Why do the WTA & "feminists" focus on equality of prize money rather than equality of format in Tennis?

This is a separate question so I thought it merited a separate thread.

Why do the WTA & "feminists" focus on equality of prize money as a symbol of equality between men & women in tennis
... yet accept without fuss, or a whimper, inequality in the format of the men & women's game?

The inequality in format is everywhere: best of five set matches versus best of three set matches in Grand Slams, in the finals of Masters & their equivalent tournaments, in the Davis Cup versus the Fed Cup, in the End of Season Tour Finals, at the Olympics.  

Surely this is a glaring demonstration of inequality in the sport of Tennis that the WTA & "feminists" should be equally committed to overturning, equally vociferous in their condemnation.  The shorter format in women's tennis originated at the time when it was assumed women were the inferior sex, when it was assumed they couldn't run the marathon or run the 10,000 m.

It just doesn't make any logical sense why the WTA & "feminists" would focus on equality of prize money yet accept inequality in the format, a format predicated on the assumption that women are the inferior sex.

Note: At the Olympics the men had been running the 10,000 m since 1912.  The women's 10,000 m was only added at the 1988 Olympics.  Men's Olympic Marathon had been running since 1896.  The women's marathon since 1984.

Because they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome.

WTA's focus on equality is obvious, but the question is, would the BO5 format be really wanted by fans? I don't think so. Can you imagine 5 sets between Erani and Strycova taking 6 hours or Azarenka with Schiavoni or Sharapova? In the first case I would leave the stadium after one hour totally bored and within the second match I would need to leave and visit an ear specialists. Three sets are maximum.

paulcz wrote:WTA's focus on equality is obvious, but the question is, would the BO5 format be really wanted by fans? I don't think so. Can you imagine 5 sets between Erani and Strycova taking 6 hours or Azarenka with Schiavoni or Sharapova?  In the first case I would leave the stadium after one hour totally bored and within the second match I would need to leave  and visit an ear specialists. Three sets are maximum.

Ignoring the shrieking and ear damage, which is a different but important issue, there is nothing intrinsic that would make a women's tennis match less or more boring than a men's tennis match.  Some women's matches seem to last no time at all leaving some viewers / spectators wanting more.  This often happens during the finals of a grand slam tournament (ignoring the issue concerning the shrieking and ear damage).  Whereas some men's games seem to last forever - examples being a few 6 hour matches between Djokovic and Nadal.

In the 10,000 metres, do people get up and leave after 7000 m if it was a women's race rather than a men's race? In women's football do people get up and leave after 60 minutes?

I believe the cop-out answer by the feminists is that there wouldn't be enough time in the schedule to squeeze in BO5. It annoys me too that the feminists are far less vociferous about playing BO5 than they are about money.

If there was genuine will to get BO5 for women then it would happen. It can be easily achieved. Extend Wimbledon to three weeks for example or eliminate some of the nonsense like the old timers doubles or mixed doubles to make room in the schedules. Juniors could play at a different points in the calendar.

I like the example with women's 10,000m/Marathon. The argument brought forward by the one hit wonder Marion Bartoli that women are too weak to play 5 sets simply doesn't wash when these days women do triathlons, boxing, MMA and all kinds of other sports that are tough as hell.

At one point there was Bo5 in WTA, but Tournaments removed it. Was it done at the request of the participants?

Want that the year end championship in like the 80,s and 90,s?

There are several 5-setters in 1998. See this list...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTA_Tour_Championships

laverfan wrote:At one point there was Bo5 in WTA, but Tournaments removed it. Was it done at the request of the participants?

Very interesting there is definitely something strange in all this and it is worth investigating further for those with a bit of time to spare plus an interest in the matter. It seems to me the WTA should be pushing for equality in the formats - but they don't push for equality in the formats. Instead they say we must receive the same prize money in shared tournaments plus equivalent tournaments (such as the end of year tour finals) and this is the symbol for sex equality. They then say they are prepared to play the Bo5 formats like the men but it is the tournament directors that decide on the shortened Bo3 format for the women and that is something they are happy to accept the tournament directors deciding for them. But they won't accept the tournament directors deciding for them a lower prize money. This suggests to me it is not about equality at all.

Separately, I  have discovered today that women's tennis use different balls to the men.  Today the BBC report:

BBC wrote:There was a moment of confusion in the second set when Murray found himself serving with a rogue ball from the women's event, and duly dropped serve.

