Men should be paid more - Djokovic

Anonymous

finchy wrote:

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?

Its the same game with the same rules. played on the same sufaces with the same equipment. the only differences is the gender of the players. If it were as marketable trust me it would already be and we wouldnt be debating this.

Marketing in sport is huge business and if they sponsors and marketers feel something is worth investing in they will but in most cases it isnt so they dont. as I said before - YOU CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE WATCH SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN. If there is no interest there is no "product" to exploit and no money.

DeVlaeminck

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.

F'ing hell RIck that sounds absolutely horrendous for her. I think you and mamba sum it up well.

Anonymous

finchy wrote:

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.

In a way you are answering your own question here. You pesonally are not interested in the mens 100 meters. If the general population were all like you then guess what - there would be no money in it as no one would watch it. But people are even if you are not. The majority of athletics fans see the mens 100 meters as the blue riband event and therefore it attracts more coverage. Does the shot put get the same high profile stars? or the Steeple chase? No. Does the 10000 metres and 5000 meters get massive coverage because of a certain Mo Farah? Would the distance be so well covered in the UK if it were dominated by the Kenyans as it used to be?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I agree. There should be no discrimination.
Why should a woman get paid more than a man who is better than her? (We are talking tennis here?)

seanoconn

DeVlaeminck wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

2013 Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli. Sums it up really.

Eh ? Don't get your point here.

This is a women that has reach the pinnacle of her sport and she is clearly out of shape. She is not fat but she is no athlete. Would an out of shape male tennis player be able to
win Wimbledon in the modern era? Flabby extra bulk has no performance benefit to Tennis players so what is the reason for this? Miss Bartoli clearly hasn't put the same amount as effort in to winning Wimbledon as the mens champion but takes home the same prize money.

seanoconn

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

"The lot" seem to be in favour of performance related pay, which is the very essence of equality.

finchy

Maglia Rosa wrote:

finchy wrote:

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.

In a way you are answering your own question here. You pesonally are not interested in the mens 100 meters. If the general population were all like you then guess what - there would be no money in it as no one would watch it. But people are even if you are not. The majority of athletics fans see the mens 100 meters as the blue riband event and therefore it attracts more coverage. Does the shot put get the same high profile stars? or the Steeple chase? No. Does the 10000 metres and 5000 meters get massive coverage because of a certain Mo Farah? Would the distance be so well covered in the UK if it were dominated by the Kenyans as it used to be?

You have listed a few popular athletes, but what about all the great rivalries? Boonen vs. Cancellara, Sampras vs. Agassi, Spassky vs. Fischer, Coe vs. Cram etc. These rivalries generate masses of interest in the sport.

finchy

Maglia Rosa wrote:

finchy wrote:

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?

Its the same game with the same rules. played on the same sufaces with the same equipment. the only differences is the gender of the players. If it were as marketable trust me it would already be and we wouldnt be debating this.

Marketing in sport is huge business and if they sponsors and marketers feel something is worth investing in they will but in most cases it isnt so they dont. as I said before - YOU CANNOT MAKE PEOPLE WATCH SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN. If there is no interest there is no "product" to exploit and no money.

You seem to be missing/completely ignoring my point that women's sports could be made more exciting then they currently are.

Anonymous

finchy wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

finchy wrote:

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.

In a way you are answering your own question here. You pesonally are not interested in the mens 100 meters. If the general population were all like you then guess what - there would be no money in it as no one would watch it. But people are even if you are not. The majority of athletics fans see the mens 100 meters as the blue riband event and therefore it attracts more coverage. Does the shot put get the same high profile stars? or the Steeple chase? No. Does the 10000 metres and 5000 meters get massive coverage because of a certain Mo Farah? Would the distance be so well covered in the UK if it were dominated by the Kenyans as it used to be?

You have listed a few popular athletes, but what about all the great rivalries? Boonen vs. Cancellara, Sampras vs. Agassi, Spassky vs. Fischer, Coe vs. Cram etc. These rivalries generate masses of interest in the sport.

Yes and for the most these all made headlines and money no doubt for the stars. Whats your point?

If you had mentioned Steffi Graf Vs Martina Navratalova then I could see your argument. They were huge and also made headlines but Serena Williams winning everything again and again is akin to you not liking Usain Bolt for its forgone conclusion

Anonymous

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I think you are imagining that to suit your point of view.

Its not discrimination, and its a mad world where you try to make everyone (falsely) equal on every level.

