a bugbear of mine - I don't like the claim that this is an attack on all women around the world, and I don't like the claim that some people bestow upon themselves claiming they speak for all women around the world.  That is complete nonsense.

Some elite tennis players use tennis to push their own brand.  I seem to recall Venus Williams wearing what some claimed were pornographic night dresses in her matches to promote her own clothes company.  She even had her sister wearing something that made her look like the sugar plum fairy for a few matches.

Ps:  Personally I think the WTA should be pressurised to stamp out screaming from the game.  Hearing spoilt tennis players saying they are not going to give up with the screaming, that they are comfortable with screaming, and everyone else can go to hell if they don't like it, has turned me off women's tennis.  Some of the shrieks Sharapova made in some of her matches had the audience laughing in incredulity - like a woman being murdered.  I am pleased none of the British girls / women do it.

As far as coat tail riding the men should worry about themselves. They have been all sitting pretty on the back of Federer and Nadal's coat tails for years and that includes Djokovic. When Federer and Nadal leave the tour taking their coats with them they will all fall dramatically to the floor... or if they are lucky they will be left clinging to the coat tails of some new female player?

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

Hi YvonneT, well that's a fair point   Although in my own defence, I wasn't so much purposely looking for "all manner of debate" ..... it was more a case that - having read the comments made by Moore (as reported by the BBC and of course various other media channels) - and then logging on to 606, I was surprised to see that the topic had not yet been raised by other members.

I'm not sure if I have anything new or highly original to add to the many interesting posts (not least your own, which I thought was very balanced, as ever) that have since appeared ; but -  FWIW - herewith a few thoughts of my own.......

Raymond Moore was using extreme & quite foolish language to make a point that does, in my view, have some substance. I stress some.

I don't think it would be too difficult to find a significant number of people who agree fully with him. But there will be a whole other (and no doubt larger) group of people who would say that he is talking total garbage. And, as so often with two polar-opposite extremes, I happen to believe that the true picture is somewhere in the middle.

The female players have developed a standalone Tour that now covers most parts of the world and is a major attraction in its own right. They have been the catalyst for whole generations of young kids taking up the sport. But they themselves  have also benefitted from a far greater surge in the popularity of tennis which came about during the Fedal era.

Martina Navratilova is now saying that she would not be surprised if female players boycotted Indian Wells as a result of the row ignited by Moore's comment. And she is not happy with Djokovic either, who has also involved himself in the debate when commenting that the women deserve the money they get, but that men should fight for more because the game attracts more viewers.

Male players are rewarded rather well already, and I'm not sure that their priority should be to fight for even more. I am however pretty sure that if say, Wimbledon, which (AFAIK ...?) remains the biggest revenue generator of all tournaments on the calendar, were to split itself into two separate events, then the respective attendance figures would raise huge question marks over the decision to award equal prize money. We can see clear evidence of this at the top tier of professional golf, where spectator interest in the women's game is well below that of the men's and where the prize money awarded to the respective Open champions is very different.

Well all the long posts by the advocates of equality finally boil down to that the men are the bigger draw but should get the same as the women because well the women are women. Sorry, I don't watch a second of women's tennis. I find it completely unwatchable. I don't care one lick if their stars are well paid enough. I want a healthy ATP tour with the best athletes being attracted to dedicating themselves to tennis and paying for the best training and coaching to be the best ATP players they can be. As someone who doesn't watch a second of WTA tennis, I find it unfair that the tour I watch should have money siphoned off for a product I chose not to watch and find boring. Shivfan likes the WTA, great let their stars be paid from the revenue they earn in their own tournaments. Frankly, I think the men should just not share any tournaments with the women if it means they are going to get screwed on the revenues. Djokovic isn't the first to say it, Simon and others have said the same thing. To me there is nothing just about Serena or Maria getting more money out of the pocket of mid level and lower level ATP professionals and detracting from the quality of the tour I watch simply because they are women playing the same sport in a financially less attractive tour. Why are male golfers or footballers not required to make the same amount of money at events as less popular female versions of their league? As a fan of the ATP and only ATP I want the money spent on the tour I watch, I don't want it spent on a tour that I chose not to watch and never have.

