I don't understand why the women's TV rights sell for so much less than the men's? If that is indeed true then what are the women complaining about? They make as much money as the men and yet no one is willing to pay the same amount for their TV rights. Fair is fair...
Tournament owners should not be forced to pay for something they are not getting...
Tournament owners should not be forced to pay for something they are not getting...
1
Oh for crying out loud. Money money money. Corporate this and corporate that. What a tedious planet.
Just pay everyone the same and move on.
Just pay everyone the same and move on.
8
women's tennis is different from men's tennis, just as doubles is different from singles. there are more fans who prefer watching men's singles tennis than those who prefer watching women's tennis, or doubles of any kind (men's, women's or mixed) even though those matches can be hugely exciting and entertaining.
prize money has to do with TV viewership and nothing else--not with talent, not with guts or striving or heartbreak--just money.
And so far, men's singles tennis is the big money maker.
prize money has to do with TV viewership and nothing else--not with talent, not with guts or striving or heartbreak--just money.
And so far, men's singles tennis is the big money maker.
3
Again, it's not a question of men vs women. It's the level of play; fact remains that top 100 men can clean out the top 4 women. We don't reward high school basketball the way we reward college vs pros. Get over it or you're empowering Trump on political correctness.
I can see the headlines tomorrow: "Clinton supporters attack Ion Tiriac by calling him a "sexist" for saying nice comments about women in professional tennis industry."
1
Let's use the thermodynamic definition of work for compensation. Equal pay for equal work would mean that we assign a prize money per kJ spent. A big heavy player would use more kJ than a smaller one, and we would compensate they accordingly.
1
The only question that matters is which gender attracts the most eyeballs on television? If it's the men who are most watched, then they deserve more money. If the women, then they deserve more money. If they attract more or less equal numbers of eyeballs then, and only then, they should be paid equally.
3
It seems to me that the have men ridden the skirt-hems of the women in the modern era. Tennis owes its popularity and possibly its survival as a major sport to the professionalism of women like Billy Jean King, Yvonne Goologong Cawley, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffie Graf, Monica Seles, Serena Williams and Venus Williams. Do men who argue against the equality in the status, appeal, and competitiveness of the men's and women's games conveniently forget that the US Open Women's final sold out well before the men's?
3
Elizabeth, what's it like living in a dream world? Laver, Nastase, Borg, Connors, McEnroe,Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal..need I go on to prove the foolishness of your comment? Tennis owes its popularity and possibly its survival as a major sport to the professionalism of both men and women! I am all in favor of equal pay for equal play when the women start playing best of 5 set matches.
5
I enjoy women's tennis, but the men's product is just better, top-to- bottom. The WTA presence adds some variety and a measure of enjoyment to a tournament but the female play is definitely not equal to the men's play and should be paid accordingly, but certainly not equally. That said, I really don't care if they are compensated equally or not; there are more important things in life and greater inequities with which to be concerned.
Can we please stop using tennis or any other sport for that matter as a platform for discussion about equal pay? It makes no economic sense in doing so nor does it give traction to the issue. How about we use VP of Product Development as a driver for equal pay. Just saying.
5
A very simple solution: let men and women play each other in tournaments. Equal pay for equal performance.
6
I've always wondered about something regarding women's tennis vs men's tennis: when one compares Simone Halep with Novak Djokovic. Who is working the hardest and therefore ought to get paid at least as much as, if not more than, the other? It’s Halep! Since Halep is so small, she must cover, relative to her own size, more distance on the court. She must execute many more steps than does Djokovic to get from one side to the other, to approach the net and run back to the baseline ….. To bring the proportions to an equal measure, Djokovic ought to be playing on a court that is quite a bit wider and deeper than it currently is.
Imagine a world where hard work was justly compensated, and the Lloyd Blankfeins and Jamie Dimons of the world working on their short games at a minimum security country club.
