Oh my god more nonsense from the WTA, now the men owe them because they don't get equal money at all events!

DANIEL ISLAND, S.C. — With renewed scrutiny on the disparate compensation paid to male and female athletes after a wage discrimination lawsuit filed by the United States women’s soccer team, tennis has been cited as a leader in gender equality among major sports.





But even in tennis, where men and women compete alongside one another at the same stadiums around the world, female players still earn significantly less than their male peers.

Get Today’s Headlines by E-Mail Each Morning From The New York Times

Grand Slam tournaments and the handful of other top combined events that pay men and women equally remain the exceptions.

Raymond Moore, the tournament director of the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, Calif., an equal prize money event, resigned last month, after saying that WTA players were “lucky” to be able to “ride on the coattails of the men.” His comments led to conversations at subsequent tournaments about the financial realities for men and women in tennis.

At the Volvo Car Open in Charleston, S.C., last week, several top players pointed out that the discussion of equal pay often distorts the distinct advantage male players still have in annual compensation.

“The facts were not put on the table; the fact is we don’t earn equal prize money,” said Andrea Petkovic, a German player ranked 30th. “It’s not true. We only earn it in the Grand Slams and a few other tournaments, but men earn more than we do. I think it was discussed in the wrong manner, and that was very sad to see.”

Although men and women are compensated more comparably in tennis than in any other major sport, the annual prize money paid to the top 100 earners on the WTA and ATP Tours roughly matches the general pay gap in American workplaces, with female tennis players earning 80 cents on each dollar men earn. The median pay gap between a woman in the top 100 and her opposite number on the men’s tour is $120,624.

“I think that sometimes we just hope that those problems are in the past, and that we have come much further,” Petkovic said. “But it’s good to be confronted with the thoughts of men that still think that way, and it’s maybe nice for us to have discussions with them and to explain our point of view.

“I just wish that we would be a leader, that it wouldn’t matter about who is more popular, who is this or that. We, as a sport, could stand for something more than equal prize money — we’d stand for community and sportsmanship.”

Billie Jean King, who pushed for equality as the women’s professional game developed, remains an advocate for women’s issues in sports and beyond long after her playing days ended.

“We have a chance to continue to lead,” King said of tennis. “To have equal prize money in the majors sends a message. It’s not about the money, it’s about the message.”

That message shines brightest under the sport’s biggest spotlights, at the four Grand Slam events, where men and women are paid equally. The United States Open became the first Grand Slam event to offer equal pay, in 1973, and Wimbledon the last, in 2007.

But at other large combined ATP-WTA tournaments, where the men and women are sold together under one ticket, the prize money disparity can be stark. The Western & Southern Open in Mason, Ohio, the biggest event in the weeks before the United States Open, attracts dazzling constellations of top men’s and women’s stars each year to what is the fourth-largest tennis tournament in the country.

The tournament, in which the United States Tennis Association owns a majority stake, pays the women only 63 cents on the dollar as compared with the men. Last year, Roger Federer received $731,000 for defending his title at the tournament, while Serena Williams received $495,000 for defending hers hours later.

Organizers cite a technicality in the WTA’s structure to justify the pay differential. The tournament is one of nine Masters 1000 events, the top tier on the ATP Tour. But the top tier of the WTA Tour is four Premier Mandatory events, which include tournaments in Miami, Madrid and Indian Wells, Calif., where women can expect equal compensation to men. The Ohio event sits in the next tier, the Premier 5.

Women are also paid less than men at similar Premier 5 events in Canada and Rome, which are held in conjunction with men’s tournaments. (At all tour events outside the Grand Slams, men and women play best-of-three-set matches, though this fact is often lost in the debates over equal prize money.)

Many WTA-only events, including the one now known as the Volvo Car Open, have flourished. Attendance here consistently dwarfs lower-tier ATP events nearby in Atlanta and Winston-Salem, N.C., and it has drawn crowds similar to, or ahead of, the ones at the comparable ATP event in Washington, which added a lower-tier WTA field in 2012. But the total men’s purse in Washington is $1,877,705, while the Charleston purse was about $753,000.

“There’s no question that we want to lessen that gap — it’s our commitment to the players,” said Bob Moran, the Volvo Car Open’s tournament director.

There are occasional combined events at which a higher-tier WTA event pays a larger purse than its lower-tier ATP counterpart. At the China Open, held in Beijing in October, the men’s champion earns 67 percent of the pay earned by the women’s champion. But the disparity is steeper at tournaments in which the ATP event is of a higher designation. In Rio de Janeiro in February, the men’s champion, Pablo Cuevas, won $303,300, more than seven times the $43,000 paid to the women’s champion, Francesca Schiavone.