Just try to be as fair as you can about things.

ddraver

Have to say I'm pretty stunned by Rick's (and his fiance's) experiences

finchy

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Yes and for the most these all made headlines and money no doubt for the stars. Whats your point?

If you had mentioned Steffi Graf Vs Martina Navratalova then I could see your argument. They were huge and also made headlines but Serena Williams winning everything again and again is akin to you not liking Usain Bolt for its forgone conclusion

My original point was that women's racing is not inherently less interesting than men's, as long as there is some decent competition. My second point is that although flamboyant personalities generate interest in sport, so do rivalries.

Anonymous

finchy wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

Yes and for the most these all made headlines and money no doubt for the stars. Whats your point?

If you had mentioned Steffi Graf Vs Martina Navratalova then I could see your argument. They were huge and also made headlines but Serena Williams winning everything again and again is akin to you not liking Usain Bolt for its forgone conclusion

My original point was that women's racing is not inherently less interesting than men's, as long as there is some decent competition. My second point is that although flamboyant personalities generate interest in sport, so do rivalries.

You can't artificially make the sports more interesting. You could watch an exciting game of tennis or football with the 2 same competing sides and the next time it could be dull as hell. A world cup final could be the best match ever or a bore draw with penalties. The people playing it can make it exciting. This is irrelevant of gender. But the skill level of the mens game is much higher across the players. Ie there are more exciting skillful men than females. Too many women play the base line hit and hope game.

And yes rivalries generate hype but if one player (williams) dominates the rest then there is no rivalries the rest are far behind. This is still got little to do with the equality in sport. Mens sport just has a larger fan base and always will.

finchy

Maglia Rosa wrote:

You can't artificially make the sports more interesting. You could watch an exciting game of tennis or football with the 2 same competing sides and the next time it could be dull as hell. A world cup final could be the best match ever or a bore draw with penalties. The people playing it can make it exciting. This is irrelevant of gender. But the skill level of the mens game is much higher across the players. Ie there are more exciting skillful men than females. Too many women play the base line hit and hope game.

How are my proposals artificial? If you have more women playing the game, you will eventually end up with a more skillful professional game. If you make the pitch smaller, you might solve the main problem with women's football - the fact that there are too many long passes, too many of which don't reach the intended team-mate. Make the goals smaller and you will have a better balance between goalkeepers and strikers. How is it artificial to adapt the pitch so that it suits women?

Maglia Rosa wrote:

And yes rivalries generate hype but if one player (williams) dominates the rest then there is no rivalries the rest are far behind. This is still got little to do with the equality in sport. Mens sport just has a larger fan base and always will.

But if you got more women into sport, there would be more competition.

You and I both share the opinion that women's sport is currently less interesting than men's sport, but why are you opposed to my suggestions to make women's sport more exciting? Even if they never match up to men's sport, there is no reason why efforts shouldn't be made to improve the spectacle offered by female sport. Is it not worth trying?

Anonymous

finchy wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

You can't artificially make the sports more interesting. You could watch an exciting game of tennis or football with the 2 same competing sides and the next time it could be dull as hell. A world cup final could be the best match ever or a bore draw with penalties. The people playing it can make it exciting. This is irrelevant of gender. But the skill level of the mens game is much higher across the players. Ie there are more exciting skillful men than females. Too many women play the base line hit and hope game.

How are my proposals artificial? If you have more women playing the game, you will eventually end up with a more skillful professional game. If you make the pitch smaller, you end the main problem with women's football - the fact that there are too many long passes, too many of which don't reach the intended team-mate. Make the goals smaller and you will have a better balance between goalkeepers and strikers. How is it artificial to adapt the pitch so that it suits women?

Maglia Rosa wrote:

And yes rivalries generate hype but if one player (williams) dominates the rest then there is no rivalries the rest are far behind. This is still got little to do with the equality in sport. Mens sport just has a larger fan base and always will.

But if you got more women into sport, there would be more competition.

You and I both share the opinion that women's sport is currently less interesting than men's sport, but why are you opposed to my suggestions to make women's sport more exciting? Even if they never match up to men's sport, there is no reason why efforts shouldn't be made to improve the spectacle offered by female sport.

So women feel they are being unfairly treated and deserve equal pay. Your solution is to dum down their sport by making things smaller and thats going to help matters? Schoolboy football is played on a regular sized pitch but they cut the time to 80 mins.