Professional tennis suffers to some extent from the winner-take-all principle. The very best do very well financially with endorsements and prize money, the slightly less accomplished may be able to make a living, but those who work just as hard but struggle to get into the main draw have to make difficult financial and family decisions (especially the women). It's not football or baseball or basketball or soccer--a draw of 132 produces one champion. Large draws require more prize money. Moving into the main draw without the advantages of a team is hard work, and all of these players are phenomenally better than really really good players on the satellite circuits. There is little wealth distribution, player development programs are underfunded, and the players whose families can afford a tennis academy can turn a slight advantage into a cumulative advantage that means the difference between success and a sputtering dream.
Professional tennis suffers to some extent from the winner-take-all principle. The very best do very well financially with endorsements and prize money, the slightly less accomplished may be able to make a living, but those who work just as hard but struggle to get into the main draw have to make difficult financial and family decisions (especially the women). It's not football or baseball or basketball or soccer--a draw of 132 produces one champion. Large draws require more prize money. Moving into the main draw without the advantages of a team is hard work, and all of these players are phenomenally better than really really good players on the satellite circuits. There is little wealth distribution, player development programs are underfunded, and the players whose families can afford a tennis academy can turn a slight advantage into a cumulative advantage that means the difference between success and a sputtering dream.
2
Equal pay for equal work means the ladies should play best-of-five matches, or am I missing something?
2
are you missing something? Yes, for the most part. If you follow any tournament besides the Grand Slam ones, you have noticed that most men's tournaments are played in 3 sets. Including in Madrid.
Your argument equal pay for equal work is valid only for Grand Slam events.
Your argument equal pay for equal work is valid only for Grand Slam events.
1
The men do not play best of five matches either ... except at the Grand Slam events and a few others. So yes you are missing something.
1
Yes, you are missing that in most tournaments men also play only three sets - you clearly watch only the few that are five. And also that many women have said they could play five in those tournaments if that is the issue. It's the usual patronizing attitude that poo little women can't play as long as men. In any event the women's game offers as much entertainment and athletic skill as the men - and sports is entertainment for the rest of us, especially the occasional watcher who doesn't know how many set most tournaments include. So will you be paying actors by the minutes on screen, authors by the word?
1
it appears there is confusion about different domains for equality. Of course, a model or movie star must accept their value is wholly based on market-ability.
The difference is that in sports, from high school on, there is a reason to support girls & women with equal attention as boys & men.
The WTA is not lesser, it is different. Tournaments may require TV money but prize money could be seen as the distribution of revenue from attendance & sponsors- not Nielsen ratings. How dumb to imagine paying a player per TV ratings !
Ferrer would get less, Krygios more...? Ivanovic more, Kvitova less ?
Maybe Tiriac needs to cap his prizes, not genderize popularity.
The difference is that in sports, from high school on, there is a reason to support girls & women with equal attention as boys & men.
The WTA is not lesser, it is different. Tournaments may require TV money but prize money could be seen as the distribution of revenue from attendance & sponsors- not Nielsen ratings. How dumb to imagine paying a player per TV ratings !
Ferrer would get less, Krygios more...? Ivanovic more, Kvitova less ?
Maybe Tiriac needs to cap his prizes, not genderize popularity.
2
Setting aside the broader social discussion on equal pay, I find this discussion particularly baffling when it comes to tennis. As a fan (and a male fan at that), I find that one of the best parts of tennis is that you basically get a two great tournaments for the price of one (albeit a pricey one to see in person). When you get to the slams and majors, the level of play is so good on both the men's and women's side that it's pretty inconsequential as to which gender you're watching. The equal quality of play certainly justifies equal pay.
6
Tiriac doesn't seem to get the connection between improved play and competitiveness on the women's side in the last three decades, and pay parity. There have always been great rivalries--Martina and Chris, Steffi and Monica, Venus and Serena. The quality of play up and down the draw continues to improve thanks to the pioneers like Billie Jean who took a stand. Anyone who thinks the women today aren't earning their keep on the tour either doesn't understand or play tennis, or holds some warped view that men's and women's interests aren't better served through solidarity and mutual respect.
Tennis has become a sport where the very elite have more money to finance a team, incorporate science into training, and stay on top longer. Djokovic is the perfect example, and as great as he is he understands the value of the 'team.'