The pay gap extends all the way down the ladder on ATP and WTA tours. According to a 2014 study by the International Tennis Federation that analyzed the average costs for playing professional tennis and the prize money from the previous year, 336 male players could earn enough to cover average expenses, while only 253 women could.

The total revenues of the ATP and WTA have fluctuated continually, with a gap of $2.6 million in 2008 giving way to a men’s advantage of $37.4 million in 2014.

As stark as the disparities are, tennis players perennially dominate the lists of highest-paid female athletes. Last year, the only two women on Forbes’s list of the 100 highest-paid athletes were tennis players: Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova.

In other major sports, the gap in revenue and compensation is far greater than in tennis. The N.B.A.’s minimum salary of $525,093 is more than seven times the W.N.B.A.’s average of $75,000, forcing many top female players to supplement their income by playing overseas during the off-season. In golf, the top 100 of the L.P.G.A. earns just 19 cents on the dollar compared with the top 100 on the PGA Tour.

To capitalize on the popularity of superstars like Federer, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, the ATP Tour in recent years has gained significant increases in prize money, many of which have also benefited women in equal-pay events. That does not please everyone in the sport.

Sergiy Stakhovsky, a member of the ATP Player Council, said he wanted to see a moratorium on adding combined events in order to allow the men’s game — “a different product, which is better” — to stand on its own. Stakhovsky, ranked 111th, bristles at the blowback combined tournaments receive when they do not offer equal pay.

“That’s the only reason why we don’t want them is because it’s always going to come one way or another that we’re the bad guys,” Stakhovsky said. “This way, we have our own venue, they have their own venue. I think that women deserve to be paid more. I’m not saying they deserve to be paid less. But this has nothing to do with paying us.”

“We’ve been through a lot of talks with the Grand Slams in the last three years, and the increases have been significant and we’re very grateful,” Stakhovsky added. “But every time we came to the table, and every time there was a number we asked for, we got half of it. And we know why.”

The top-ranked Djokovic was criticized at Indian Wells for saying men “should get awarded more” because “the stats are showing that we have much more spectators.”

The American player Madison Keys said that many of the male players she knows “freak out and make it seem like every single week we get the same — which is not true.”

“I feel like it’s one of those conversations: When you’re friends with someone, you don’t talk about politics; when you’re friends with someone, you don’t talk about equal prize money in tennis,” she added.

Some ATP players, most notably Andy Murray, have been outspoken advocates for equal pay for women. But Venus Williams, who led the push for equal prize money at Wimbledon, among other advocacy for the women’s game, expressed disappointment at the continued resistance to equal pay from her male colleagues.

“I don’t think a lot of the women really understood how some of the guys feel,” Williams said. “From all accounts, maybe they feel like they have had something taken away from them. I don’t know if I’m understanding what they’re saying correctly, but that’s not the case.”

Nicole Gibbs, a two-time N.C.A.A. champion who majored in economics at Stanford, has been among the most outspoken defenders of equal pay, despite contending that such debates are “a little bit tired.”

Unlike Djokovic and Stakhovsky, Gibbs said metrics like attendance for men’s and women’s matches should not factor into decisions on compensation.

“I think the point is giving a nod to equality, showing that we’re going to be on the forefront of progress, rather than on the back end,” she said. “It’s about setting a precedent that if you have a daughter and a son, you don’t have to sit your daughter down and say, ‘You deserve three-fourths or a half of what a man has.’ I think that’s a really important narrative that we really want to be on the correct side of in tennis.”


Correction: April 12, 2016

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of a picture with this article was published in error. It showed Angelique Kerber, not Andrea Petkovic.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/roger-federer-dollar731000-serena-williams-dollar495000/ar-BBrExHN?ocid=spartandhp

The ATP needs to divorce these ex-wives of the WTA and fast, now they have designs on equal pay at all their events even the ones that are not co-ed. I love that scumbag BJK saying that it isn't about the "money its about the message". What an absolute stool she is. How come when you guys fight for money that you can't earn on your own tour it isn't about money but the message. God I find her and the rest of these WTA leeches disgusting. Not only are they raking the male pots they then have the audacity to lecture them in the media and tell them how they should be better people and not complain. Stakhovsky's comment is spot on, the women are stealing 50 percent of the growth in the game and are starving the mid level and lower level pros. And judging by this one sided non-sense article that doesn't even mention that the men's tour is by far the bigger draw they know how they have to start another media witchunt.

socal1976 wrote:
in tennis ... female players still earn significantly less than their male peers.

