Tennis
-
Personally I don’t think the 3 v 5 sets is a valid argument.
Surely if the women get the same tv viewership, attract the same sponsorship etc then they are as valuable as the men and should be paid accordingly.
Disclaimer: I haven’t done any research on whether this is the case.
But they don't, that's the thing. I think they might if that Chinese girl plays but then that's an anomaly due to the enormous population in that country. There can also be vast differences in ticket prices at these actual events. One reason for that might be that female games are shorter. Simple solution? Make them best out of 5.
-
@antipodean said in Tennis:
@sammyc But the argument is often about equal work, not equal worth.
Yeah understand that, I reckon the total work is pretty comparable if you include all the training hours to get to the top.
-
Personally I don’t think the 3 v 5 sets is a valid argument.
Surely if the women get the same tv viewership, attract the same sponsorship etc then they are as valuable as the men and should be paid accordingly.
Disclaimer: I haven’t done any research on whether this is the case.
I wonder if that viewership isn't related to sex appeal with a male dominated sports market, (I remember an issue with beach volleyball insisting on uniforms as a gross example). Perhaps traditionally only?
Just a suggestion in what will be a multivariate explanation when assessing market value
But I'm probably not allowed to even posit that these days....
-
I don't really get into tennis, but mens is much duller than women. All that emphasis on the first serve means that rallies of any duration are the exception.
Top women often have very short games, because they can win easily on the opponent's serve. Hence 6-0 is far more common for women than men. But at least you see some rallies.
Nor do I particularly want an event to last as long as five sets takes. Especially if it is effectively watching who serves better.
(Watching the likes of Phillipousis and Isner play and being told that it's better than watching women actually return the ball confuses me.)
-
Personally I don’t think the 3 v 5 sets is a valid argument.
Surely if the women get the same tv viewership, attract the same sponsorship etc then they are as valuable as the men and should be paid accordingly.
Disclaimer: I haven’t done any research on whether this is the case.
I wonder if that viewership isn't related to sex appeal with a male dominated sports market, (I remember an issue with beach volleyball insisting on uniforms as a gross example). Perhaps traditionally only?
Just a suggestion in what will be a multivariate explanation when assessing market value
But I'm probably not allowed to even posit that these days....
It's a good point. I don't think Anna Kornikova ever won a singles title, yet made shit loads more than most players in endorsements. She also appeared on the cover of sporting mags far more often than her actual oncourt achievements would have warranted.
-
@rancid-schnitzel yeah, perhaps mine is a spurious point now, outdated even but someone would have to explain the Williams sisters outfits at times and if the women train in shorts or skirts. I suspect shorts would be more practical to play in and wonder if there is a dress code enforced by the progressive WTA?
-
I always wanted to see the 5 set thing in womans tennis. I suspect it would have given Serena and the other power players a lot to think about. You would have to win fast I guess as the lighter players would find it easier to get conditioned for 5 sets.
Would have been interesting to see how it played out.
-
It is weird/strange that they don't play 5 sets, but I'm not in the they shouldn't get equal pay camp for this.
If the ticket demand is the same, the prices are the same, then the pay should be the same - sport is just another type of entertainment, after all. If a band plays for 2.5 hours, should they charge higher prices than those that play for 1.5? I certainly wouldn't' choose a concert for concert length, I'd choose to pay to see who I want to see.
The other point which her husband has quite glaringly chosen to ignore, is that modern journalism comes up with the answer, then seeks statistics to prove the answer, not the other way around. For him to say what the argument is, then offer zero statistic to back up his argument, whilst simultaneously trashing another for providing real statistics which do actually prove an argument, is staggering given his appeared intelligence. (Reddit founder, etc).
-
@majorrage as you say, how sure are we that revenue from the women's game matches the 3 set value?
Equal prize money:
US open 1973
Aus open 2001
French 2006
Wimbledon 2007Not wishing to downgrade the value of 3 sets observations but some data needed in what is another not so simple, multi variable situation.
It could be the case that women's tennis makes more money, (in which case yhey should be paid more!), or it could be that the world has once again resigned women to a charity case and offered another hand out in a world of "equality"
-
Data is a bit older, but the men’s tour appears to generate a lot more revenue:
ATP outstrips WTA in revenue growth
Seven years ago, the men’s and women’s professional tennis tours arguably had parity in their sights. After years of resisting, Wimbledon had agreed to equal prize money, and revenue flowing through the ATP World Tour was a slim 4 percent, or $2.6 million, higher than the money coursing through the...
I’ll keep reading.
-
-
-
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Fair point, but I wonder what people would say if the Black Ferns games were 60 mins only because they were women. There are no fitness reasons why a woman can't play 5 sets of tennis.
-
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the average prize money of ATP and WTA events for the full year, excluding the Grand Slams. Using Auckland as an example, total prize money for the Men's event was $561K but only $250K for the Women's event. And those events are the same - best of 3 sets.
-
Fair point, but I wonder what people would say if the Black Ferns games were 60 mins only because they were women. There are no fitness reasons why a woman can't play 5 sets of tennis.
My understanding is it would improve the quality of the game from a "traditionalist's perspective", i.e. more rallies as power players get tired.
-
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
-
I just cannot understand how a Wimbledon final featuring Kevin Anderson didnt rate higher... especially as the only competition it had on TV at the same time was Football world cup final....
Tis a mystery... -
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
Evidence? This is the Fern. It's part of a trend to shorten sport and the uncertainty of schedules when a men's 5 set match can last anywhere from 90 minutes to 6 hours. So far the special nature of the 4 Grand Slams mean they get blanket coverage for 2 weeks but I can see the day when T.V. demands a final fits into a time slot and then it will be 3 sets, tiebreak at 6-6 in the 3rd set.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Tennis:
No other sport decides prize money on the duration of the encounter - not sure why tennis should be any different. And eventually the grand slams will become 3 sets because TV will demand it ....
Really? What evidence is there to suggest that? Considering GFs have been broadcast on TV for 30-40 years why would this suddenly be demanded?
Evidence? This is the Fern. It's part of a trend to shorten sport and the uncertainty of schedules when a men's 5 set match can last anywhere from 90 minutes to 6 hours. So far the special nature of the 4 Grand Slams mean they get blanket coverage for 2 weeks but I can see the day when T.V. demands a final fits into a time slot and then it will be 3 sets, tiebreak at 6-6 in the 3rd set.
Why hasn't this happened yet and why would it suddenly happen in the future, particularly with more channels and means of watching? If there was any intention of doing this I'd imagine it would have been done in the US long ago.
