Men should be paid more - Djokovic

chris_bass

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35859791

I think he has a point. This is taken from the BBC article:

Excluding Grand Slams, 395 million watched WTA Premier events and finals on TV and digital, compared with 973 million for ATP events
In 2015, the Wimbledon men's final attracted a peak audience of 9.2 million viewers, compared with 4.3 million for the women's final.
At the US Open, the men's final drew 3.3 million viewers, compared with 1.6 million for the women's final

Interestingly though:

However, in the previous two years, the US Open women's final was watched by more viewers than the men's.

Men's finals generally garner more ticket sales than women's finals. However, in 2015, tickets for the US Open women's final sold out before the men's

If the men's game generates more money why shouldn't they get paid more?

It would be like saying women footballers should also get £100k a week.

bompington

Prepare for
1. Twitterstorm
2. grovelling apology in short order
3. Women's tennis to get no more exciting

seanoconn

2013 Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli. Sums it up really.

darren636

Men PLAY more.
They should be payed accordingly

chris_bass

darren636 wrote:

Men PLAY more.
They should be payed accordingly

actually this is more to do with the masters 1000 events where both men and women play best of 3 sets.

mrfpb

There was a "Top 4" factor in men's tennis (though slipping away as Djokovic dominates) that meant it was not a foregone conclusion who would win a tournament, whereas Serena has been such a dominant force in women's tennis that it makes it less exciting to watch - like when Sampras dominated the men's game. If Djokovic wins everything this year, watch the ratings go down.

Watch the rating s for the premier league this season and see if Leicester and Spurs have a similar impact. I know I've been following the PL much more this year, simply because the results are a lot less predictable.

seanoconn

I would hazard a guess that the men generally get higher ratings because viewers enjoy watching the best players in action. Whilst the ladies US open final sold out quicker than the mens, these tickets were bought in advance and it's hardly surprising American fans would want to watch a final which was likely to feature Serena Williams, specially with the state of the mens game in the US.

ballysmate

I get the correlation between interest and prize money. Perhaps if the ladies were to play naked...

rick_chasey

What the argument 'men play for longer than women' misses, is that the women tennis players have long been lobbying to be allowed to play 5 sets but the organisers of grand slams (and it is only grand slams who play to 5 sets) have thus far refused.

As the poster above said, back in the 90s/'00s, before the Federer/Nadal era, Women's tennis was so much more interesting. It comes in waves. Women's tennis used to be a control game and men's a power game and now it's the other way around. There was a golden era in women's where both styles tussled for dominance - ultimately power won.

finchy

The whole 5 sets versus 3 sets doesn't make much sense anyway, because you can play 3 sets at a greater intensity. A bit like running the 400 m should be seen as just as challenging as running the 5,000 m.

ballysmate

Agree that the 5 set v 3 set question is irrelevant. All you would get is possibly 2 more sets of inferior product.

chrisaonabike

... and more screaming.

chris_bass

Rick Chasey wrote:

What the argument 'men play for longer than women' misses, is that the women tennis players have long been lobbying to be allowed to play 5 sets but the organisers of grand slams (and it is only grand slams who play to 5 sets) have thus far refused.

I don't think that is true, I've only ever heard women players say they want to play three sets, couldn't find anything on it and only this either way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26046873

mamba80

i wonder what other sports have this sexist view toward women? the phrase "get down on their knees" clearly has a sexual element to it.

Having been in more than few regional BC meetings, i d say BC is riddled with people with these views, Nicole Cooke no doubt agrees.

As for Djokovic wanting more... greedy basterd! how much more does he really want ? £1.9 m for winning Wimbledon? :shock:

slowmart

Let's ask Sepp as he knows a thing or two about advancing female roles and revenue in sport



Then again maybe not.

rick_chasey

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Stacey-Al ... nd-Ab.aspx

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/sere ... five-sets/

Wheelspinner

When it comes to the finals of Women's tournaments, I'll happily watch them and enjoy the matches as much as any of the mens games*. I just find that a vastly higher proportion of the early rounds in the women's side of the draw are a waste of time compared to the mens. There are a lot of bagels in the results, something that happens far far less in the blokes rounds.

*Except anything involving extreme grunting.

All tennis players get paid far too much now. Our own current top ranked players have won very little of note between them, are both loaded and overpaid spoilt brats. Money in sport generally is ludicrous, but thats a separate argument I guess.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

i wonder what other sports have this sexist view toward women? the phrase "get down on their knees" clearly has a sexual element to it.

Having been in more than few regional BC meetings, i d say BC is riddled with people with these views, Nicole Cooke no doubt agrees.

As for Djokovic wanting more... greedy basterd! how much more does he really want ? £1.9 m for winning Wimbledon? :shock:

Sexist? Just pragmatic. People pay and earn what is sustainable. If you look around the world of sport there tends to be a disparity in money generated/paid in male and female events. Football? No-one watches the ladies game so it doesn't get the money.
We have just had the 6 Nations with a parallel ladies tournament. Nobody gave a toss.
Athletics - people pay a fortune to see the fastest man on earth but not the fastest woman. That's because the fastest man is the fastest person.
People want to see and will pay to see the best in the world. They are not so keen to pay to see the best of 50% of the world.
This view is obviously at odds with some people who think that everyone should get an equal slice of the pie in life regardless of your contribution. The hard truth of life is you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i wonder what other sports have this sexist view toward women? the phrase "get down on their knees" clearly has a sexual element to it.

