Men should be paid more - Djokovic
Comments
-
Fairly astounding that you make the classic modern "you're one of the bad guys so we don't have to debate with you" cut-off and follow it up with the dogmatic statement that women are equal - when in the context of sport they are clearly not.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.
What are you going to do next? No-platform anyone who argues that men's sport is played at a higher standard?0 -
... and, for the record, arguing that men can play tennis better than women does not make anyone a misogynist.
Or am I mistaking your meaning - did you mean that you have now formed the prejudice that Bally is a misogynist, so is therefore fair game for ad hom attacks, so need not be argued with?
In which case there must be a position for you at your nearest Students' Union. Novak Must Fall!0 -
seanoconn wrote:
So rather the construct a reasonable argument/discussion for equal pay, you'd prefer to reduce this thread to a slanging match?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.
Very good article in The Times today by Matthew Syed arguing that in employment terms you do not discriminate (ie pay less) to people by gender, age or disability so by the WTA argument you should divide the total prize money equally between men, women, juniors, seniors and disabled. Could it be that the WTA's argument is driven more by money than principle.0 -
It's fairly simple. The competition is equal, in the sense it's broadly as competitive, save for the variations I described earlier.
I think given they compete in the same tournaments and it is the tournament hosts who prevent them from playing 5 sets, I think it is only fair they receive the same.
In the world of popularity contests, sure, sponsorship can reflect that in their pay. But for prize money, it should be pretty black and white.
--
As for comments of misogyny, they don't occur in a vacuum. Time and time again on this forum I see certain members take any excuse to argue women down, and only talk in positive terms when objectifying and sexualising them.
It's tiresome that whenever there is a sexist joke that moderators pick up on plenty of other men who have similar reputations on the forum all chime up in defence of a 'laugh' to banter, and often attack me personally for standing up.
What they don't read are the private messages I receive from intimidated members and lurkers who thank me for highlighting it. Presumably, they don't feel comfortable making those statements in public, for fear those men will turn on then.
We live in a very unequal world with regard to gender.
A few months ago a man in a suit said he wanted to come on my fiancé's face. Another said he would rape her if he had the time. She has had clients touch her and say they'll cancel their business if she reports them.
This all stems from a basic view on inequality. Women are already paid a lot less in all industries. It makes sense for this high profile sport, one of the few where men and women compete side by side in the same tournament sets an example. It's not your money. Stop hating on women.0 -
I haven't seen the article but have read Syed's sports phycology book 'Bounce' in which he argues everyone is born equal and that enviroment and dedicated practise dictate success. Interesting read but doesn't really stack up.Surrey Commuter wrote:
Very good article in The Times today by Matthew Syed arguing that in employment terms you do not discriminate (ie pay less) to people by gender, age or disability so by the WTA argument you should divide the total prize money equally between men, women, juniors, seniors and disabled. Could it be that the WTA's argument is driven more by money than principle.seanoconn wrote:
So rather the construct a reasonable argument/discussion for equal pay, you'd prefer to reduce this thread to a slanging match?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.
I would argue that sports don't discriminate by gender, the best players/ most attractive for the audience, get the most money.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
Great post Rick, completely agree.
What does it say to an aspiring girl in sport, that society says that no matter how well you do, your worth and effort is less than a man?
women have this across all sports and most careers.
My daughters mum, as an accountant, was once standing front of a senior partner, discussing a client, he kept staring at her boobs as they talked, she eventually said "are you going to talk to me or my tits?" she had to leave shortly after as he made her life hell.
women are very much judged by (esp) men on looks and their sex, so Serena Williams gets less sponsorship than Sharapova, no doubt some think thats fine too?0 -
mamba80 wrote:
women are very much judged by (esp) men on looks and their sex, so Serena Williams gets less sponsorship than Sharapova, no doubt some think thats fine too?
Er yes, that seems about right. Its just realistic to why they are being sponsored.
People want to go to mens Wimbledon finals, not womens.
If they were equal they would not be divided by gender. They would play each other.0 -
mamba80 wrote:=
What does it say to an aspiring girl in sport, that society says that no matter how well you do, your worth and effort is less than a man?
In part I agree, BUT there is also the argument that competition is far tougher for men, and that there is a far higher number of male athletes struggling for a living on the lower rungs of the ladder, so it's actually easier for a female athlete to get to the prize money, even if that prize money is lower. Ultimately, you'd have to get more women/girls into sport, but I can't see why that's not achievable within about 10 years.0 -
Well if you keep paying women the same, the market will dictate in the long run that'll change.