The professional sports world is a TV love fest and a man's world, and women will be held to a market standard. Tiriac's comments make it clear as a society women are a long way from prevailing on strictly moral grounds.
Tennis has become a sport where the very elite have more money to finance a team, incorporate science into training, and stay on top longer. Djokovic is the perfect example, and as great as he is he understands the value of the 'team.'
The professional sports world is a TV love fest and a man's world, and women will be held to a market standard. Tiriac's comments make it clear as a society women are a long way from prevailing on strictly moral grounds.
1
I bet he has really awful legs.
5
I think it is impossible for there to be a level playing field for women and men in anything and that is because it is dominated by men with Fu-Manchu mustaches who hold many of the cards. To be fair to these deep pocket owners, It is impossible to pay everyone equally but yes if you reach quarter, semis and finals then that harwork should be equal. Now a bigger issue is the blatant sexualization of women. Referring to the length of their legs and such. That's a total disgrace. I would like to see someone make mention of Rafa's thinning hair as being unattractive in comparison to Feddy's thick rich mane. Or comment on how well their bulges look in their shorts. We would not tolerate that so why do we tolerate all these ridiculous comments on the women in the sports?
9
... or politics ... or business ... or media ... People like Tiriac are in a position to make a difference. But some of them talk like they're walking out of the ice age. Unfrozen caveman tournament executives.
2
Really NY Times? You actually describe it as a "Fu Manchu mustache"? In the very first line of an article about a sexist idiot owner's comments about the legs and pay of women tennis players? Oh the irony. Guess corporations have learned nothing from the Google Make Me Asian App debacle, Chevy's racist Fu Manchu ad or the Washington Post's racially offensive "Chinaman" headline. Oh and btw, that's a handlebar mustache. Can't even get that right.
2
It is NOT a handlebar mustache. To see a handlebar, google Rollie Fingers.
Serena Williams wouldn't think she was equal to men if she played tennis against them. Let's not confuse this with equal rights, which we all agree with.
7
On a good day there aren't many men who could beat Serena.
1
The pay gap, while certainly present "locally" is a old canard. This 83 cents on the dollar business has been pretty much debunked - if you factor out the schedule flexibility option, the pay is the same. Now, on to tennis... Tiriac, if you dispense with his leg-loving, is making a simple point - that he is paying women more than he is taking in for this product. So, if you move from the suffrage arguments to the dollars and cents ones, the picture becomes much simpler. Kournikova is a very good example of the advantage women have over men, what with the 'legs' and all; no singles titles and mucho dinero in endorsements; you don't see that with men - and nobody cried foul.
5
Ugh, why do you chauvinist types need to drag out Anna Kournikova to try to make your lame point? She hasn't played on the pro tour in decades. No one even mentions her name except in these stupid debates over equal pay. You're also completely off-base suggesting men don't rake in the endorsements. First, any tennis product you buy is endorsed by a male player. Second, most of the top male stars are being paid for things like the half-million-dollar watch Rafa wears while playing. This nickel-and-diming is so pointless and irrelevant to the actual topic being debated. I find it offensive that you consider it an advantage that lesser women tennis players can choose to exploit their sexuality to make up the difference. Please crawl back in your cave.
No, we can't just play tennis. Women don't bring in the same money and therefore should NOT GET the same pay. Period.
2
First, let's all understand that his remark about women's legs was a poor attempt at a joke by someone who speaks flawed English, as should be obvious. What he was saying was that he likes women's legs better than men's legs (what straight man doesn't?), but that has nothing to do with how much revenue is available to pay athletes with.
Second, this discussion should also mention that there is no other major sport where women earn what men do. Why single out tennis for being unfair, without criticizing the NBA because the WBA players earn so much less?
Audiences favor men's competitions. They are simply more exciting because the level of performance is so much higher. You can bemoan the physical reasons why that is true, but it is true whether it's fair or not.
Second, this discussion should also mention that there is no other major sport where women earn what men do. Why single out tennis for being unfair, without criticizing the NBA because the WBA players earn so much less?
Audiences favor men's competitions. They are simply more exciting because the level of performance is so much higher. You can bemoan the physical reasons why that is true, but it is true whether it's fair or not.