Yvonne I agree with you. The WTA need to take some of the blame. The wta is guilty of promoting the ladies as fashion icons and sexual objects. .that in itself is sexist.

They have a good product but nobody will take them serious if all they sell is maria promoting new sweets or woozy posing semi nude on SI.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35868662

Anyway, if the principle of equality trumps all, why aren't the wheelchair players getting the same prize money? Or the doubles? Or juniors?

I'd actually welcome an answer to this other that "don't be silly", because I challenge anyone to find a distinction of principle between the above statement, and equal prize money for men & women.

djkbrown2001 wrote:Yvonne  I agree with you. The WTA need to take some of the blame. The wta is guilty of promoting the ladies as fashion icons and sexual objects. .that in itself is sexist.

They have a good product but nobody will take them serious if all they sell is maria promoting new sweets or woozy  posing semi nude on SI.

Sexism isn't a bad thing. I find some of the women really attractive, it's my programming. I will even support the better looking one (Ana, always) just because. We differentiate every day on the basis of our preferences and it's a problem these days that what is no more than rational assessment is vilified.

Men are different to women. When we meet a lovely woman there's a reason we don't listen to what she's saying - because we're engrossed in the demanding task of assessing her physical suitability for child bearing - and when we do listen it's because we've made our mind up and what to get on with it*. Women do listen because they're doing the same, and for females some of the most important criteria in a male lie outside the purely physical, I'm not being nasty to women here, I'm confirming we men pretty much check out waist / hip ratio and facial symmetry (a string sign of genetic health) and we're pretty much good to go with a couple of ticks there. Jahu  will doubtless confirm.

Because of this - and because other women want to be Maria and Wozzie - Maria can sell her sweeties on the back of her 5' legs or however long they are, and Wozzie can pose all day for me. Good for them, they are selling what they have to willing buyers. Roger has to hit sumptuous backhands and Rafa has to moonball hit great forehands . When it comes to watching tennis, the former activities aren't relevant so I'm watching the men's game.


* OK, slight exaggeration for effect!

he tennis director whose claim that the women’s game “rides on the coattails of the men” which sparked a row amongst top flight players, has resigned.

Larry Ellison, the Indian Wells tournament owner, said that Raymond Moore was stepping down as chief executive officer and tournament director.

Moore later apologised for his comments, admitting that they were in “poor taste and erroneous” but by then it was too late.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/tennis/article4718928.ece

I wonder if Djokovic will quit too .... Sorry I meant

Hounded out by sponsors perturbed at the antics of the 3rd wave feminist shouters and their MSM supporters.

Hounded out by market forces. Sponsors are unlikely to be perturbed by anything other than potential loss of cash (unless they also objected to his comments from their own moral perspective).

bogbrush wrote:Anyway, if the principle of equality trumps all, why aren't the wheelchair players getting the same prize money? Or the doubles? Or juniors?

I'd actually welcome an answer to this other that "don't be silly", because I challenge anyone to find a distinction of principle between the above statement, and equal prize money for men & women.

Pack it in!

The primary concern is not prize money between males and females but the distribution of prize money resulting in those ranked outside the top 90 or so losing money on the ITF/ATP/WTA tours while the top players become multimillionaires.   It's a very narrow sport.

Costs: travelling, hotels, equipment, trainer, physio, agent, insurance, training facilities.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hounded out by market forces.  Sponsors are unlikely to be perturbed by anything other than potential loss of cash (unless they also objected to his comments from their own moral perspective).

I think I said that. Or meant it anyway.

Sponsors moral perspectives? You mean share price?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Anyway, if the principle of equality trumps all, why aren't the wheelchair players getting the same prize money? Or the doubles? Or juniors?