Having been in more than few regional BC meetings, i d say BC is riddled with people with these views, Nicole Cooke no doubt agrees.

As for Djokovic wanting more... greedy basterd! how much more does he really want ? £1.9 m for winning Wimbledon? :shock:

Sexist? Just pragmatic. People pay and earn what is sustainable. If you look around the world of sport there tends to be a disparity in money generated/paid in male and female events. Football? No-one watches the ladies game so it doesn't get the money.
We have just had the 6 Nations with a parallel ladies tournament. Nobody gave a toss.
Athletics - people pay a fortune to see the fastest man on earth but not the fastest woman. That's because the fastest man is the fastest person.
People want to see and will pay to see the best in the world. They are not so keen to pay to see the best of 50% of the world.
This view is obviously at odds with some people who think that everyone should get an equal slice of the pie in life regardless of your contribution. The hard truth of life is you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay.

well, football is hardly the most enlightened sport.... and we could get into an argument about coverage, sponsorship etc as to why some womens sports dont attract larger audiences.

but if this was a coherent argument, then he should be allowed to put this forward, it was his phrase "get down on their knees" that was the sexiest part, he and you can argue that women are not worth as much as men and that their efforts, even though 100%of what they can achieve, should be less rewarded, helps explain the pay divide too ?

My daughter cycle races, she pays the regulation entry fee and despite quite large fields, will get less prize money than a mens races, infact at her last race, the organiser gave a prize to the top 3 junior boys but nothing for the top 3 girls (same no of juniors in each race) he sits on a BC committee, this is an example of what women face from competing in some sports from grass roots up.

the rewards for having larger audiences or being faster better looking even etc in pro sport, will be personal sponsorship and endorsements

pblakeney

Full equality anyone?
No divisions, open to all. Still want equality?

ballysmate

well, football is hardly the most enlightened sport.... and we could get into an argument about coverage, sponsorship etc as to why some womens sports dont attract larger audiences.

In this day and age do you not think that sponsors and tv companies would be all over women's sports if they thought there was the interest and they could make money. They aren't and they don't. In fact they would go down on their knees to beg the rights.

What was said was
I'd go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport. They really have.'


The reference was giving thanks to God. I hear that people go to church on Sundays to do this very same thing.
He didn't say go down on their knees and give them a gobble did he? People are looking to be outraged on any pretext here.

seanoconn

PBlakeney wrote:

Full equality anyone?
No divisions, open to all. Still want equality?

ballysmate

Those arguing that the Ladies get a raw deal, how about giving the same prize money to the winners of the Junior events as the winner of the Men's singles? Would be ludicrous wouldn't it?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Those arguing that the Ladies get a raw deal, how about giving the same prize money to the winners of the Junior events as the winner of the Men's singles? Would be ludicrous wouldn't it?

You're a misogynist AICMFP.

seanoconn

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Those arguing that the Ladies get a raw deal, how about giving the same prize money to the winners of the Junior events as the winner of the Men's singles? Would be ludicrous wouldn't it?

You're a misogynist AICMFP.

So rather the construct a reasonable argument/discussion for equal pay, you'd prefer to reduce this thread to a slanging match?

rick_chasey

It's difficult to use logic against a misognyist, ultimately.

The premise of tjat argument is that women are unequal.

They are equal. Therefore he is being prejudiced.

Anonymous

Ballysmate wrote:

well, football is hardly the most enlightened sport.... and we could get into an argument about coverage, sponsorship etc as to why some womens sports dont attract larger audiences.

In this day and age do you not think that sponsors and tv companies would be all over women's sports if they thought there was the interest and they could make money. They aren't and they don't. In fact they would go down on their knees to beg the rights.

I have for many years wondered how well womens tennis would attract audiences if it were not playing the grand slams at the same time as the mens do. Outside of the big 4 how much coverage does womens tennis actually get?

I cannot think of another sport where the womens game gets close to the same prize money or coverage as the mens events. There are a lot of sports where they are moving the womens tournaments closer to the mens just to drum up a bit more interest. This has been evident in the cricket twenty/20 world cup and the rugby.

The simple fact is sponsorship money only comes to places the sponsors think they will get enough people watching it to make it worthwhile. This is why the Premier league has such an obscene amount of tv rights money coming in next season. They know millions of people worldwide will be watching. If you don't think there will be enough viewers and fans then why would you push funding in as prize money into the womens games? its a business and no amount of crying about equal rights or calling people misogynistic will change this fact. You cannot make people watch something they are not interested in.

rick_chasey

To be clear, prize money is not affected by viewership.

The personal sponsorship is defined by that.

seanoconn

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's difficult to use logic against a misognyist, ultimately.

The premise of tjat argument is that women are unequal.

They are equal. Therefore he is being prejudiced.

So in that case going back to Blakey's point, why not have one open draw for men and women? The best players taking the money home?

Sport is unequal

seanoconn

Rick Chasey wrote:

To be clear, prize money is not affected by viewership.

The personal sponsorship is defined by that.

No viewers, no sponsorship.

Anonymous

Rick Chasey wrote:

To be clear, prize money is not affected by viewership.

The personal sponsorship is defined by that.

Sharapova had (until recently for obvious reasons) lots of sponsorships. How much was down to her success on the tennis court and how much was down to here being a tall attractive leggy blonde?

At one point in the early 2000s the highest earning female tennis player was Anna Kourinkova. why do you think that was?