22 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFIf they make claims like that they better have stats to back them up. Even if so, they should have equal pay. Both sexes have at best ten or so years sometimes 15 to play and they better make the most of it in the short dog years they have so there should be no discrimination about who draws the most crowds.
Here's an idea. How about competitors ~ regardless of whether they are male or female ~ set a tariff for their performance.
For example: $2,000 for playing in the first round; $30,000 for reaching the fourth round; $100,000 for going out in the Q-Finals etc. etc. [There would be increasing kitties for each round advanced]. And they set their own prize money ...[text shortened]... event.
In this way, men and women could demand what they were worth in a competitive market.
I see plenty of matches where the camera seldom hits the crowd because there are 10 people in attendance of the third or 4th rank event. Men and women.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19038
22 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFBad idea on a lot of levels.
Here's an idea. How about competitors ~ regardless of whether they are male or female ~ set a tariff for their performance.
For example: $2,000 for playing in the first round; $30,000 for reaching the fourth round; $100,000 for going out in the Q-Finals etc. etc. [There would be increasing kitties for each round advanced]. And they set their own prize money ...[text shortened]... event.
In this way, men and women could demand what they were worth in a competitive market.
Until quite recently men did get paid more in tennis than woman, with the main reasons that they worked more. Of course this just applies to grand slams where they play best of 5 sets compared to woman's best of 3, now they're prize money is equal in all major events but the debate is basically the same. The only difference now is that it's men trying to get paid more using the same argument that was used when they were arguing against woman getting equal pay.
I personally don't really care either way but if men work more on court and generate more money why not get paid more in tennis? The argument that they should be paid the same purely because of sex doesn't work for me. Take football for example, the last world cup Germany earned around 15 times the amount the states did for winning the woman world cup, fair and justified? 100%! Sponsorship higher, ticket sales much more and a lot more expensive and adverting sales income greater.
The difference is that male and female tennis players compete at the same events and playing at the same time as each other. With that in mind the difference, if any shouldn't be that much, if they started to play best of 5 in woman grand slams I'd be completely behind them getting paid the same.
23 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy should there be no discrimination about who draws the most crowds?
Both sexes have at best ten or so years sometimes 15 to play and they better make the most of it in the short dog years they have so there should be no discrimination about who draws the most crowds.
25 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonhouseActually I thought you were using the expression 'draw crowds' figuratively and not literally. Men's tennis draws more TV viewers than women's tennis. The revenue from this would make the cash from bums-on-seats in the stadium relatively meaningless.
Because crowds at the site, Roland Garros, say, there is more bucks in the TV rights so the box office money is only part of the deal.
Never been able to figure out why men's tennis is more popular as a spectator sport. To me it seems too much a slam-bam exercise, muscle wins, there's nothing to watch. I'd rather the old style men's tennis, or women's tennis, where clever placement of balls is worth watching.
Price depends on advertiser draw, and it has to, if women want equal pay they have to convince the TV networks and their advertisers. Audience wants are irrelevant, that's what promotion is all about.