We want more women in sport? Decent pay is a good an incentive as any.0 -
mamba80 wrote:What does it say to an aspiring girl in sport, that society says that no matter how well you do, your worth and effort is less than a man?
No, if her effort and worth was the same, she would get paid the same.
She will not be able to get to a Wimbledon mens final anyway, so her effort and worth are not the same.
Its not at all unfair, so stop trying to make it seem that way.
If she marries a male tennis player/sportsman she will get half his money, the house, the kids, and maintenance when they split up 8)0 -
Gail Emms, former badminton champion has been quoted as saying something similar. There are far more men playing sports and by definition, it's tougher for men to succeed with greater competition.finchy wrote:mamba80 wrote:=
What does it say to an aspiring girl in sport, that society says that no matter how well you do, your worth and effort is less than a man?
In part I agree, BUT there is also the argument that competition is far tougher for men, and that there is a far higher number of male athletes struggling for a living on the lower rungs of the ladder, so it's actually easier for a female athlete to get to the prize money, even if that prize money is lower. Ultimately, you'd have to get more women/girls into sport, but I can't see why that's not achievable within about 10 years.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Well if you keep paying women the same, the market will dictate in the long run that'll change.
We want more women in sport? Decent pay is a good an incentive as any.
Forget tennis for a second as it is an anomaly in the sports world for womens prize money.
If you look at football for example. Where does the equal pay for female players come from? Who provides the wages? Who provides the prize money for winning tournaments? It can only be given if there is someone willing to pay it. The money comes from 3 main sources. Event sponsorship. Television revenue and ticket sales. In all 3 you will NEVER get the same income as that of male sporting events. You would never fill Wembley stadium for a women's international. You would never have a multi billion pound tv deal to broadcast it and you will never get a massive sponsorship deal for the tournament independent of what FIFA already has set in place. These are real world facts as real as the fact that physically men are bigger faster stronger etc.
You may say women deserve equal pay in the workplace where they do the same job to the same standard as a male colleague but sport is not the same. Its consumer driven. You only get out what people are willing to put in. If no one wants to put money into womens sports then they are not going to get much out the other end. Would it be fair that the womens football teams were given a 50 50 share of what the mens teams do even though no one is eatching or supporting them? Its a ludicrous argument to say anyone should get money off the back of someone elses success but this is what is being proposed. Wimbledon winners of both mens and womens tournaments get equal prize money. It all comes out of 1 big pot of ticket sales,tv money and sponsorship deals. Take away the mens game and how much of them ticket sales are for just the women's games? How much sponsorship? How much tv revenue? Is it really going to be 50 50? Live in the real world and understand this is how it is.0 -
Maglia Rosa wrote:These are real world facts as real as the fact that physically men are bigger faster stronger etc.
For games such as football or tennis, this could be overcome by women playing on pitches/courts which are about 10% smaller. Seeing as so much sporting equipment for women is designed taking into account the physiological differences between men and women, I can't see why anyone would object to adapting the playing surfaces to meet women's needs.
In terms of racing, I can't see why slightly slower would make the racing any less exciting, as long as the competition is there. Which is better - seeing Usain Bolt win by 0.25 seconds, while easing up at the end, or watching a female sprinter win a race by 0.05 seconds which goes right to the wire, albeit at a slightly slower pace?0 -
finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:These are real world facts as real as the fact that physically men are bigger faster stronger etc.
For games such as football or tennis, this could be overcome by women playing on pitches/courts which are about 10% smaller. Seeing as so much sporting equipment for women is designed taking into account the physiological differences between men and women, I can't see why anyone would object to adapting the playing surfaces to meet women's needs.
In terms of racing, I can't see why slightly slower would make the racing any less exciting, as long as the competition is there. Which is better - seeing Usain Bolt win by 0.25 seconds, while easing up at the end, or watching a female sprinter win a race by 0.05 seconds which goes right to the wire, albeit at a slightly slower pace?
The speed of a race or the size of a pitch is irrelevant. Its who is going to watch it? The only difference between a professional sports person and an amateur is what they earn in wages or prize money. It only comes if they can attract it from willing funders. If 8000 people turn up to watch a womens sporting event and 30000 turn up to watch the mens you cannot seriously expect equal wages or prize money.0 -
I presume, Rick, that in your line of work you are used to the idea that people are paid what the person with the money thinks they are worth. Why should sport be any different? In this respect, good luck to the women tennisers - they've persuaded someone that they're worth it. It just grates a bit that a bunch of privileged millionaires can get even richer by playing the "I'm a victim of inequality" card.Rick Chasey wrote:We live in a very unequal world with regard to gender.