"The women's balls are very different from the men's balls," he said.

"They're much quicker, smaller, livelier, and when you're just about to serve at break point down, you don't want to be using a completely different ball. So I was just a bit frustrated with that."

So it seems that the women use a tennis ball of smaller diameter which will have less air resistance and hence will better able to retain its speed on the court (assuming the same mass & air pressure).

Nore Staat wrote:

paulcz wrote:WTA's focus on equality is obvious, but the question is, would the BO5 format be really wanted by fans? I don't think so. Can you imagine 5 sets between Erani and Strycova taking 6 hours or Azarenka with Schiavoni or Sharapova?  In the first case I would leave the stadium after one hour totally bored and within the second match I would need to leave  and visit an ear specialists. Three sets are maximum.

Ignoring the shrieking and ear damage, which is a different but important issue, there is nothing intrinsic that would make a women's tennis match less or more boring than a men's tennis match.  Some women's matches seem to last no time at all leaving some viewers / spectators wanting more.  This often happens during the finals of a grand slam tournament (ignoring the issue concerning the shrieking and ear damage).  Whereas some men's games seem to last forever - examples being a few 6 hour matches between Djokovic and Nadal.

In the 10,000 metres, do people get up and leave after 7000 m if it was a women's race rather than a men's race?  In women's football do people get up and leave after 60 minutes?

On a serious note. We can’t compare crowds watching marathon runners for a couple of minutes and sitting in the stadium for hours and watching 10 000m is quite small bite.
We need to take on account a physical side of the tennis. As we watch current women tennis we see their results are like day and night as well as their ranking. On the top their bodies are by far susceptible to injuries. Implementing of BO5 we would get still higher volatility of ranking, heavier players would often suffer from tiredness , much more walkovers, many players would finish their careers soon. So that ear specialists and boredom would not be the worst for fans. Fans are different, but players themselves know how damaging would it be.
I can imagine some masochists who would appreciate turnarounds from 0:6, 1:6, 0:4 (0:40) to win such a match. But men are really more stronger to withstand it emotionally. We would see a lot of valleys of tears and many broken hearts. BO3 is really good for women.

The answer is very very simple. Something for nothing. Everyone, at every level, enjoys something for nothing. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading both Bogbrush and Socal's diatribe on the matter. And nothing substantive has been put forward to refute their points of view.

When these two forces of nature agree on any matter, we should all take notice.

Anyway, I'm off to buy a car. I'm going to pop into the Lamborghini garage and demand to pay Ford prices.

I think they should make convicted sex offenders watch a never ending loop of WTA 5 set matches on clay if the women ever did switch their format. They will run out of the room screaming begging to be waterboarded. Actually, I can't think of anything more awful than my broadcast window here in the states being sucked up by a 5 set Serena Match or any female star. If the WTA is going to make this format change I would appreciate they inform me in advance so I can get my affairs in order, write my will, my suicide note and purchase a 38 special to blow my brains out in my bathtub.

Nore Staat wrote:

paulcz wrote:WTA's focus on equality is obvious, but the question is, would the BO5 format be really wanted by fans? I don't think so. Can you imagine 5 sets between Erani and Strycova taking 6 hours or Azarenka with Schiavoni or Sharapova?  In the first case I would leave the stadium after one hour totally bored and within the second match I would need to leave  and visit an ear specialists. Three sets are maximum.

Ignoring the shrieking and ear damage, which is a different but important issue, there is nothing intrinsic that would make a women's tennis match less or more boring than a men's tennis match.  

I could not disagree more. I took this beautiful girl years ago that I had been trying to get go out with me to go see live tennis for the first time. She went to school in Spain, and had heard of Nadal so she was in CA and thought it would be cool to see the big national sports star. Leave it to say that she loved it and 3rd row seats center court finally succeeded in allowing me to conclude my siege of her heart in a positive manner. She was a liberal young woman and we had great seats right above. She was spellbound by the power, the speed, the raw athleticism of the male players not 10 feet away. When the women came on after 5 minutes the change of speed at the game, especially live is just jaw dropping. She stated, "why do they play so badly", now this gal wasn't a misogynist, I hadn't made any disparaging remarks, and while she sat spellbound during the ATP matches she couldn't take 5 minutes of the WTA. I mean if you are at one of these coed events it is sad, you will see half the crowd empties to the bar and the outside courts when the women come out. Not just men, an equal number of women. So yes, intrinsically women's tennis is more boring and not as much fun to watch. And this isn't me saying it this is what the ratings of the two respective tours have said since the dawn of time.