3
There have been several times in the Open era when women's tennis was more popular than men's in much of the world, particularly when measured in terms of advertising revenue. Regardless of how you view their relative performances, there will simply be as many people who want to look at Andy Murray as Maria Sharapova (including those who share Tiriac's perspective) or Serena Williams (for her prowess). Chris Evert, Steffi Graf. Heck, even Anna Kournikova was once the highest paid athlete in Tennis.
Hard to fathom that these off-court earnings have no correlation whatsoever with on-court viewership. Perhaps what needs to be reviewed is why the old men in charge of advertising keep making such ridiculous licensing contracts that are pegged more to bias than revenue. The women can currently offer nothing to rival the draw of Federer-Nadal. But the pendulum will swing again. Will the men graciously hand over their earnings then?
Hard to fathom that these off-court earnings have no correlation whatsoever with on-court viewership. Perhaps what needs to be reviewed is why the old men in charge of advertising keep making such ridiculous licensing contracts that are pegged more to bias than revenue. The women can currently offer nothing to rival the draw of Federer-Nadal. But the pendulum will swing again. Will the men graciously hand over their earnings then?
3
So Tiriac likes female players, he likes their "legs", so what? That makes him "misogynistic"? Gimme a break! That makes him a normal hetero guy, his age notwithstanding (when you're a billionaire, your libido lasts a lot longer). I'm a golfer and a golf fan, and watching the LPGA is like watching paint dry (many people think all golf is like that). If I can't see Spieth, Day, Watson, McIlroy or another dozen or so captivating, charismatic players in competition, I'd rather watch something else. Inbee Park vs. Lydia Ko doesn't do it for me, sorry. They're the visual equivalent of Ambien. Multiply my reaction by many thousands and this is why the LPGA is struggling, at least in the U.S. In tennis, Serena is it, the only truly exciting player to watch. That's not misogyny, that's reality. Wake up and smell the coffee.
2
You give away your lack of knowledge or appreciation of the sport. The best matches I've seen in the last several years have almost all been on the women's side--Schiavone-Stosur in the French Open final, Vinci-Serena in the US Open semis, Sharapova-Wozniacki in the US Open quarters. Just say you like golf and power and you can leave your uninformed opinion (on tennis) to yourself.
1
I expressed my opinion right here, an opinion shared by many others, and I don't need another pathetic member of the Thought Police questioning my tennis fan credentials. My "appreciation" of tennis is none of your damn business.
I don't believe you watch tennis at all.
1
I know that I "thank God" Rafael Nadal was born but not for the reasons Ray Moore said. That said, I think that men and women should make the same amount of money except for Grand Slam events where men have to play the best of five sets. Men should be paid more for Grand Slam events.
well, it's tennis's business to decide what they want to pay players, but a business model that fails to consider the souces of its revenue makes little sense and the management of a company similalry careless, would hear harsh words form shareholders...women's basketball, unattached to the nba, and pay equal thereto, is a good example of facts faced without bias.
1
Like it or not (and the man's love for women's form notwithstanding, but a wholly other 'debate'), Tiriac makes it quite clear that the reason for the pay differential is not that women do less work per se; they earn him less money.
In this sense, playing pro tennis is quite a bit more akin to prostitution than mere sport. What I find hard to believe is that women actually earn, viz. generate, less money than men. Yes, yes, it's a Argument from Objectification, a Male-Pig POV, but I am not forwarding the idea, much less playing apologist for it (I do not watch tennis, btw); I am merely noting that Tiriac, if speaking truthfully and with correct data, says that MenTP (tennis players) generate more revenue than WomenTP. Hence, the earnings difference, which is rather fair if one's earnings are based upon % of revenue.
So the long-winded point is to make certain this data (argument) is completely correct, e.g., is men's tennis more heavily promoted? One needs to see the *entire* balance sheet in other words, and put $$ on those supposed intangibles, say perhaps, one's legs (and as a man, I will say that yes, he's looking a bit above those legs too; he's just not going to say that; I will; read Bukowski; revel in that power!).