A few months ago a man in a suit said he wanted to come on my fiancé's face. Another said he would rape her if he had the time. She has had clients touch her and say they'll cancel their business if she reports them.
This all stems from a basic view on inequality. Women are already paid a lot less in all industries. It makes sense for this high profile sport, one of the few where men and women compete side by side in the same tournament sets an example. It's not your money. Stop hating on women.
Or maybe I should just argue that my earnings from professional sport are only suppressed by ageism and talentism and so I should get paid the same as Wayne Rooney?
The tedious equating of this argument to the kind of vile abuse you mention is a) absurd and b) grossly insulting.0 -
Maglia Rosa wrote:finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:These are real world facts as real as the fact that physically men are bigger faster stronger etc.
For games such as football or tennis, this could be overcome by women playing on pitches/courts which are about 10% smaller. Seeing as so much sporting equipment for women is designed taking into account the physiological differences between men and women, I can't see why anyone would object to adapting the playing surfaces to meet women's needs.
In terms of racing, I can't see why slightly slower would make the racing any less exciting, as long as the competition is there. Which is better - seeing Usain Bolt win by 0.25 seconds, while easing up at the end, or watching a female sprinter win a race by 0.05 seconds which goes right to the wire, albeit at a slightly slower pace?
The speed of a race or the size of a pitch is irrelevant. Its who is going to watch it? The only difference between a professional sports person and an amateur is what they earn in wages or prize money. It only comes if they can attract it from willing funders. If 8000 people turn up to watch a womens sporting event and 30000 turn up to watch the mens you cannot seriously expect equal wages or prize money.
I'm talking about how to make certain women's sports more interesting so that they will attract more viewers. Racing shouldn't really be affected, because it's the competitive nature of the field that makes it worth watching or not. As I say, has the men's 100m really been that interesting over the past few years? Knowing who's going to be the winner if Usain Bolt is standing on the start line really kills off the tension.
Ball games are different. Not many people will watch women's football because it's really boring. It's really boring because they play on a pitch which is suited for men, not women. If you can make it less boring, you'll get more spectators and hence more money.0 -
In my line of work?
The 3rd role I ever worked on came about because the client said " I've got too many women on my team, not enough of them can talk football and the t!ts don't help". That was a stock loan desk.
I see and hear plenty of people's pay and usually women who do the same job get paid less, even if they do a better job.
Women in leadership have to get special coaching to be able to lead without upsetting the men because the style men use often doesn't work when coming from a women. We provide that coaching. Most big corporates are wise to it and offer training just for women for that very reason.
The more I work in recruitment, the worse I think the discrimination is, to be honest.
Anyway, I'm curious to know your thoughts on the first half of my post. After all, that put the second half you quoted into context.0 -
So what you're saying is female tennis players wages should be used to boost underpaid women in the business sector?Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0
-
Finchy the mens 100m has been interesting over the past few years for the very reason that Bolt was on the starting line.finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:These are real world facts as real as the fact that physically men are bigger faster stronger etc.
For games such as football or tennis, this could be overcome by women playing on pitches/courts which are about 10% smaller. Seeing as so much sporting equipment for women is designed taking into account the physiological differences between men and women, I can't see why anyone would object to adapting the playing surfaces to meet women's needs.
In terms of racing, I can't see why slightly slower would make the racing any less exciting, as long as the competition is there. Which is better - seeing Usain Bolt win by 0.25 seconds, while easing up at the end, or watching a female sprinter win a race by 0.05 seconds which goes right to the wire, albeit
at a slightly slower pace?
The speed of a race or the size of a pitch is irrelevant. Its who is going to watch it? The only difference between a professional sports person and an amateur is what they earn in wages or prize money. It only comes if they can attract it from willing funders. If 8000
people turn up to watch a womens sporting event and 30000 turn up to watch the mens you cannot seriously expect equal wages or prize money.
I'm talking about how to make certain women's sports more interesting so that they will attract more viewers. Racing shouldn't
really be affected, because it's the competitive nature of the field that makes it worth watching or not. As I say, has the men's 100m really been that interesting over the past few years? Knowing who's going to be the winner if Usain Bolt is standing on the start line really kills off the tension.
Ball games are different. Not many people will watch women's football because it's really boring. It's really boring because they play on a pitch which is suited for men, not women. If you can make it less boring, you'll get more spectators and hence more money.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:These are real world facts as real as the fact that physically men are bigger faster stronger etc.