See, that's what us guys are like. we'll even sit through a Nadal match if we think it'll work the magic.

bogbrush wrote:See, that's what us guys are like. we'll even sit through a Nadal match if we think it'll work the magic.

It did the trick BB, to be honest she was out of my league and I had to pull out all the stops, Nadal earned some respect from me that day.

Rafael Nadal- powering Socal's love life since 2004.

It Must Be Love wrote:Rafael Nadal- powering Socal's love life since 2004.

LOL! at least she didn't scream out "oh RAFA", very lady like of her if you ask me.

socal1976 wrote:I think they should make convicted sex offenders watch a never ending loop of WTA 5 set matches on clay if the women ever did switch their format. They will run out of the room screaming begging to be waterboarded. Actually, I can't think of anything more awful than my broadcast window here in the states being sucked up by a 5 set Serena Match or any female star. If the WTA is going to make this format change I would appreciate they inform me in advance so I can get my affairs in order, write my will, my suicide note and purchase a 38 special to blow my brains out in my bathtub.

I think this type of attitude defeats your argument, by agreeing women should not be given the opportunity to play Bo5 set tennis according to the format of the men's game.  That is precisely the argument the WTA uses ("they are willing to play Bo5 but are denied that opportunity").  That IS inequality in the sport dictated by others & it is the argument they have demonstrably won by the fact THEY ARE given equal prize money (it was a lengthy battle and they won it if we are to judge the history of the sport).  It consigns the argument that they should play Bo5 tennis to the dustbin, and introduces concept of a match by match prize money dependent on a judgement of interest (more prize money for a Nadal vs Federer type match - than for a Bedene vs Istomin type match up, even if it transpired in the same round of the competition).

In Social Theory it can be argued that the "traditional socialisation" giving rise to your preference towards the men's game is countered and defeated by "modern socialisation" resulting in the women getting the SAME prize money in tournaments such as the Grand Slams. But since these poles in socialisation remain it creates an on-going tension between individuals in society as revealed by Raymond Moore's comment and the various reactions to it including several threads on this forum.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think they should make convicted sex offenders watch a never ending loop of WTA 5 set matches on clay if the women ever did switch their format. They will run out of the room screaming begging to be waterboarded. Actually, I can't think of anything more awful than my broadcast window here in the states being sucked up by a 5 set Serena Match or any female star. If the WTA is going to make this format change I would appreciate they inform me in advance so I can get my affairs in order, write my will, my suicide note and purchase a 38 special to blow my brains out in my bathtub.

I think this type of attitude defeats your argument, by agreeing women should not be given the opportunity to play Bo5 set tennis according to the format of the men's game.  That is precisely the argument the WTA uses ("they are willing to play Bo5 but are denied that opportunity").  That IS inequality in the sport dictated by others & it is the argument they have demonstrably won by the fact THEY ARE given equal prize money (it was a lengthy battle and they won it if we are to judge the history of the sport).  It consigns the argument that they should play Bo5 tennis to the dustbin, and introduces concept of a match by match prize money dependent on a judgement of interest (more prize money for a Nadal vs Federer type match - than for a Bedene vs Istomin type match up, even if it transpired in the same round of the competition).

In Social Theory it can be argued that the "traditional socialisation" giving rise to your preference towards the men's game is countered and defeated by "modern socialisation" resulting in the women getting the SAME prize money in tournaments such as the Grand Slams.  But since these poles in socialisation remain it creates an on-going tension between individuals in society as revealed by Raymond Moore's comment and the various reactions to it including several threads on this forum.  

With all due respect can not agree at all. I don't want to deny them the opportunity, in fact nothing stops them from making their master's finals best of 5, and as of yet I haven't heard any outcry of women players demanding to play 5 sets at slams. I just don't think there is much of a market for it. I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to play best of 5 set matches, but the UN may want to exam that policy change as a violation of the human rights of most tennis fans.