I'd actually welcome an answer to this other that "don't be silly", because I challenge anyone to find a distinction of principle between the above statement, and equal prize money for men & women.

Pack it in!

It would be fun to see it answered!

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Anyway, if the principle of equality trumps all, why aren't the wheelchair players getting the same prize money? Or the doubles? Or juniors?

I'd actually welcome an answer to this other that "don't be silly", because I challenge anyone to find a distinction of principle between the above statement, and equal prize money for men & women.

Pack it in!

It would be fun to see it answered!

It's clear to me there is an acceptance of equality in society in general. Things will never be all things equal.

Indeed, which is why it makes sense for earnings to relate to the quality of the offering, which in turn is measured by how attractive it is.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, saith the Lord

bogbrush wrote:Anyway, if the principle of equality trumps all, why aren't the wheelchair players getting the same prize money? Or the doubles? Or juniors?

Juniors has a rule which means only under 18s can play, which limits the field greatly and thus it makes sense for the value of the tournament to be less. Juniors if they want can play on the normal ATP tour as well.
All players playing doubles have the option of playing singles if they wanted (and if they can't, it's based on merit), so that has nothing to do with equality.

The only one which has the principle of equality on their side is wheelchair players. On a pragmatic basis, the ratio of revenue between men vs women unfortunately is much closer than the revenue between singles vs wheelchair tennis.
If it was a totally fair equal world, disabled players would have the opportunity to earn the same, but it's not and they don't. Just because disabled people don't, that doesn't justify creating an inequity in women's pay as well.

Also as Julius keeps rightly pointing out, this is the market forces (which you so dearly love BB) at work. There's nothing in capitalism which mandates firms to pay workers for what they bring in, they can set the wage rate they like.

All sport would be amateur if no one was willing to pay and see the sport being played by others. There is no god given right to be financially rewarded playing sport.

bogbrush wrote:Indeed, which is why it makes sense for earnings to relate to the quality of the offering, which in turn is measured by how attractive it is.

Depends really, because for me the players need the tournaments just as much as the tournaments need them. If you look at previous rogue or breakaway events like The Big 3 in golf or the Packer Series, it doesn't quite have the selling point of a major event because it relies on brand power of the competitors.

I think tournaments themselves have the UPS and not just the competitors.

Would we agree that of the global professional sports out there that women's tennis is probably the more watched sport in that gender field?

Two people share a pie.

Person A paid for 75% of it, person B paid for 25%.

Is it fair for them to get half each?


Person A enables a venue to charge ticket prices of £3795. Person B enables ticket prices of £1045.

Is it fair for them to be paid the same?

HM Murdock wrote:
Person A enables a venue to charge ticket prices of £3795. Person B enables ticket prices of £1045.

Is it fair for them to be paid the same?

Capitalism and market forces don't have to be fair. If tournaments decide it makes business sense and will help profits if they pay men and women the same, they are entitled to do so.

But if we go down the 'what's fair' path, there are strong arguments to be made on both sides.
Person B and other women tennis players may be training has hard as Person A and other women tennis players. The reason some people are more inclined to watch men's tennis is because they know they are seeing the 'best in the world', as men players would beat women players. So irrelevant of how hard they work or the flair they play with, women tennis players because of the XX chromosomes will find it difficult to get as many people to watch on average.
Is that fair ?
People respond to that usually 'It may not be fair, but life's tough.'

So people care about fairness sometimes, when it comes to the arguments for creating inequity in pay; but not so much when it's the other way round.

HM Murdock wrote:Two people share a pie.

Person A paid for 75% of it, person B paid for 25%.

Is it fair for them to get half each?


Person A enables a venue to charge ticket prices of £3795. Person B enables ticket prices of £1045.

Is it fair for them to be paid the same?

I see the principle you are proposing, but for me within the current format and structure it would be difficult to absolutely pay the 'deserved' amount if we go by gate receipts alone.