Grand Slam tournaments and the handful of other top combined events that pay men and women equally remain the exceptions.

... discussion of equal pay ... annual compensation.

we don’t earn equal prize money,” ...

It's a competition.  It is not work.  It is prize money.  It is not wages, pay, salary, earnings.

The biggest issue is the division of prize money between winners and losers.  Between those allowed to enter the tournaments and those that aren't.  

Just look at the "wage" differential in Grandslams between those that have played one match and those that play 7 matches.  The tennis player who gets to play 7 matches gets much more than 7 times than the tennis player who only gets to play one match.  

Tennis players in tournaments should be "paid" at the same hourly rate - Let's say £1000 per hour.  They should be judged also to ensure they don't muck around and show reasonable effort in front of the paying audience.  At the end of each match the time taken to complete the match should be noted and payment given equally to the players based on the formula "hourly rate x hours played".  Provisions will be in place to prevent tennis players mucking around for the purpose of extending unnecessarily the time taken to complete the match.  

A bonus rate of up to £500 per hour will be awarded based on an adjudication system in which effort and quality thresholds will have needed to be passed.  Pay may be held back if the quality of the work does not reach a certain threshold of expectation.  

A strict work place dress code will be enforced.  

The players should carry out their work without raising their voices or screaming: sound meters will be incorporated into the court and red buzzers will go off.  Three chances then you're out.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
in tennis ... female players still earn significantly less than their male peers.

Grand Slam tournaments and the handful of other top combined events that pay men and women equally remain the exceptions.

... discussion of equal pay ... annual compensation.

we don’t earn equal prize money,” ...

It's a competition.  It is not work.  It is prize money.  It is not wages, pay, salary, earnings.

The biggest issue is the division of prize money between winners and losers.  Between those allowed to enter the tournaments and those that aren't.  

Just look at the "wage" differential in Grandslams between those that have played one match and those that play 7 matches.  The tennis player who gets to play 7 matches gets much more than 7 times than the tennis player who only gets to play one match.  

Tennis players in tournaments should be "paid" at the same hourly rate - Let's say £1000 per hour.  They should be judged also to ensure they don't muck around and show reasonable effort in front of the paying audience.  At the end of each match the time taken to complete the match should be noted and payment given equally to the players based on the formula "hourly rate x hours played".  Provisions will be in place to prevent tennis players mucking around for the purpose of extending unnecessarily the time taken to complete the match.  

A bonus rate of up to £500 per hour will be awarded based on an adjudication system in which effort and quality thresholds will have needed to be passed.  Pay may be held back if the quality of the work does not reach a certain threshold of expectation.  

A strict work place dress code will be enforced.  

The players should carry out their work without raising their voices or screaming: sound meters will be incorporated into the court and red buzzers will go off.  Three chances then you're out.

You have a separate tour for the women. You are not the same entity as the ATP tour despite trying to pretend that the WTA and ATP we are all in this together and what message do you want to send to your daughter nonsense. Stakhovsky makes the same argument I do, that the growth at the ATP pots has been halved and siphoned off by the WTA. Drop them like a bad habit, now the argument is that Cincy, which isn't coed should have to pay the women the same. They are trying to take the scam further. I love how one of the female players on the tour is like it isn't about who earns more, funny that is the central thesis of the US women's national team case that they earn most of their revenues. So this article cites the Women's national team case but doesn't point out the obvious fact that this case is completely different. Here you have someone who doesn't draw and wants to be paid like the bigger draw because they are girls. In the other case you have the women, who according to their lawyer's statement, earn more revenue getting paid less. If this is true than the US women's National team is a case where discrimination of gender could be a factor, and in the WTA's case discrimination of gender is not the reason you make less money, the reason is people don't watch your tour and like it as much.

Who are you calling to drop who?

Are we back to not fully understanding that each event is a separate entity again?

Are we not also back to not fully understanding that if they wanted to drop the WTA events, they could do just that?

I would maybe think about stopping discussing this socal, it'll sounds like it could take years off your life.

djlovesyou wrote:Who are you calling to drop who?

Are we back to not fully understanding that each event is a separate entity again?

Are we not also back to not fully understanding that if they wanted to drop the WTA events, they could do just that?

I would maybe think about stopping discussing this socal, it'll sounds like it could take years off your life.

Do you not feel that Petkovic and Williams would be better suited trying to improve the profile of the WTA? The way I read the comments, they appear to be saying women should receive the same prize money, across the board, and that revenues are irrelevant. Apparently, it's the right message to send that you can be part of a less successful product yet earn the same?