The fact is that no one has been programmed to dislike women's tennis just like we aren't programmed to prefer a hard shot to a weaker shot or prefer a higher speed game to a slower speed game. We watch auto racing because we want to see the fastest, we watch football we prefer to watch a fast paced game with crunching tackles as opposed to a slower, low scoring, or less physical contest. We prefer to watch a football thrown 70 yards in stead of 30 yards, we prefer to watch a baseball thrown at 100 miles an hour compared to a soft ball thrown at 50. No one programmed all of humanity to like one more than the other, it is like people are programmed to like beautiful over ugly. That isn't because we have been programmed by patriarchal society or some such nonsense that is just the way it is, and frankly it isn't down to sexism because even most women fans prefer the ATP to WTA, at least that has been what I have seen at Indian Wells the several years I have gone and taken neutrals and other friends to the tournament. People like to watch the fastest, the strongest, the best in sports and in fact at these coed events the women's tour suffers badly when you watch the two side by side.

socal1976 wrote: 3rd row seats center court finally succeeded in allowing me to conclude my siege of her heart in a positive manner.

Nice turn of phrase.

There was Bo5 in Men's MS as well. These were dropped around 2006-2007, IIRC. The Bo5 vs Bo3 debate is not that crucial, overall to this 'equality' debate or comparison of specific athleticism.

socal1976 wrote: She stated, "why do they play so badly", now this gal wasn't a misogynist, I hadn't made any disparaging remarks, and while she sat spellbound during the ATP matches she couldn't take 5 minutes of the WTA. I mean if you are at one of these coed events it is sad, you will see half the crowd empties to the bar and the outside courts when the women come out. Not just men, an equal number of women. So yes, intrinsically women's tennis is more boring and not as much fun to watch. And this isn't me saying it this is what the ratings of the two respective tours have said since the dawn of time.

This can be equally blamed on the inherent desire to compare the same sport. You need a more open-minded approach and the ability to transition from the ATP to WTA styles, power, speed. Do you compare every male player to Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl,.... ?

All animals do not run at the speed of a Cheetah, does that imply they are incapable of running or do it badly? IMVHO, the answer is no. I have watched Graf (and many others) spellbound what these Women are capable of.

laverfan wrote:There was Bo5 in Men's MS as well. These were dropped around 2006-2007, IIRC. The Bo5 vs Bo3 debate is not that crucial, overall to this 'equality' debate or comparison of specific athleticism.

socal1976 wrote: She stated, "why do they play so badly", now this gal wasn't a misogynist, I hadn't made any disparaging remarks, and while she sat spellbound during the ATP matches she couldn't take 5 minutes of the WTA. I mean if you are at one of these coed events it is sad, you will see half the crowd empties to the bar and the outside courts when the women come out. Not just men, an equal number of women. So yes, intrinsically women's tennis is more boring and not as much fun to watch. And this isn't me saying it this is what the ratings of the two respective tours have said since the dawn of time.

This can be equally blamed on the inherent desire to compare the same sport. You need a more open-minded approach and the ability to transition from the ATP to WTA styles, power, speed. Do you compare every male player to Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl,.... ?

All animals do not run at the speed of a Cheetah, does that imply they are incapable of running or do it badly? IMVHO, the answer is no. I have watched Graf (and many others) spellbound what these Women are capable of.

Great you are in the minority, most fans want to see athleticism and power in sports. Want to see athletes push the limits and do things that normal mortal men can't do. I have a friend who played tennis at UCLA division 1 tennis a huge program. A year after she left the team, (to be fair she was rusty), we decided to play a set. The last time I played organized tennis I was 14 and she is 23 and I am 38. I beat her 7-6 and played like crap could hit a first serve in to save my life. My niece got a full scholarship to play tennis although she hurt her wrist as freshman and could not play, her last year before college she still couldn't beat me in a set. Sure the WTA stars would kick my ass, but sorry I want to see tennis many levels above anything I can dream of playing, the WTA doesn't fit that standard and never has although the Graf era was a period that even I watched a little women's tennis, Henin to I always liked to watch. If anything the women are hurt by comparison at these coed events. If you walked by the court and saw these gals hit live you would be very impressed. But now put a court of male pros next to her court and everyone will watch the increased athleticism and power of the men and no one will take notice of the two incredible ball striking women.

Henman Bill wrote:

socal1976 wrote: 3rd row seats center court finally succeeded in allowing me to conclude my siege of her heart in a positive manner.