John Lloyd (depending what day of the week he talks) made a very good observation when felt the Graf/Seles rivalry dominated the attention of the tennis scene and I would probably go a step further and say for a period Graf was the biggest name in tennis and that was at a time of un-equal pay in the game.

I think resigning is over the top, since it means too much attention is being given to political correctness. Maybe foregoing a bonus or a smaller pay rise might have been more appropriate.

BB, it's a good point on wheelchair (less so on juniors/doubles for reasons covered above). It might be possible to come up with a good response but it's tricky, perhaps that the wheelchair event has less rounds, is more of a sideshow, and is a competition for which a much smaller % of the population and players are eligible for. Top prize money for wheelchair players would arguably be unfair. Assuming say 2% of players are disabled, and 98% are able bodied, is it reasonable to distribute the prize money on that basis? Whereas women and men make up 50% of the population of the world each.

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:
Person A enables a venue to charge ticket prices of £3795. Person B enables ticket prices of £1045.

Is it fair for them to be paid the same?

Capitalism and market forces don't have to be fair. If tournaments decide it makes business sense and will help profits if they pay men and women the same, they are entitled to do so.

But if we go down the 'what's fair' path, there are strong arguments to be made on both sides.
Person B and other women tennis players may be training has hard as Person A and other women tennis players. The reason some people are more inclined to watch men's tennis is because they know they are seeing the 'best in the world', as men players would beat women players. So irrelevant of how hard they work or the flair they play with, women tennis players because of the XX chromosomes will find it difficult to get as many people to watch on average.
Is that fair ?
People respond to that usually 'It may not be fair, but life's tough.'

So people care about fairness sometimes, when it comes to the arguments for creating inequity in pay; but not so much when it's the other way round.

Does this mean I can get a five year $80 million contract like LeBron because we're both playing basketball to the end of our genetic limitations?

To BB's other comment, many men are like that, but it's a bit of an over simplification. I personally wouldn't stay in a long term relationship with a woman without being attracted to her mentally and physically. A lack of a brain is as much a turn off as an ugly face in the long run. In the short term, if it's for a day or a week, the physical charms win out.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Anyway, if the principle of equality trumps all, why aren't the wheelchair players getting the same prize money? Or the doubles? Or juniors?

Juniors has a rule which means only under 18s can play, which limits the field greatly and thus it makes sense for the value of the tournament to be less. Juniors if they want can play on the normal ATP tour as well.
All players playing doubles have the option of playing singles if they wanted (and if they can't, it's based on merit), so that has nothing to do with equality.

The only one which has the principle of equality on their side is wheelchair players. On a pragmatic basis, the ratio of revenue between men vs women unfortunately is much closer than the revenue between singles vs wheelchair tennis.
If it was a totally fair equal world, disabled players would have the opportunity to earn the same, but it's not and they don't. Just because disabled people don't, that doesn't justify creating an inequity in women's pay as well.

Also as Julius keeps rightly pointing out, this is the market forces (which you so dearly love BB) at work. There's nothing in capitalism which mandates firms to pay workers for what they bring in, they can set the wage rate they like.

Oh so revenue now matters does it? But not when it comes to the women, so your logic is basically that it's ok to crap on the disabled. I guess to paraphrase my great hero Dr House (when forced to give a speech for Voglers "new" heart medicine), that must be because they're just so damn lame - God obviously never loved them anyway.

And you're completely wrong on labour rates; there's now shedloads of rules to - guess what - get employers to pay the same for men and women; when they're doing the same job that's common sense, but when they keep taking huge chunks of time off work, commit to fewer hours and often require much more flexibility, it's bizarre.

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35868662

Pathetic. Symptomatic of so much that is wrong with our culture.

Looks at the given responses:

"offensive and very inaccurate"
"extremely prejudiced"
"no place for Moore's antiquated, sexist or uninformed ideologies"

No use of facts or logic. No attempt to disprove the argument. No attempt to appeal to reason.