Still the fact remains. Non of this will make it more popular than mens sport. And it wont make it richer

finchy

Maglia Rosa wrote:

So women feel they are being unfairly treated and deserve equal pay. Your solution is to dum down their sport by making things smaller and thats going to help matters? Schoolboy football is played on a regular sized pitch but they cut the time to 80 mins.

Still the fact remains. Non of this will make it more popular than mens sport. And it wont make it richer

Why is that dumbing the sport down? Smaller doesn't mean worse if the participants are smaller and slower. The standard football pitch is absolutely perfect for male footballers, not for female footballers.

And schoolboy football being played on an adult pitch is one of the reasons why British football is so technically deficient. They too should be playing on smaller pitches, so that they can develop their skills properly, rather than kick and run hoofball.

ballysmate

My, how this thread has moved on since I last visited this morning. Rick resorts to name calling and equating my point that there is less interest in women's sport than men's with the sexual harassment received by his fiancee. :shock:

But back to the thread. Of course the rewards are driven by the event's ability to attract an audience. Sportspersons earn what the market can support. It is the same with all entertainment. To pretend otherwise is deluded.

As regards the 100m, the attraction is partly the race itself, but even if the result is a foregone conclusion, there is the anticipation in seeing how fast a human can run. The anticipation is just not there with the women's events.

Likewise tennis. People pay extra for the main event which shows the limits of human capability.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

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

Case in point. :roll:

Bobbinogs

Isn't the real problem to do with the audience rather than the players? Men are, by nature, competitive and maybe it is that part of our general nature that makes us generally like sport. That is not to say that women don't like sport but, as an example, in my household of a wife and two daughters, I like sport (several) my wife sortof likes cycling but neither daughter has any interest in sport at all. I think men generally like watching the power sports (whether that is football, formula one, etc.) so maybe it is no surprise that the market for these sports is huge and the pay/sponsorship reflects that...men like watching sport and the sport they like is men's sport.*

Trying to make things all lovely and equal may work over time as women seem to be adopting more and more 'male' characteristics and men seem to be finally becoming a little more sensitive (hand cream anyone?)... maybe one day the sexes will be totally equal in their nature (perhaps settling on some compromise between the male/female characteristics)???

* I accept there are a lot of generalisations in that paragraph!

Anonymous

finchy wrote:

Maglia Rosa wrote:

So women feel they are being unfairly treated and deserve equal pay. Your solution is to dum down their sport by making things smaller and thats going to help matters? Schoolboy football is played on a regular sized pitch but they cut the time to 80 mins.

Still the fact remains. Non of this will make it more popular than mens sport. And it wont make it richer

Why is that dumbing the sport down? Smaller doesn't mean worse if the participants are smaller and slower. The standard football pitch is absolutely perfect for male footballers, not for female footballers.

And schoolboy football being played on an adult pitch is one of the reasons why British football is so technically deficient. They too should be playing on smaller pitches, so that they can develop their skills properly, rather than kick and run hoofball.

Erm. Schoolboy football is played at international level by all the major football playing nations. It doesn't seem to effect their abilty to produce quality players. It also plays little relevence to the technical ability of a players ball control and skill in picking out a pass or a run.

Biggest issue in the UK is getting girls into sport to begin with at an earlier age. But thats a different matter.

ddraver

finchy wrote:

You and I both share the opinion that women's sport is currently less interesting than men's sport, but why are you opposed to my suggestions to make women's sport more exciting? Even if they never match up to men's sport, there is no reason why efforts shouldn't be made to improve the spectacle offered by female sport. Is it not worth trying?

You re talking about football but that is not the case for many sports. Women's cycling being a pertinent one given that we re on a bike forum. I'd also say that holds true for the best womens tennis and athletics too. In fact pretty much any time that that time is irrelevant but the excitement comes from the relative differences between the competitors.

When Womens Cycling is given equal coverage to the mens it is commonly watch by as many people. The trouble is that that only happens at the Worlds and Olympics. Women's cyclocross was shown live for the first time in Belgium this year - which is not a country with a great record in these areas - and achieved things like 60-70% of the market share.

With many sports it is a question of "if you show it, they will come"

rick_chasey

Why would anyone want to get into a sport where most people judge them on how much they want to see them naked over their ability to do the sport?

That's not something to aspire to, is it Bally?

DeVlaeminck

seanoconn wrote:

Eh ? Don't get your point here.