“It’s about setting a precedent that if you have a
daughter and a son, you don’t have to sit your
daughter down and say, ‘You deserve three-
fourths or a half of what a man has.’ "

You can however tell your son that if he makes his company a quarter more income he doesn't deserve more pay

The message they should send their son is that even if you generate 250 percent more ratings or revenues than a female colleague he should not be allowed any reward for his merit. That he should be happy with equality, which is worth more than the money his merit earns. Basically, the message this sends to kids is that if you can't be as successful as someone else threaten them with false allegations and commercial extortion, pretend that you are being victimized by gender, ethnic, religious, or any other discrimination necessary to get money you can't earn through your own merit. The media coverage of this issue is more disgusting than anything I can think of in sports right now. How ridiculous this whole article is that it goes on and on and on lecturing on the importance of equality. And it pretends like there is no good reason (ie the men generate more revenue) to pay the men more except discrimination over gender. The article doesn't even mention the men generate way more interest and revenues.

“I don’t think a lot of the women really understood how some of the guys feel,” Williams said. “From all accounts, maybe they feel like they have had something taken away from them. I don’t know if I’m understanding what they’re saying correctly, but that’s not the case.”

I appreciate your views on Venus Williams socal (disgusting, vile, etc), but your whole premise is that the men (Djokovic) are losing out.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense or pragmatism can see it's not the case.

Just split the games up. Let the women play at one time and men at another. Then however much each generates they can keep it all.

ShahenshahG wrote:Just split the games up. Let the women play at one time and men at another. Then however much each generates they can keep it all.

But the tournaments don't want that.

It's pointless discussing this on here, because nobody actually understands how the sport operates.

Enlighten us then. You say it doesn't take money away from the mens sport? How can it not? Essentially it sounds like they negotiate a massive pot then split 50-50 with the girls without regard for the income generated by each.

ShahenshahG wrote:Enlighten us then. You say it doesn't take money away from the mens sport? How can it not? Essentially it sounds like they negotiate a massive pot then split 50-50 with the girls without regard for the income generated by each.

Actually, it is worse than that all tournament directors have a built in incentive to not grow the ATP pots, every dollar for the men has to equal a dollar for the women. Therefore the women are lowering the growth rate of ATP pots not just at the coed events but across the board. They are breaking and reducing the price for the Men's tour year round. Once the ATP tour's growth is repressed at the coed events the non-coed events still use the same price. The men's tour will eventually leave the women at everything but the slams. Because what this article tells us is there is massive blowback behind the scenes from the male players at having half the growth of their tour syphoned off.

djlovesyou wrote:“I don’t think a lot of the women really understood how some of the guys feel,” Williams said. “From all accounts, maybe they feel like they have had something taken away from them. I don’t know if I’m understanding what they’re saying correctly, but that’s not the case.”

I appreciate your views on Venus Williams socal (disgusting, vile, etc), but your whole premise is that the men (Djokovic) are losing out.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense or pragmatism can see it's not the case.

Oh so a Williams sister who has unfairly benefitted to the tune of millions is more credible than Djokovic, Stakhovsky, and Moore. I mean Novak who has spent his whole life in pro tennis and is on the player council isn't smart enough to figure out that splitting your money 50/50 with a tour that you out draw 2 to 1 isn't losing anything. I mean a tournament director having to give 2 dollars for every 1 dollar of pot increase to the ATP tour won't have a discentive to grow the ATP pots now will he? But I know you think as long as the men's pots grow faster than inflation they haven't lost anything, yeah that makes sense. Basically, if I was Venus I would probably say the same thing to cover up my self interested pilfering through false accusations of sexism. You don't get paid less because you are woman, you get paid less because you draw less Venus.

What this article tells us, when you look at how much blowback there is from the men, and how the media witchunt has kept them quiet. The comments of Kerber and Williams indicate that a lot of the ATP tour players have the same exact position of Stak and Djoko and are just frightened that they will destroyed for speaking the truth like Ray Moore was. I am sure the ATP tour players and their agents aren't stupid, they aren't just making up the fact the WTA is siphoning off the growth of their pots. I mean lets make something up, go public and getting crucified by the media for speaking up about a non-issue, yeah that makes a lot sense.

The mere suggestion that 'The ATP' will leave the women behind and go their own way is exactly the reason why I said there is no point discussing this.

If you understood how tennis tournaments and tours themselves worked, you would realise that this is simply not going to happen because it benefits nobody and that the ATP don't have the ability to go it alone because they're not really the ones who get the make this decision.