Just a blanket claim that he is wrong.

And yet Moore is the one with the "ideology".

FWIW, I happen to think there are some sensible arguments that could be used to counter Moore's view. But the usual suspects are more concerned about convicting someone of thoughtcrime.

Pathetic.

HM Murdock wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35868662

Pathetic. Symptomatic of so much that is wrong with our culture.

Looks at the given responses:

"offensive and very inaccurate"
"extremely prejudiced"
"no place for Moore's antiquated, sexist or uninformed ideologies"

No use of facts or logic. No attempt to disprove the argument. No attempt to appeal to reason.

Just a blanket claim that he is wrong.

And yet Moore is the one with the "ideology".

FWIW, I happen to think there are some sensible arguments that could be used to counter Moore's view. But the usual suspects are more concerned about convicting someone of thoughtcrime.

Pathetic.

HM Murdock wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35868662

Pathetic. Symptomatic of so much that is wrong with our culture.

Looks at the given responses:

"offensive and very inaccurate"
"extremely prejudiced"
"no place for Moore's antiquated, sexist or uninformed ideologies"

No use of facts or logic. No attempt to disprove the argument. No attempt to appeal to reason.

Just a blanket claim that he is wrong.

And yet Moore is the one with the "ideology".

FWIW, I happen to think there are some sensible arguments that could be used to counter Moore's view. But the usual suspects are more concerned about convicting someone of thoughtcrime.

Pathetic.

I liked the idea that Navratilova was suggesting players would boycott the event!

I agree that there are ways to counter arguments without resorting to the blanket generic statement that covers absolutely nothing but the cause.

You'd think women would use this opportunity to demonstrate how their game is as attractive and high quality as their male counterparts.

If I'm following IMBL's point correctly, it appears to be that women can be worse at a particular activity but, because they are women, it is fair that they receive more than a man who is equally skilled at the same activity?

True equality is everyone is part of the same pool and has the same opportunity to earn the prize money. As soon as it is accepted that women (or men for that matter) aren't able to compete on equal terms and have to have a separate competition, then different prizes are perfectly acceptable and not sexist in any way (providing that there is a legitimate reason for the difference).

Equal prize money at the slams will not change. However, I think all anyone on here is really arguing is that its a reasonable debate to have (and not sexist to suggest men might reasonably be entitled to more prize money).

Where, of course, the WTA could be focussing is in increasing their slam matches to bo5 - my view is that it is inherently sexist to have that difference. Oddly, they don't seem to be pushing for that change. Cynically, I might say that its all really about money, not equality.

Wait wait, I think people have misinterpreted what I was saying to HM.

HM gave an example of how if Player A (I guess average ATP player) brings in more revenue than Player B (average WTA player), whether it would be 'fair' for them to get the equal amount of money. Again there's no rules saying workers should get exactly what they bring in, so the argument for giving Player A more would be so that it was 'fair'.
(Btw by HM's argument it's also unfair on Federer to get same prize money as Agut for losing in R2, but we've discussed that point so I'll leave it.)

I say it could be seen as 'unfair' on women that they get watched less by many because they have don't have a Y chromosome, which they can't control; and it is also clear that ATP vs WTA players in singles would be a total mismatch.
As Kingraf pointed out, you could then take this 'fair' argument and apply it to all genetics, if you're 7 foot you probably have an advantage in basketball etc.- but it would be lunacy to not play better basketball players more money- so what's 'fair' when it comes to pay in sports is not frankly that relevant.

The reason Indian Wells make tournament equal pay is for commercial reasons, not to make it fair.
HM can complain that in one sense it's currently unfair on men as they bring in more revenue, if it's unequal pay women can claim it's unfair on women as they work just as hard and can't control their gender or the fact that men would beat them in top level tennis, meanwhile everyone on this thread could cry about the fact that we don't have the genes or innate of a sporting superstar however hard we try. Whatever the pay levels, one side will always complain it's not 'fair'.