I doubt his math. I believe he just prefers cheap(er) women's tennis. Does this extend to other professions? Probably in that "value" cannot be honestly assigned, so the numbers are always off, often quite a bit.
Women hold great power. Use it.
In this sense, playing pro tennis is quite a bit more akin to prostitution than mere sport. What I find hard to believe is that women actually earn, viz. generate, less money than men. Yes, yes, it's a Argument from Objectification, a Male-Pig POV, but I am not forwarding the idea, much less playing apologist for it (I do not watch tennis, btw); I am merely noting that Tiriac, if speaking truthfully and with correct data, says that MenTP (tennis players) generate more revenue than WomenTP. Hence, the earnings difference, which is rather fair if one's earnings are based upon % of revenue.
So the long-winded point is to make certain this data (argument) is completely correct, e.g., is men's tennis more heavily promoted? One needs to see the *entire* balance sheet in other words, and put $$ on those supposed intangibles, say perhaps, one's legs (and as a man, I will say that yes, he's looking a bit above those legs too; he's just not going to say that; I will; read Bukowski; revel in that power!).
I doubt his math. I believe he just prefers cheap(er) women's tennis. Does this extend to other professions? Probably in that "value" cannot be honestly assigned, so the numbers are always off, often quite a bit.
Women hold great power. Use it.
Do the math! It's not even close!
For centuries we have been putting men up on pedestals and telling women they don't deserve the same pedestals. It's the same with sports, and it starts in junior high school. And then people say "well, men's sports bring in more revenue." Huh. Who'd have figured that one??
Unequal opportunity begets the "men are better at everything" conversations that always follow these stories.
It's soooo tiresome.
Unequal opportunity begets the "men are better at everything" conversations that always follow these stories.
It's soooo tiresome.
1
Hey, Tiriac, I have an idea: pay men less and use that to pat women more, and you won't be broke---this is called a zero sum game.
1
He could indeed do that. The problem is, it is not a "zero sum game". If he pays the men less, they will go elsewhere to a higher-paying tournament. Then, as Tiriac tried to explain, he gets less revenue, and the books don't balance.
Prize money can be made in terms of a fixed percentage of revenue for both men and women. If women draw in fewer viewership, their prize money would be less and vice versa. There are many sport where male version seems better. Why is this considered misogynistic view? On the other hand, there are sport like ice skating or gymnastics where i would pay more to see female compete, than men.
One thing that makes me uncomfortable whenever this debate comes up is that we have somehow agreed as a society that if male tennis players make more money than their female counterparts, the men must be somehow "better" than women. Does this have to be a value judgement, or is there an unbiased, non-sexist economic angle to examine?
Athletes are entertainers, and they have the opportunity to compete because people pay money -- through attending events and subscribing to television channels -- to watch them compete. If the male players create more revenue and draw more spectators, is it sexist to pay them more because the potential prize pool is larger?
This issue is somewhat similar to revenue sharing in baseball (and other sports). The Yankees create many more millions of dollars in revenue for MLB than say, the Tampa Bay Rays, yet both teams are awarded an equal share of the revenue which is split among teams.
I don't have an answer, but I think it is a fair question to ask which system is more desirable? One that rewards comparable athletic performances with comparable pay regardless of gender, or one that rewards players proportionally based on the revenue each one creates?
I also wonder if it's fair, or even economically logical, to pay the 150th ranked male tennis player more than the top-ranked woman if they both happen to win the same tournament. Again, I don't really know.
Athletes are entertainers, and they have the opportunity to compete because people pay money -- through attending events and subscribing to television channels -- to watch them compete. If the male players create more revenue and draw more spectators, is it sexist to pay them more because the potential prize pool is larger?
This issue is somewhat similar to revenue sharing in baseball (and other sports). The Yankees create many more millions of dollars in revenue for MLB than say, the Tampa Bay Rays, yet both teams are awarded an equal share of the revenue which is split among teams.
I don't have an answer, but I think it is a fair question to ask which system is more desirable? One that rewards comparable athletic performances with comparable pay regardless of gender, or one that rewards players proportionally based on the revenue each one creates?