For games such as football or tennis, this could be overcome by women playing on pitches/courts which are about 10% smaller. Seeing as so much sporting equipment for women is designed taking into account the physiological differences between men and women, I can't see why anyone would object to adapting the playing surfaces to meet women's needs.
In terms of racing, I can't see why slightly slower would make the racing any less exciting, as long as the competition is there. Which is better - seeing Usain Bolt win by 0.25 seconds, while easing up at the end, or watching a female sprinter win a race by 0.05 seconds which goes right to the wire, albeit at a slightly slower pace?
The speed of a race or the size of a pitch is irrelevant. Its who is going to watch it? The only difference between a professional sports person and an amateur is what they earn in wages or prize money. It only comes if they can attract it from willing funders. If 8000 people turn up to watch a womens sporting event and 30000 turn up to watch the mens you cannot seriously expect equal wages or prize money.
I'm talking about how to make certain women's sports more interesting so that they will attract more viewers. Racing shouldn't really be affected, because it's the competitive nature of the field that makes it worth watching or not. As I say, has the men's 100m really been that interesting over the past few years? Knowing who's going to be the winner if Usain Bolt is standing on the start line really kills off the tension.
Ball games are different. Not many people will watch women's football because it's really boring. It's really boring because they play on a pitch which is suited for men, not women. If you can make it less boring, you'll get more spectators and hence more money.
Sport is personality driven. Some female sport stars make millions. As I said earlier Sharapova has made plenty in sponsorship. There will be plenty who will throw money at the elite players like her and Serena Williams as they are successful but is the no 20 in the world womens player going to attract the same as her male ranked equivalent? Not really. Tennis again is a freak in its ability to have such high paid female stars. No other womens sport can match it for its earnings. This has in recent years been down to the success of the Williams sisters and clever marketing by big sports companies but lower down tennis is just as low paid in comparison to mens as nearly every other sport. You dont get big pay cheques in the WTA tour away from the grand slams cos they don't always have the elite players there. You can guarantee wimbledon will have the stars there along with the interest and fans so money comes with it.
Off subject slightly have you noticed how little interest there is in heavyweight boxing in the US now they don't hold any of the major belts? In the days of Tyson and Hollyfield they could sell rights for tv for millions but there just isn't the interest in the sport cos they have no big heavyweight champion. It all became about Mayweather in the middle weight. Why? Cos he was an American champ. He was marketable. Just as any other sport it marketable. Female sport has its super stars but they get the money thrown at them personally. Its not put into their sports as òa whole since people want to see the stars play not the also rans.0 -
I also don't understand the apparent glee many of you seem to have when "staring the facts" that discrimination between genders exist. It comes across as if you lot enjoy the position of gender inequality.0
-
bompington wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:We live in a very unequal world with regard to gender.
A few months ago a man in a suit said he wanted to come on my fiancé's face. Another said he would rape her if he had the time. She has had clients touch her and say they'll cancel their business if she reports them.
I presume, Rick, that in your line of work you are used to the idea that people are paid what the person with the money thinks they are worth. Why should sport be any different? In this respect, good luck to the women tennisers - they've persuaded someone that they're worth it. It just grates a bit that a bunch of privileged millionaires can get even richer by playing the "I'm a victim of inequality" card..
In tennis, its a highly paid man that is arguing for more money, Williams etc hasnt asked for a penny more, it appears its djokovic who is playing the "I'm a victim of inequality" card, in most tennis tournies women get much less than men, so what is he bitching about???
Do you think that gillian anderson was wrong to complain about the inequality of pay between her and David Duchovny ? the film industry fought this, no doubt using similar arguments as on this thread.... this is what women face in sport, in the work place and in life, no need for tennis, having won some equality to turn the clocks back.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-n ... on-73277140 -
seanoconn wrote:So what you're saying is female tennis players wages should be used to boost underpaid women in the business sector?
I'm saying that the fact this argument exists in tennis reflects the wider malaise. Ultimately the tennis argument sits in the wider context of gender discrimination.
I'm also quite clear that a number of members on this thread show behaviour across the forum that is misoyginistic and I'm pretty convinced they are.0 -
seanoconn wrote:
2013 Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli. Sums it up really.
Eh ? Don't get your point here.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
finchy wrote:
Ball games are different. Not many people will watch women's football because it's really boring. It's really boring because they play on a pitch which is suited for men, not women. If you can make it less boring, you'll get more spectators and hence more money.