If I was the CEO of a Slam/IW I would choose equal pay between men and women, because I like the symbol, it's a good message that could potentially help the number of young women taking up the sport, and good for their esteem. I recognise there are very valid arguments on either side of this issue, and I certainly don't think opposing equal pay is sexist.

Born Slippy wrote:Where, of course, the WTA could be focussing is in increasing their slam matches to bo5 - my view is that it is inherently sexist to have that difference.

This is the angle I would be pushing if were defending the WTA.

Bo5 is a huge advantage for the men:

More dramatic matches. Think how many of the classic men's matches of recent years would have been fairly routine if they'd been bo3.

The opportunity for the best players to get out of jail. If Djokovic plays two bad sets he get a chance to fight back. If Serena plays two bad sets, she's out. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would not have such large slam totals if they had to play bo3.

Bo5 makes it easier to create drama and to easier create multi-slam superstars. This in turn makes the product more marketable.

As I understand it, the WTA has offered to play bo5 but the slams have turned them down because of the scheduling problems it causes.

The one form of 'equality' that I do think is worthwhile is equality of opportunity. The WTA is not given the same opportunity as the ATP at the slams.

To me, the fairest approach is to make everyone play bo5 and if one 'product' attracts more revenue, it's entirely correct that it should receive greater payment.

However, I have zero desire for slams to be even longer and to have to watch the present WTA play bo5, so I'd actually consider the present situation the lesser of two evils!

But I loathe the ridiculous PC nonsense it brings with it.

"As I understand it, the WTA has offered to play bo5 but the slams have turned them down because of the scheduling problems it causes."

The WTA always states "we would be happy to play bo5" which is a passive position. What is clear is that they are not jumping up and down about it, which one would potentially expect, given the potentially sexist nature of the distinction.

It seems Virginia Wade had her say !!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-3503515/All-tennis-knees-thanking-Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal-not-just-women-Jokes-Virginia-Wade-response-Raymond-Moore-comments.html

All we need is Jahu's fantasies and we can wrap this thread up

Oh spare the thought

legendkillarV2 wrote:All we need is Jahu's fantasies and we can wrap this thread up

Still disappointed nobody picked up what I slipped into my first post on this thread.

I did but I was not about to comment on it... naughty

I think people are missing the big picture. This sort of false claims of sexism to defend a big payday and preferential treatment by these multimillionaires like Serena actually takes away from the sympathy and the tolerance that society in large and men will have for REAL Sexism. Women, particularly western, middle class or better women have really come a huge way. If they want to continue to progress they should be very careful about continually crying wolf over sexism and pretending that every single woman is suffering from massive sexual oppression all the time. Because frankly as a leftwing guy even I am tired of all the insufferable constant PC claims of sexism.

At some point the boy who cried wolf over and over and over again, had people ignore his pleas and he got eaten by the wolf. This is the current situation we face where anytime some women is disgruntled about anything in society or at work she just yells out sexism even if it has nothing to do with situation. If men have to make equal money even when generating the lion's share of the revenue and interest this will rub people the wrong way. It will especially rub people the wrong way when you claim sexism like Serena does and the other women tennis stars, where there is none. I hate to say it when I hire people I avoid hiring women. Why because in America our legal system is so messed up that anyone can just make something up and sue you about it with nothing to back them up but an allegation, especially if you are woman. At the end of the day it will cost you literally millions to fight it in court so you settle for still a large sum of money as extortion. If I hire a woman, I make sure she is middle aged and so repulsive that no one would ever want to have sex with her and more importantly no juror would believe anyone would want to have sex with her. Because god forbid if she sleeps with someone from work and that relationship goes badly for her, I could end up spending the next decade paying lawyers fees while somebody else hopped in the sack with her. These type of self interested use of sexism as a weapon to get over should be stopped, because it makes men and women in society in general less likely to believe you or care when real sexism is brought up.