I also wonder if it's fair, or even economically logical, to pay the 150th ranked male tennis player more than the top-ranked woman if they both happen to win the same tournament. Again, I don't really know.
1
You apparently know nothing about how baseball shares revenue. Just how do you think the Yankees became so much richer than the Rays. Your assertion about sharing is true about TV revenue, but the Yankees draw many more fans to Yankee Stadium (and, I'd wager, at much higher ticket prices) than the Rays.
More important, the better teams get to the post-season, where revenue is high and a bonus on top of the regular season earnings.
So please, no more nonsense about how revenue is equal between the top and bottom teams. Or were you so naive as to think that professional athletes play only for pride?
More important, the better teams get to the post-season, where revenue is high and a bonus on top of the regular season earnings.
So please, no more nonsense about how revenue is equal between the top and bottom teams. Or were you so naive as to think that professional athletes play only for pride?
So then pay them by the length of their legs. The men with their stubby, hairy limbs will probably have to take a pay cut. But the ladies will finally get what they deserve and what we aging billionaires need.
1
Compare the income of Giselle Bündchen with that of the top male model. When women tennis players start demanding equal pay for male models I'll start to take their arguments seriously.
8
There are so many things wrong with that argument it's not even worth the lengthy bullet list I was pondering.
The New York Times loves these stories about men putting down women (in sports, architecture, Hollywood and politics). How many more, NYT? Is this how you prove to your advertisers how engaged your readers are?
When the women play 3 out of 5 in Grand Slams, they deserve equal pay. Until then they don't deserve the same payday. This may not be PC but as was said in the article, the men are putting more on the table, so they deserve more. This is not sexism but reality.
2
The underlying question is why TV and advertisers pay less for women tennis.
1
Going by comments when this issue was previously reported, there's considerable fatigue among NYT readers too. The business case is, well, non-existent. Plus there's zero sympathy, because in absolute terms, all players are doing financially very well.
Mr. Tiriac is thankfully, not bound by PC rules that caused Mr. Moore to resign. He's correct though, women on court are indeed attractive to watch which does account partly for popularity of the sport. Including among women players themselves, many of who likely enjoy the added attention. It also makes-up for lost wages in the form of off-court endorsement deals for many. Not the right argument against equal pay perhaps, at least not in isolation, but taken together, the issue for equal pay is headed nowhere but double-fault country.
But that Manchu moustache, truly awful. How does he get away with it? On second thoughts, Mr. Tiriac's comments, disgusting.
Mr. Tiriac is thankfully, not bound by PC rules that caused Mr. Moore to resign. He's correct though, women on court are indeed attractive to watch which does account partly for popularity of the sport. Including among women players themselves, many of who likely enjoy the added attention. It also makes-up for lost wages in the form of off-court endorsement deals for many. Not the right argument against equal pay perhaps, at least not in isolation, but taken together, the issue for equal pay is headed nowhere but double-fault country.
But that Manchu moustache, truly awful. How does he get away with it? On second thoughts, Mr. Tiriac's comments, disgusting.
7
Simple, don't hold separate tournaments. Have the women play the men. Survival of the fittest, so to speak! Shouldn't be a problem if they're truly equal.
6
The "might makes right" ideology has been tried and found wanting, John Geisthardt. Talent has to do with more than size and gender.
Cool. Do that at all levels. No more female athletes in HS, colleges, etc., problem solved. And while we are at it, do the same in all walks of life.
Why does a Romanian billionaire own Madrid Open? Who did he buy it from? Why does anyone need to "own" a tennis tournament? Can I buy myself a tennis player and how much would she cost?
Seriously NY Times? In the first line of an article about a sexist owner's idiotic comments about women tennis players and their legs, you refer to his "Fu Manchu mustache?" Oh the irony. Have international corporations learned nothing from the Washington Post's "Chinamen" title, Google pulling its racist Make Me Asian App or Chevy's Fu Manchu ad? And oh yeah, that's a freakin' handlebar mustache. Idiotic all around.