In what way is the pitch designed for men - it's a football pitch - professional women are probably about the size and speed (in modern boots vs old fashioned boots) of the men that the pitches were designed for anyway.
The womens game isn't as good to watch but part of that is down to the lack of spectators and the fact we tend not to have a knowledge or allegiance to the teams or players - chicken and egg - watch a pre season friendly comprised of Barcelona players play in an empty stadium and it takes away a fair bit of the drama. I disagree that the game is necessarily "really boring" though. I am not going to argue it's on a par with the men, the skill level is miles behind and the style of play tends to be far more direct but these are things which are changing albeit slowly.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
finchy wrote:seanoconn wrote:Finchy the mens 100m has been interesting over the past few years for the very reason that Bolt was on the starting line.
Let's agree to disagree. I personally see very little interest in watching a foregone conclusion.
Like him or loath him and say want you want about it being a forgone conclusion. Fact is , Bolt is an entertainer. He brings another dimension to the sport which attracts spectators
Spectators = money
that is what it comes down to after all0 -
Maglia Rosa wrote:finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:finchy wrote:Maglia Rosa wrote:These are real world facts as real as the fact that physically men are bigger faster stronger etc.
For games such as football or tennis, this could be overcome by women playing on pitches/courts which are about 10% smaller. Seeing as so much sporting equipment for women is designed taking into account the physiological differences between men and women, I can't see why anyone would object to adapting the playing surfaces to meet women's needs.
In terms of racing, I can't see why slightly slower would make the racing any less exciting, as long as the competition is there. Which is better - seeing Usain Bolt win by 0.25 seconds, while easing up at the end, or watching a female sprinter win a race by 0.05 seconds which goes right to the wire, albeit at a slightly slower pace?
The speed of a race or the size of a pitch is irrelevant. Its who is going to watch it? The only difference between a professional sports person and an amateur is what they earn in wages or prize money. It only comes if they can attract it from willing funders. If 8000 people turn up to watch a womens sporting event and 30000 turn up to watch the mens you cannot seriously expect equal wages or prize money.
I'm talking about how to make certain women's sports more interesting so that they will attract more viewers. Racing shouldn't really be affected, because it's the competitive nature of the field that makes it worth watching or not. As I say, has the men's 100m really been that interesting over the past few years? Knowing who's going to be the winner if Usain Bolt is standing on the start line really kills off the tension.
Ball games are different. Not many people will watch women's football because it's really boring. It's really boring because they play on a pitch which is suited for men, not women. If you can make it less boring, you'll get more spectators and hence more money.
Sport is personality driven. Some female sport stars make millions. As I said earlier Sharapova has made plenty in sponsorship. There will be plenty who will throw money at the elite players like her and Serena Williams as they are successful but is the no 20 in the world womens player going to attract the same as her male ranked equivalent? Not really. Tennis again is a freak in its ability to have such high paid female stars. No other womens sport can match it for its earnings. This has in recent years been down to the success of the Williams sisters and clever marketing by big sports companies but lower down tennis is just as low paid in comparison to mens as nearly every other sport. You dont get big pay cheques in the WTA tour away from the grand slams cos they don't always have the elite players there. You can guarantee wimbledon will have the stars there along with the interest and fans so money comes with it.
Off subject slightly have you noticed how little interest there is in heavyweight boxing in the US now they don't hold any of the major belts? In the days of Tyson and Hollyfield they could sell rights for tv for millions but there just isn't the interest in the sport cos they have no big heavyweight champion. It all became about Mayweather in the middle weight. Why? Cos he was an American champ. He was marketable. Just as any other sport it marketable. Female sport has its super stars but they get the money thrown at them personally. Its not put into their sports as òa whole since people want to see the stars play not the also rans.
So, what are you saying, that you can't make women's sports more interesting to spectators?0 -
Maglia Rosa wrote:finchy wrote:seanoconn wrote:Finchy the mens 100m has been interesting over the past few years for the very reason that Bolt was on the starting line.
Let's agree to disagree. I personally see very little interest in watching a foregone conclusion.
Like him or loath him and say want you want about it being a forgone cumclusion. Fact is , Bolt is an entertainer. He brings another dimension to the sport which attracts spectators
Spectators = money
that is what it comes down to after all
I don't know much about Usain Bolt, but he always comes across as a likeable and fantastically talented athlete. It's just that watching a race when you know who the winner will be holds very little interest for me. It's like watching Match of the Day - it's always better if you avoid the results beforehand.0