This sort of extortion that the WTA is using to shame protection money from the more successful ATP is the same type of extortion as we see in other workplaces. Basically, pay me something you don't feel I deserve or I will sue you whether there is a good reason or not. I don't want to encourage this sort of self interested gravy training and use of false accusations of sexism as a weapon.

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

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

Incredible really.

The argument has nothing to do with gender, and never has. it has ALWAYS focused on interest generated, tournament revenues and the difference in set format.

You will note, quite clearly, not even a SINGLE ONE of these things mentions gender specifically as a problem.

It is therefore FACTUALLY not a discussion about sexism, its just the usual cop out. Equality is brilliant, BUT it does mean that youre treated on level footing for better OR worse, sometimes equality will leave more more responsible and sometimes more open to criticism, which is something that has to be accepted, no having the cake and eating it too, it makes a mockery of the suffering of the real early feminists to get this far.

If women make less revenue and don't play as long a format, they may have to take responsibility and accept they might not get the same prize money, not just hide an important debate behind their gender. OR perhaps we make a deal that we give them a better deal to try and make a statement to the other sports that lag behind.

On that note, ANY further suggestions that peoples stances on here are because they are sexist, one way or the other, when they are simply making reasonable point, will be received very, very poorly, you have been warned.

socal1976 wrote:I think people are missing the big picture. This sort of false claims of sexism to defend a big payday and preferential treatment by these multimillionaires like Serena actually takes away from the sympathy and the tolerance that society in large and men will have for REAL Sexism. Women, particularly western, middle class or better women have really come a huge way. If they want to continue to progress they should be very careful about continually crying wolf over sexism and pretending that every single woman is suffering from massive sexual oppression all the time. Because frankly as a leftwing guy even I am tired of all the insufferable constant PC claims of sexism.

At some point the boy who cried wolf over and over and over again, had people ignore his pleas and he got eaten by the wolf. This is the current situation we face where anytime some women is disgruntled about anything in society or at work she just yells out sexism even if it has nothing to do with situation. If men have to make equal money even when generating the lion's share of the revenue and interest this will rub people the wrong way. It will especially rub people the wrong way when you claim sexism like Serena does and the other women tennis stars, where there is none. I hate to say it when I hire people I avoid hiring women. Why because in America our legal system is so messed up that anyone can just make something up and sue you about it with nothing to back them up but an allegation, especially if you are woman. At the end of the day it will cost you literally millions to fight it in court so you settle for still a large sum of money as extortion. If I hire a woman, I make sure she is middle aged and so repulsive that no one would ever want to have sex with her and more importantly no juror would believe anyone would want to have sex with her. Because god forbid if she sleeps with someone from work and that relationship goes badly for her, I could end up spending the next decade paying lawyers fees while somebody else hopped in the sack with her. These type of self interested use of sexism as a weapon to get over should be stopped, because it makes men and women in society in general less likely to believe you or care when real sexism is brought up.


This sort of extortion that the WTA is using to shame protection money from the more successful ATP is the same type of extortion as we see in other workplaces. Basically, pay me something you don't feel I deserve or I will sue you whether there is a good reason or not. I don't want to encourage this sort of self interested gravy training and use of false accusations of sexism as a weapon.

I blame the lawyers.

temporary21 wrote:The argument has nothing to do with gender, and never has. it has ALWAYS focused on interest generated, tournament revenues and the difference in set format.

None of this is actually relevant at all.

A few tournaments a year feel it's in their best business interests to offer even prize-money for men and women, simple as that. Looking at how much Serena earned and how much Djokovic earned last year, the ratio is pretty much in line with viewing figures for the two tours in general. There is far less prize-money on the women's tour. It's these few events that are joint that are offering even money that upset people so much - no need to be upset. The events have just felt it's in their best business interests to offer the same for both genders. They're not arguing it's due to having equal interest or bringing in equal tournament revenues, just that they feel it's best for their event and their business.