Take Indian Wells for example - they want a co-ed event, they don't want to do 2 different events as it isn't cost effective. The ATP can't demand they drop the WTA. The tournaments are the ones in a position of power because they are in charge of the facilities.

As for the prize-money - this is set by the ATP and WTA, each tournament has to pay above a certain threshold in order to maintain their position as a Master 1000,500,250 etc. As the ATP has risen their thresholds (and they have) I haven't seen any tournament come back and say 'Hey, we're going to have to drop down now because the women have taken all the money' have we?

As for the relative intelligence of Djokovic and Stakhovksy, neither particularly smart cookies, but both very much like the sound of their own voices.

I think this was raised by Laverfan, but maybe someone can look into the following and write an article on it:

Why do the men and women professional tennis players have separate "unions" and tours?  
Why are there separate ATP and WTA?
Why is there not one players body representing both men and women professional tennis players?

It seems to me the ATP and WTA are labour market monopolies (based on gender lines) that tournaments have to go to in order to get "professional tennis players" to enter their tournaments.

NS,

I do not know why they are separate but it strikes me as quite natural - men and women (mixed doubles notwithstanding) do not compete against each other.

My guess would be that if a woman was competitive enough to play ATP tour nobody would prevent her from joining ATP if she wanted to. In that sense I doubt ATP is really gender based.

WTA, on the other hand, is obviously discriminatory.

You raise some interesting points Summerblue.  I am not sure that other sports have "players unions" like in tennis.  In football there is something called the Professional Footballers Association but I don't think they have as much influence on football than the ATP and the WTA have on tennis.  I don't think the PFA is divided along gender lines, but then the majority of professional footballers have been men.

Can a tennis player enter tennis tournaments if they are not members of the ATP or WTA?  Do all good tennis player have to join the "union" in order to gain entry into tennis tournaments as well as to get a "professional ranking".

This is what I seem to be able to find:

ATP - rulebook section I. 1.07 A. 6)

For entry into an ATP World Tour or ATP Challenger Tour tournament, all players must be an ATP Player Member (”Member”) or an ATP Registered Player. Wild cards are exempt from this provision.

WTA - rulebook section III. A. 2. seems to be relevant:

Entry into Tournaments shall be open to all female tennis players based
on merit and without discrimination, subject only to the conditions herein
set forth and to those provisions of the Age Eligibility Rule.

The gender requirement is then detailed at length in III. A. 4. and age requirement in section XV.

Thank you Summerblue. There is something "closed shop" about all of this. Maybe the sporting facilities that hold the tournaments should group together to form a counter to the power of the ATP & WTA. It is in this monopolistic setting that for example the WTA, which controls the labour to women's competitions, is able to make demands.

WTA is obviously closed to men (and they have age requirement - was it introduced after Capriati and similar problems - I can't remember?).  But other than that, it did not seem to me they were closed to non-members.  In fact, there were a couple of sections in the WTA rulebook that seemed to fairly specifically imply that non-members could play.

At the same time, there is nothing stopping anyone from setting up non-ATP/WTA tournaments.  At one point there used to be competing men's tours.  It is probably not very sustainable, but in theory doable.

Also, I do not know how much problem it constitutes in practice.  Are there any players who would want to play and not join the ATP or WTA union?

djlovesyou wrote:The mere suggestion that 'The ATP' will leave the women behind and go their own way is exactly the reason why I said there is no point discussing this.

If you understood how tennis tournaments and tours themselves worked, you would realise that this is simply not going to happen because it benefits nobody and that the ATP don't have the ability to go it alone because they're not really the ones who get the make this decision.

Take Indian Wells for example - they want a co-ed event, they don't want to do 2 different events as it isn't cost effective. The ATP can't demand they drop the WTA. The tournaments are the ones in a position of power because they are in charge of the facilities.

As for the prize-money - this is set by the ATP and WTA, each tournament has to pay above a certain threshold in order to maintain their position as a Master 1000,500,250 etc. As the ATP has risen their thresholds (and they have) I haven't seen any tournament come back and say 'Hey, we're going to have to drop down now because the women have taken all the money' have we?

As for the relative intelligence of Djokovic and Stakhovksy, neither particularly smart cookies, but both very much like the sound of their own voices.

It is the ATP's choice and will happen sooner or later because of the unreasonable demands and extortion of the WTA. We have seen how not just Stak or Djokovic are mentioning this issue. From Kerber and Williams comments behind the scenes a lot fireworks are taking place. Absolutely it is the ATP's decision at all the non-slams. They will just announce in negotiations with the Tournament director and say we don't do coed masters or 500s or 250s anymore period. We want to market our tour separately. The tournament director can walk and then they move the tournament or find another buyer that is it. Yes the TDs have a lot of power but the ownership and schedule of these tournaments changes all the time.