This is a women that has reach the pinnacle of her sport and she is clearly out of shape. She is not fat but she is no athlete. Would an out of shape male tennis player be able to
win Wimbledon in the modern era? Flabby extra bulk has no performance benefit to Tennis players so what is the reason for this? Miss Bartoli clearly hasn't put the same amount as effort in to winning Wimbledon as the mens champion but takes home the same prize money.[/quote]


Women naturally carry more body fat than men and develop less muscle bulk - for the average woman to look as ripped as a male athlete she would be relatively leaner which in itself would carry disadvantages. In any case I didn't realise prize money was awarded on the basis of who had put in the most effort in training.

ballysmate

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.

Your premise that everyone is equal and deserves equal prize money leads to such a ludicrous state of affairs.
Madonna can expect to receive more money than most other entertainers. This isn't based on fairness nor necessarily talent, but the willingness of the paying public to part with their cash. Likewise sport.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

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

Case in point. :roll:

A throw away remark which does show that in general, there is not the interest as a purely sporting spectacle as the men's game.
It was not a serious proposal.

seanoconn

DeVlaeminck wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Eh ? Don't get your point here.

This is a women that has reach the pinnacle of her sport and she is clearly out of shape. She is not fat but she is no athlete. Would an out of shape male tennis player be able to
win Wimbledon in the modern era? Flabby extra bulk has no performance benefit to Tennis players so what is the reason for this? Miss Bartoli clearly hasn't put the same amount as effort in to winning Wimbledon as the mens champion but takes home the same prize money.

Women naturally carry more body fat than men and develop less muscle bulk - for the average woman to look as ripped as a male athlete she would be relatively leaner which in itself would carry disadvantages. In any case I didn't realise prize money was awarded on the basis of who had put in the most effort in training.[/quote]

This is natural for a professional tennis player?

rick_chasey

It was quite revealing with regard to what you think female tennis players are better for.


As for moaning about the athleticism of female athletes - if they were allowed to play 5 sets athleticism would be a bigger part of the game, wouldn't it?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

Not sure which bit you mean by first half.

Taking the middle third first - I am as horrified as anyone by this behaviour: I really cannot think of any value system that can possibly see it as anything but wrong. People who objectify, humiliate and abuse women are ar5eholes in anyone's world, and this kind of behaviour should be stamped out, full stop - I am Neanderthal enough to wish violence on the perpetrators (if someone did that to Mrs Bomp in my presence, I really think I might), at the same time as being able to see that this is not really a consistent position. I am horrified that Mrs Chasey has to put up with this, angry on her behalf (and for all the countless others) and I genuinely long for a world where she won't have to accept it.

Now I know that there is some kind of continuum all the way from off-colour jokes through bum-grabbing to rape, but I don't think that most men actually live on a sliding scale where a giggle at a bad joke one day means they'll wind up raping a couple of years later. I have total contempt for any "I'd give her one" type posts, but I really don't think they actually harm anyone.

As for the first bit, re equal prize money or otherwise, to me the real issue is that when people watch sport, they want to watch a) a team / player they identify with, and b) the best.
Women's tennis has some hope on (a), for example that frequently quoted selling out of the women's final in the US open: but of course the tricky thing is to market it purely as sport. When did you last see a female athlete on the TV without makeup?
On (b), there's simply no chance. It doesn't really matter if women's tennis is exciting in the sense of competitive: whenever I watch it all I ever notice is how slow and anaemic it is.
I used to play games of squash with a few pals that were unbelievably closely fought and exciting - for us as participants: but no-one would want to watch because we weren't very good. Of course that's an exaggerated case, but the point is the same. I'm sure that sexist attitudes do come into play here, but the ( in some ways laudable) drive for equality tends to have the opposite effect to that intended - it looks patronising and false (paralympics qv.)

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

It was quite revealing with regard to what you think female tennis players are better for.


As for moaning about the athleticism of female athletes - if they were allowed to play 5 sets athleticism would be a bigger part of the game, wouldn't it?

Kournikova made more money out of tennis than almost any other female tennis star. She did this by selling a certain image. She cashed in on her sexual appeal and looks. So did Sharapova to a lesser extent. They market their sexuality then you get all indignant because someone makes a casual remark in jest which alludes to it?

DeVlaeminck

I don't know when that was taken - if you are telling me she was like that when she won Wimbledon then yes it appears she is carrying more fat than optimum !

Anyway my take on all this is that yes there are valid arguments on the side of the men earning more - for example what Djokovic said - but they are trumped by very much more important arguments on the side of the women earning the same. I find it more important that we take some steps towards gender equality even if that means we throw away the rules of market economics that we generally accept as our guide to what is "fair" when it comes to earnings.