2
No, Blithely Racist, it's NOT a handlebar mustache. According to images.google.com, it's a Fu Manchu mustache. According to wikipedia, it's a horseshoe mustache. Handlebar mustaches resemble...wait for it...handlebars. Sort of.
“All my life, I’ve done that. The longer the legs theirs are, the more beautiful I think they are."
I'm sure Sharapova and Konnikova will always have a place in his tournament, if only for exhibition, as his exhibit A. One has to wonder, why does this 76yo even bother to watch tennis, if all his goals are to see more legs.
I'm sure Sharapova and Konnikova will always have a place in his tournament, if only for exhibition, as his exhibit A. One has to wonder, why does this 76yo even bother to watch tennis, if all his goals are to see more legs.
11
If you want to point out the financials, do it, but then saying how much you like their legs is not helping you avoid sounding misogynistic.
19
No, no. Don't you understand? He's rationalizing it. He's not misogynistic. He likes women. He really likes women. But...
He likes women, actually. That makes him a philogynist.
1
When women are paid less at every level, in every profession, the injustice persists for years and years and years until the government steps in to try to correct the imbalance. (Thank you Lily Ledbetter.)
But when women reach pay parity, there's quick outrage and demands for reversal, because, well, they just don't deserve it.
But when women reach pay parity, there's quick outrage and demands for reversal, because, well, they just don't deserve it.
22
Funny that multi millionaire women players almost all of whom believe fervently in capitalism and competitive markets espouse a socialistic "equal prize money" system when it affects them. There is plenty of data regarding audience shares for men's and women's finals and the WTA and the ATP sponsor single sex tournaments so it is not as if they don't know that they don't generate anything like as much revenue as men. Let's try separate majors for men and women and distribute the revenue to the participants.
17
Separate but equal, eh? Or increasingly unequal. That is certainly an excellent suggestion for widening any performance gaps between them.
This didn't discuss the disparity that men play up to five sets in a match and women three. How does that figure in pay?
29
Please! Do you know anything about tennis? In every tournament BUT the four majors EVERYONE plays 3 sets. If the women played five at the majors, the venues would have to be enlarged OR the tournaments would have to be three weeks and every other tournament would have to be rescheduled to accommodate that.
1
only in the four slams and Davis Cup.
1
That's because in these tournaments, the men only play 3 sets, just like the women. There's no disparity in ATP / WTA events.
Right. It's all numbers. The length of the women's legs, Mr. Tiriac's love for them, blah blah blah. Equal pay for equal play. When we stop discussing women's bodies and really talk about the numbers, maybe then things will change. Perhaps Billie Jean can come out of retirement and put the whomp on Tiriac. I'd pay to see that!!
13
The men get more money because their TV ratings are higher and they generate more revenue. End of story.
2
Does men tennis bring more revenues than women??
10
Well, at least one has to give this guy some credit in acknowledging that the top women players bring in as much dough as the men, that's why he's willing to pay equal money for the semis and the finals on both sides. But by his logic (and cold calculation of number crunching), those women below those top seeds are not worth it.
2
Does a match between David Goffin and Alexandr Dolgolpolov bring more revenue than a match between Raphael Nadal and Alexander Zverev? Is Nadal vs. Novak Djokovic worth more than Roger Federer vs. Andy Murray? Gosh this could become very complicated!
Men must be bringing in more money because if they did not that would be the argument for equal pay. That fact is conveniently dropped because it doesn't fit the agenda.
3
And I don't watch women's tennis because of what Larry B says: I have limited time to watch it, so I'm only going to watch the best and, IMO, that's men's singles. Once in a while I'll try to watch a women's grand slam match, but it's just not worth the limited time I have (and the shrieking makes me crazy). So I go back to the men's matches, which, as someone else pointed out, are best of 5 games, while the women's are best of 3. From a purely economical perspective, how is it right that women earn as much for playing--generally--about half as long? If you had two employees and one worked two hours while the other worked four, would you insist on paying them the same salary? And if the one working four hours made more money for your company, in addition to working more hours? How about if YOU were the one working twice as long and bringing in twice as much income: Would you think that the other employee should be paid the same as you . . . just because she was a woman?