DJ I love your nonsensical idea that as long the men's pots don't get smaller or outgrow inflation then they haven't lost anything. Why can't the women agree that as long as they make more than inflation they haven't lost anything due to discrimination. As every common sense analysis indicates, when you split your revenue 50/50 with a tour you outdraw 2 or 3 to 1, yes you are getting screwed and royally. Plus any increase in men's pots gets halved, this is exactly what Stakhovsky says and it makes complete sense. If you have to give 2 dollars for every 1 increase to the men, in effect you are repressing the growth of the ATP pots. You can simply quote loathsome BJK or Williams sisters who have benefitted to the tune of millions from this policy through false charges of sexism and destroying good people like Raymond Moore. But sorry, we don't suspend logic of how business and the world works because Serena or Venus use the word equality to justify their legal extortion.

I will make you a bet, we will lose a coed masters as soon as the fedal gravy train ends and tennis has a predictable period where resources will get tighter. These things are negotiated years in advance, we will see the ATP simply state we don't want IW or Miami to be coed events, put them a week or two weeks apart or our players won't attend. I can't wait till the ex-wives of the WTA get whats coming to them. Over the next few years it will start happening. They won't even have to say anything about equality or money, just we don't want coed events. We want to market our tour separately. At the slams you are right there is little that they could do short of lengthy and unpopular boycott. In terms of the non-slam events they just need a majority of members to vote to phase them out over time.

As soon as money gets tight they will just say sorry Ellison or Miami we will only negotiate with you if you put our event on exclusively at the time we are playing, at worst case they lose one rich tournament director and have to take a small price cut for a couple of years with a new guy. At least they will turn off the long term funneling of money out of their tour.

PS I can't think of single report of Djokovic by the media, colleagues, other players, coaches or anyone who has dealt with him that says he is not bright or smart. I am sure he can figure out the business of tennis after being on the ATP player council and on tour since age 17. He seems to be able to make a lot of smart decisions in life and yes I find him more credible than the entire gynomafia who is benefitting to the tune of millions through false allegations of discrimination. In fact, I would find a common thief or embezzler to be more credible than any of these false accusation crusaders. After all when you make your living by false accusations you just aren't credible.

Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

ShahenshahG wrote:Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

Thanks Shah, the WTA's relationship with the ATP tour is like a guy in a sexless marriage to a battle axe whose theory on life is "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours"

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

Thanks Shah, the WTA's relationship with the ATP tour is like a guy in a sexless marriage to a battle axe whose theory on life is "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours"

I feel the same way about most campaign groups, starts off with all the best will in the world then becomes a tyrannical mob which bays loudly at any perceived deviance from the world according to them.

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

Thanks Shah, the WTA's relationship with the ATP tour is like a guy in a sexless marriage to a battle axe whose theory on life is "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours"

I feel the same way about most campaign groups, starts off with all the best will in the world then becomes a tyrannical mob which bays loudly at any perceived deviance from the world according to them.

Yeah unfortunately it pays to make yourself look like a victim even if you are the actual victimizer.

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

Thanks Shah, the WTA's relationship with the ATP tour is like a guy in a sexless marriage to a battle axe whose theory on life is "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours"

I feel the same way about most campaign groups, starts off with all the best will in the world then becomes a tyrannical mob which bays loudly at any perceived deviance from the world according to them.

Yeah unfortunately it pays to make yourself look like a victim even if you are the actual victimizer.

USA foreign policy in a nutshell.

Absolutely clueless, I'm sorry.

You make it sound like it's the ATP that's providing the $$$$. Whoever provides the $$$$ holds the power. It's the tournaments.

They want co-ed. As much as it makes you tearful, just about every tournament would love to hold a co-ed event if they had the court space and time. That's why Moore had to resign, not just because of the terrible women saying bad things about him, but because it was a stupid thing to say business wise.

You think facilities like the ones in Indian Wells and Miami are common? You think someone will just build another one because the ATP don't want to share an event with the WTA?

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

Thanks Shah, the WTA's relationship with the ATP tour is like a guy in a sexless marriage to a battle axe whose theory on life is "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours"

I feel the same way about most campaign groups, starts off with all the best will in the world then becomes a tyrannical mob which bays loudly at any perceived deviance from the world according to them.

Yeah unfortunately it pays to make yourself look like a victim even if you are the actual victimizer.