Should Novak earn more money? - I dunno. Does he deserve it? - I dunno. Should he be moaning in public about how much more he should be getting? - certainly not, it's ridiculous behaviour.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think people are missing the big picture. This sort of false claims of sexism to defend a big payday and preferential treatment by these multimillionaires like Serena actually takes away from the sympathy and the tolerance that society in large and men will have for REAL Sexism. Women, particularly western, middle class or better women have really come a huge way. If they want to continue to progress they should be very careful about continually crying wolf over sexism and pretending that every single woman is suffering from massive sexual oppression all the time. Because frankly as a leftwing guy even I am tired of all the insufferable constant PC claims of sexism.

At some point the boy who cried wolf over and over and over again, had people ignore his pleas and he got eaten by the wolf. This is the current situation we face where anytime some women is disgruntled about anything in society or at work she just yells out sexism even if it has nothing to do with situation. If men have to make equal money even when generating the lion's share of the revenue and interest this will rub people the wrong way. It will especially rub people the wrong way when you claim sexism like Serena does and the other women tennis stars, where there is none. I hate to say it when I hire people I avoid hiring women. Why because in America our legal system is so messed up that anyone can just make something up and sue you about it with nothing to back them up but an allegation, especially if you are woman. At the end of the day it will cost you literally millions to fight it in court so you settle for still a large sum of money as extortion. If I hire a woman, I make sure she is middle aged and so repulsive that no one would ever want to have sex with her and more importantly no juror would believe anyone would want to have sex with her. Because god forbid if she sleeps with someone from work and that relationship goes badly for her, I could end up spending the next decade paying lawyers fees while somebody else hopped in the sack with her. These type of self interested use of sexism as a weapon to get over should be stopped, because it makes men and women in society in general less likely to believe you or care when real sexism is brought up.


This sort of extortion that the WTA is using to shame protection money from the more successful ATP is the same type of extortion as we see in other workplaces. Basically, pay me something you don't feel I deserve or I will sue you whether there is a good reason or not. I don't want to encourage this sort of self interested gravy training and use of false accusations of sexism as a weapon.

I blame the lawyers.

You are spot on, this type of crap is why stopped practicing law a decade or more ago. One half of all lawyers in the world work in America, almost half of that number work in California. They are like a pack of hungry hyennas waiting for a water buffalo to break its leg to tear its innards out.

djlovesyou wrote:

temporary21 wrote:The argument has nothing to do with gender, and never has. it has ALWAYS focused on interest generated, tournament revenues and the difference in set format.

None of this is actually relevant at all.

A few tournaments a year feel it's in their best business interests to offer even prize-money for men and women, simple as that. Looking at how much Serena earned and how much Djokovic earned last year, the ratio is pretty much in line with viewing figures for the two tours in general. There is far less prize-money on the women's tour. It's these few events that are joint that are offering even money that upset people so much - no need to be upset. The events have just felt it's in their best business interests to offer the same for both genders. They're not arguing it's due to having equal interest or bringing in equal tournament revenues, just that they feel it's best for their event and their business.

Should Novak earn more money? - I dunno. Does he deserve it? - I dunno. Should he be moaning in public about how much more he should be getting? - certainly not, it's ridiculous behaviour.

If bogus claims of false sexism was costing you millions of dollars a year in prize money you should just grin and bear it and take the extortion. This is how far we have come. The reason the tournaments are paying equal money is because Serena Williams and people like her complained over and over and over again about how sexist it was that they weren't making more millions. Its ok for Serena and Maria to complain for money, but Novak and the male players subsidizing them should shut up and open up their checkbooks and if they complain get smeared as sexists and misogynists. We have now reached the stage that the extortionist is the one we should sympathize with and the victims should be smeared and publically smeared for standing up for what is just and fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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