Nice turn of phrase.

oddly it was the one phrase I had to think about how to write in the whole paragraph because I didn't want to just spell it out. Thanks for the compliment.

socal1976 wrote:Great you are in the minority, most fans want to see athleticism and power in sports. Want to see athletes push the limits and do things that normal mortal men can't do. I have a friend who played tennis at UCLA division 1 tennis a huge program. A year after she left the team, (to be fair she was rusty), we decided to play a set. The last time I played organized tennis I was 14 and she is 23 and I am 38. I beat  her 7-6 and played like crap could hit a first serve in to save my life. My niece got a full scholarship to play tennis although she hurt her wrist as freshman and could not play, her last year before college she still couldn't beat me in a set. Sure the WTA stars would kick my ass, but sorry I want to see tennis many levels above anything I can dream of playing, the WTA doesn't fit that standard and never has although the Graf era was a period that even I watched a little women's tennis, Henin to I always liked to watch. If anything the women are hurt by comparison at these coed events. If you walked by the court and saw these gals hit live you would be very impressed. But now put a court of male pros next to her court and everyone will watch the increased athleticism and power of the men and no one will take notice of the two incredible ball striking women.  

This is not a majority/minority issue. I can switch my expectations/athleticism meter and adjust. If you sit in traffic which moves at 30 mph, you also drive at 30mph. If you are on a road with traffic police out of sight, you can drive at 200mph. On the Salt Flats of Utah, you can put on a Ramjet on your ar$3 and drive at Mach speeds.

The (mythical) equality is actually being eroded by the spectators, not the players.

Remember BJK vs. Riggs (forget Braasch vs. Williamses). The hurting at such Co-ed events is done by the spectators more than anyone else. You go get popcorn when the ads come, because the primary movie is valued higher than the advert on the idiot box. If the advert (in you specific case was Victoria's Secret, you would f$$$ the popcorn), I will you a long monologue shot to get it.

No laverfan, the spectators are not eroding equality. It is just that in the area of athletic achievement people are more impressed by the physically stronger and bigger sex and what they are able to accomplish. I can enjoy women's athletics but it isn't sexism that keeps women's sports maybe with the exception of gymnastics and figure skating a distance second to men's sports. Human beings if they want to pay their money they want to see the best in a field, they don't want to see the best in a gender quite as much .

I think there is a conflation of issues: equality in sport and popularity in sport.  Equality in sport is easier to analyse and interpret than popularity.   Popularity itself is subject to socialisation and may represent a mechanism of transferring inequality from one generation to the next in society.

With tennis, popularity is more associated with the competitive nature of the sport than to absolute measures of power and endurance.  In the height of the Djokovic versus Nadal rivalry someone compared their matches to those of a "classic" five set match between Borg and Lendl at the French Open.  In terms of power and endurance there was "no comparison" - the game has moved on dramatically (professionalism and sports science).  In the fifth set Borg and Lendl were at walking pace and the serving and points were lacking in energy in comparison.

On a completely different note, the reason why I don't watch women's tennis so much is because of the shrieking in the women's game, with Sharapova and Azarenka being major proponents.  I also noted the apparent contempt the Williams sister's had for the sport when they began wearing "unique" clothes on court, in order to be "loud and provocative" and to gain publicity for Venus William's own clothes business.

socal1976 wrote:No laverfan, the spectators are not eroding equality. It is just that in the area of athletic achievement people are more impressed by the physically stronger and bigger sex and what they are able to accomplish.

I consider NFL worse in athleticism than Rugby. I consider Cricket more refined than MLB. Bonds does not impress me as much as Ponting. Bigger is not always more athletic. Sumo Wrestling comes to mind, despite the fact that they lumber around, have others help them stand up on occasions, I find it much more refined than Heavyweight boxing. This is just my view.  BTW, are you saying horse jockeys are any less athletic than Tyson?

socal1976 wrote:I can enjoy women's athletics but it isn't sexism that keeps women's sports maybe with the exception of gymnastics and figure skating a distance second to men's sports. Human beings if they want to pay their money they want to see the best in a field, they don't want to see the best in a gender quite as much .

You still need a second gender to lay siege to a heart, right?

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No laverfan, the spectators are not eroding equality. It is just that in the area of athletic achievement people are more impressed by the physically stronger and bigger sex and what they are able to accomplish.

I consider NFL worse in athleticism than Rugby. I consider Cricket more refined than MLB. Bonds does not impress me as much as Ponting. Bigger is not always more athletic. Sumo Wrestling comes to mind, despite the fact that they lumber around, have others help them stand up on occasions, I find it much more refined than Heavyweight boxing. This is just my view.  BTW, are you saying horse jockeys are any less athletic than Tyson?

socal1976 wrote:I can enjoy women's athletics but it isn't sexism that keeps women's sports maybe with the exception of gymnastics and figure skating a distance second to men's sports. Human beings if they want to pay their money they want to see the best in a field, they don't want to see the best in a gender quite as much .