USA foreign policy in a nutshell.

Yep, unfortunately the foreign policy of quite a few powers, but none like us over here in the USA. I always laugh when our President demands X country stop its destabilizing activities. Prior to the war on terror they did a study and said that the US military had been engaged in a major armed conflict on average every 2.3 years since the founding of our Republic. The British were even worse at times during the late British Empire they were fighting 3 and 4 colonial wars simultaneously all over the globe. I think the Brits might actually beat our warmaking numbers, you know what that means, America can't finish second in warfare well that would Unamerican, we will have to launch a few more wars in rapid succession.

djlovesyou wrote:Absolutely clueless, I'm sorry.

You make it sound like it's the ATP that's providing the $$$$. Whoever provides the $$$$ holds the power. It's the tournaments.

They want co-ed. As much as it makes you tearful, just about every tournament would love to hold a co-ed event if they had the court space and time. That's why Moore had to resign, not just because of the terrible women saying bad things about him, but because it was a stupid thing to say business wise.

You think facilities like the ones in Indian Wells and Miami are common? You think someone will just build another one because the ATP don't want to share an event with the WTA?

A you do realize the multimillion dollar facilities at Indian Wells is empty for 50 weeks of the year basically. Are you telling me whoever the owner is wouldn't lease it for millions of dollars to a new tournament director who holds a franchise monopoly on all the best tennis players in the world, unless those tennis players refused to give in to demands to play in the exact same week as girls? If anyone is clueless it is you on this issue who wants us to believe the men don't lose anything splitting their pots 50/50 with a tour they outdraw by 2 or 3 to one. As long as they grow faster inflation they didn't lose anything right? You do realize that whoever owns those beautiful IW facilities didn't buy them to sit empty as a monument to false equality? You know it costs him millions to own it right and he didn't buy it for the tennis stadium to be a modern art masterpiece in a parking lot and large grass field 80 miles east of Los Angeles in some god forsaken desert? Poopie Indian Wells the city is that tournament, without it the whole city would be a lot poorer. You think they would let the ATP play there in another week? They get two tournaments they win some and lose some.

If anything the ATP has the tournament directors over the barrel, Why? Because the ATP is the greatest Union in the world. You can't ship their jobs to China, you can't hire scabs, and you can't hire goons to break a strike. They are freaking world class athletes and hold a monopoly on world class athletes in male tennis, the ATP is the highest rated tennis tour in the world. You can always find another billionaire and another city, what there are like 3000 billionaires and only one single tour that holds a monopoly.

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

Thanks Shah, the WTA's relationship with the ATP tour is like a guy in a sexless marriage to a battle axe whose theory on life is "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours"

I feel the same way about most campaign groups, starts off with all the best will in the world then becomes a tyrannical mob which bays loudly at any perceived deviance from the world according to them.

Yeah unfortunately it pays to make yourself look like a victim even if you are the actual victimizer.

USA foreign policy in a nutshell.

Yep, unfortunately the foreign policy of quite a few powers, but none like us over here in the USA. I always laugh when our President demands X country stop its destabilizing activities. Prior to the war on terror they did a study and said that the US military had been engaged in a major armed conflict on average every 2.3 years since the founding of our Republic. The British were even worse at times during the late British Empire they were fighting 3 and 4 colonial wars simultaneously all over the globe. I think the Brits might actually beat our warmaking numbers, you know what that means, America can't finish second in warfare well that would Unamerican, we will have to launch a few more wars in rapid succession.

Ha. I didn't even realise you were american. I just wrote it to wind up truss. Agree with all you've written there. Hard times for you ahead of the election.

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Socal even though I agree with you regarding this issue your thread title really cracked me up.

Thanks Shah, the WTA's relationship with the ATP tour is like a guy in a sexless marriage to a battle axe whose theory on life is "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours"

I feel the same way about most campaign groups, starts off with all the best will in the world then becomes a tyrannical mob which bays loudly at any perceived deviance from the world according to them.

Yeah unfortunately it pays to make yourself look like a victim even if you are the actual victimizer.

USA foreign policy in a nutshell.

Yep, unfortunately the foreign policy of quite a few powers, but none like us over here in the USA. I always laugh when our President demands X country stop its destabilizing activities. Prior to the war on terror they did a study and said that the US military had been engaged in a major armed conflict on average every 2.3 years since the founding of our Republic. The British were even worse at times during the late British Empire they were fighting 3 and 4 colonial wars simultaneously all over the globe. I think the Brits might actually beat our warmaking numbers, you know what that means, America can't finish second in warfare well that would Unamerican, we will have to launch a few more wars in rapid succession.