You still need a second gender to lay siege to a heart, right?

LF, it is a fact the market prefers male sports generally to women sports. In some sports like figure skating or gymnastics where the grace and flexibility is a bigger deal in the sport women are the biggest draw. That is fine, for me it comes down to fairness people don't have any understanding that since the mid 90s the women's tour has siphoned tens maybe hundreds of millions off of the male tour with false allegations of sexism. And they destroy people with a media witchunt who question, even question the policy. Novak had more articles written on his mild comments,"maybe we deserve more", then he did when he won Wimbeldon. You would have thought Moore, who built this damn tournament had walked into their lockeroom and demanded fellatio or something, the way he was treated. The reason this angers me is that we have the media totally manipulated to attack people who are speaking the truth and comedown in favor of a group of false accusing extortionists who have no right to the money. If they could earn it on their own they would, but they can't. What offends me is that people don't realize what a giant cancer this is for the men's game. At the end of the day, I don't like people making false accusations of sex discrimination and destroying people to get money they can't get on their own. You are not being discriminated against because you are woman, you are getting discriminated against because you don't draw enough. And that is the only reason you make less, because you earn less.

I found this very interesting. Not sure why their Solicitor is referencing the amount of income generated as a means to argue for mo money. When a bloke has the cheek to suggest such a thing....

The lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday morning.
One of the lawyers representing the players, Jeffrey Kessler, said the women's game generated more income for US Soccer than the men's and it was time to address the "discriminatory and unfair treatment'' they have endured for years.

Johnyjeep wrote:I found this very interesting. Not sure why their Solicitor is referencing the amount of income generated as a means to argue for mo money.  When a bloke has the cheek to suggest such a thing....

The lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday morning.
One of the lawyers representing the players, Jeffrey Kessler, said the women's game generated more income for US Soccer than the men's and it was time to address the "discriminatory and unfair treatment'' they have endured for years.

Well, Well, well; women soccer players complaining that their federation generates more revenues and should get paid more based on those revenues. I saw the same story. They are right, if they draw the most money they should make the most money. Its funny how these women can see the logic of this when the shoe is on the other foot.

socal1976 wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:I found this very interesting. Not sure why their Solicitor is referencing the amount of income generated as a means to argue for mo money.  When a bloke has the cheek to suggest such a thing....

The lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday morning.
One of the lawyers representing the players, Jeffrey Kessler, said the women's game generated more income for US Soccer than the men's and it was time to address the "discriminatory and unfair treatment'' they have endured for years.

Well, Well, well; women soccer players complaining that their federation generates more revenues and should get paid more based on those revenues. I saw the same story. They are right, if they draw the most money they should make the most money. Its funny how these women can see the logic of this when the shoe is on the other foot.

It made for very painful reading. The worst part being is that it's not even the same event!! Still, would love for the reasoning behind this to be explained to leading American women tennis players.

Johnyjeep wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:I found this very interesting. Not sure why their Solicitor is referencing the amount of income generated as a means to argue for mo money.  When a bloke has the cheek to suggest such a thing....

The lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday morning.
One of the lawyers representing the players, Jeffrey Kessler, said the women's game generated more income for US Soccer than the men's and it was time to address the "discriminatory and unfair treatment'' they have endured for years.

Well, Well, well; women soccer players complaining that their federation generates more revenues and should get paid more based on those revenues. I saw the same story. They are right, if they draw the most money they should make the most money. Its funny how these women can see the logic of this when the shoe is on the other foot.

It made for very painful reading. The worst part being is that it's not even the same event!! Still, would love for the reasoning behind this to be explained to leading American women tennis players.

Old Persian saying that applies this situation Johnny, "you can wake someone up who is asleep, but you can't wake someone up if they are pretending to be asleep." They don't want to woken up, the gravy train is all they care about. From the beginning it has been a cynical money grab. They know how much of their revenue actually comes from leeching off the ATP tour, that is why they get so hysterical when anyone challenges it even mildly, I mean you would have thought Novak had come out in support of wife beating or something. I mean journalists who had never ever written a single article about tennis and had no knowledge about the business of the sport were all of sudden lecturing him on what is appropriate and the facts about equal pay. Please bumholes, the guy was on the ATP player council and has been a pro player since he was a teenager I doubt some bumhole in the NY times knows more about the business of the tour than he does and what is or isn't fair.