Ha. I didn't even realise you were american. I just wrote it to wind up truss. Agree with all you've written there. Hard times for you ahead of the election.

Not really, our economy is doing well. I am super busy with sales and everyone I know in my industry is. This is just the process of the current Republican party and brand name going through a death and rebirth process that will be very painful, but mostly for them. They are losing longterm in the battle of demographics and ideas. It also has a lot to do with the white population percentage of voters shrinking. I mean still 74 percent of voters were white in the presidential election of 2012. If you go back to the 80s and 90s the percentages were in the mid eighties and they are going down at about 2 percentage points for every 4 year election cycle. That is where a lot of the rightwing anger comes from. At this point serious people just laugh at Republicans.

That might explain it my friends are both republicans and quite angry ones at that. Is Sanders in with a shot? I'd have thought he'd have been left behind sometime at the beginning of the race but he seems to be going from strength to strength. But I have heard hilary has some guaranteed votes that should see her win handily.

Sanders problem is that democrats don't have a winner take all system at all and to make up the amount of delegates in the party he has to win and win by margins more than winning a couple of delegates more in some small state. The delegates Hillary has comes from the fact that the Clintons are the leaders of the Wall Street/Centrist Democratic faction. Bernie is an independent who votes with the dems in the Senate. Therefore in the second class of Democratic party Delegate is known as a Super Delegate. These are actually elected officials who are members of the Democratic party. Every Democratic Senator, Congressmen, and I think Governor is a Super Delegate. They each get a vote, they make about 20 percent of the selection votes maybe a little less, something between 15 and 20. These people can change and go for Bernie, they are Super Delegates and till convention can sell their vote for patronage, position, or brownie points with whoever they think is going to win. So it isn't a sure thing but Hillary has more pull inside the party elite officials and many have already declared publically they are for her. In fact, I think most of them.

Thanks for the clarification mate. Best of luck. Back to bed for me got another 5 am start. Ta ra

socal1976 wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:Absolutely clueless, I'm sorry.

You make it sound like it's the ATP that's providing the $$$$. Whoever provides the $$$$ holds the power. It's the tournaments.

They want co-ed. As much as it makes you tearful, just about every tournament would love to hold a co-ed event if they had the court space and time. That's why Moore had to resign, not just because of the terrible women saying bad things about him, but because it was a stupid thing to say business wise.

You think facilities like the ones in Indian Wells and Miami are common? You think someone will just build another one because the ATP don't want to share an event with the WTA?

A you do realize the multimillion dollar facilities at Indian Wells is empty for 50 weeks of the year basically. Are you telling me whoever the owner is wouldn't lease it for millions of dollars to a new tournament director who holds a franchise monopoly on all the best tennis players in the world, unless those tennis players refused to give in to demands to play in the exact same week as girls? If anyone is clueless it is you on this issue who wants us to believe the men don't lose anything splitting their pots 50/50 with a tour they outdraw by 2 or 3 to one. As long as they grow faster inflation they didn't lose anything right? You do realize that whoever owns those beautiful IW facilities didn't buy them to sit empty as a monument to false equality? You know it costs him millions to own it right and he didn't buy it for the tennis stadium to be a modern art masterpiece in a parking lot and large grass field 80 miles east of Los Angeles in some god forsaken desert? Poopie Indian Wells the city is that tournament, without it the whole city would be a lot poorer. You think they would let the ATP play there in another week? They get two tournaments they win some and lose some.

If anything the ATP has the tournament directors over the barrel, Why? Because the ATP is the greatest Union in the world. You can't ship their jobs to China, you can't hire scabs, and you can't hire goons to break a strike. They are freaking world class athletes and hold a monopoly on world class athletes in male tennis, the ATP is the highest rated tennis tour in the world. You can always find another billionaire and another city, what there are like 3000 billionaires and only one single tour that holds a monopoly.

You're barking, and clueless.

You are entitled to your opinion. I just chose not to pretend that splitting ATP pots evenly with a tour you out draw by 2 or 3 to 1 is getting screwed by the male players. I chose not to suspend common sense and math, and pretend that the money comes from nowhere like you do, or that the men have nothing to complain about and don't lose anything as long as their pots grow faster than inflation. I know since arch scumbag Williams sister or BJK uses the word equality then the rules of business and math just stop mattering.

ShahenshahG wrote:Thanks for the clarification mate. Best of luck. Back to bed for me got another 5 am start. Ta ra

Post more often on tennis shah, nice to have you around. Take care.