Men should be paid more - Djokovic
Comments
-
Richard doesn't approve of people messing about.Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
In that thread I pointed out that Sean had met the love of his life at the school gates, accused Blakey of buying pics of naked women off the internet and suggested that my missus doesn't cook a nice breakfast. If that marks me out as being a misogynist, then your skin must be transparent mate.
Oh, and she does a nice breakfast, you just have to have earned it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Here he is.
Stop messing about.
0 -
Typical misogynist accusations and resistance to equality being forced on anyone. Sexism ranges from the bleeding obvious to the less obvious drip, drip, drip of minor forms of sexism. I'm looking at a few on this very laptop screen courtesy of "recommended by Outbrain" links. "would THIS hold your attention? Presenter in tight top". "photos that could be perfect" under a picture of a bikini clad lass doing a backwards somersault. Or something about playboy shoots you wouldn't believe. BTW before you say it is based on my internet searches I would like to point out it is a brand new laptop, I've not logged onto an account such as Microsoft or google chrome to link to old posts and I am using Edge for the very first time. I can not see how it could detect any interest in sexist links like these (which I have never had an interest in since I was a horny teenager who didn't know better or didn't care because of hormones).
So what is acceptable in this world of sexism and misogyny? Is positive discrimination positive?
Equalizing elite sports earnings from winnings is a good idea for some but for others it is taking from the male money attractors to subsidise the women. I have not made up my mind if this positive discrimination is good or bad or just a bit of a grey and easy compromise. In some ways I hold the view that if a man and a woman are doing the exact same job to the exact same standard then they should without doubt earn the same pay for these services. This should not be any different if those earnings are called winnings in a sporting competition. The issue is are the women doing the same job at the same level.
Now physical differences can be accounted for in this such that you really do have to accept that there is a lower level of athleticism in female sport. Sorry but I have seen clips of the Women's English team playing Wales in their 6 nations and it looked like a very low level league game. Sorry but it was very slow, pedestrian and simply there was very little creativity in the game. It was as boring to me as watching football at any level and with any gender. I would not want any member of the women's team earn the same as the men's team with that performance, even adjusting for physical strength and athleticism differences it was poor. Will that ever change? I hope so and hope that one day I will appreciate a quality women's 6 nations competition.
So to conclude my views on this. I do not accept the female sports is equal to men's versions in probably most sports. It is as equal as it can be I some sports and even more entertaining in a smaller number. I believe that if they are equal (taking into account the physical differences) then they should get more air-time and once that happens (the market forces I'm afraid must be considered) then I feel they should be more equal in earnings. I do not want mediocrity to be rewarded though.
One more point, sport is entertainment not life or death. It is a diversion from your daily lives, escapism through watching others get a bit physical. That means it is kind of all about the ratings. If men have higher ratings their show will get a longer run on TV, more airtime and even get picked up by more networks than perhaps the women's game which often has lower ratings. It is not easily compared to normal jobs. A female GP with the same experience as her male colleague could be reasonably expected to earn the same. A 5 times grand slam winning female tennis player is not the same as a 5 times grand slam winning male tennis player. As much as you decry this as misogyny, sexism or just wrong it still has more than a little bearing in fact. Ratings for female sport is widely at a lower level than male sport. Ratings equals money for those running the sport and the systems involved in it. This means difference and difference means equality is harder to prove convincingly. I have yet to be convinced either way.0 -
If you want evidence that sport pays competitors what they are "worth" based on the audience they attract, and the marketing possibilities they generate, never mind comparing men with women tennis players. Just look at the men in isolation.
Why does the Singles champ at Wimbledon get 1.8 million pounds, and the double champs get 340 thousand pounds to split between them? Possibly because the event is seen as less marketable, attractive, publicly interesting?
Even back in the days when the same player was winning both (J P McEnroe for example), this pay difference existed.
It's simple - they get paid in proportion to what their performance can generate in income for the people paying them.
Sportspeople - any sport - produce nothing of any intrinsic value. They are simply actors in a performance that is recorded, broadcast, watched, discussed, consumed by people who pay for the privilege. How many people will pay, how much they are prepared to pay, and which performances they will pay for are the only relevant questions.
A professional sportsperson has no inalienable rights to be paid for their endeavours. It's just a job like most others, with the exception that their work output is simply light entertainment for the masses at the end of the day. They've simply chosen to try and make a living out of their ability, just like the rest of us.
Look at places where amateurs and pros compete in the same event, and see that sometimes the Amateurs finish way ahead, but just don't collect the cheque. Is that "fair" too?
Gender equality discussions are all very well and interesting, particularly with regards participation and funding for *amateurs*, but pro sport is nothing but a division of the entertainment industry, subject to profitability analyses and marketing return numbers and not much else.Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
-
Actually Rick, it would appear the misandrists are indeed flourishing...Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0
-
In an earlier post, Rick, I cited the fees such as Madonna can command to show how earnings are linked to whatever the paying public are willing to pay. Using her as an example again, in your world, would you expect her to split her ticket receipts with her support act (Regardless of gender). After all, they are both doing the same job eh?0
-
Ballysmate wrote:In an earlier post, Rick, I cited the fees such as Madonna can command to show how earnings are linked to whatever the paying public are willing to pay. Using her as an example again, in your world, would you expect her to split her ticket receipts with her support act (Regardless of gender). After all, they are both doing the same job eh?
i dont think Madonna is a Pro Tennis star? so its irrelevant and no one is saying the juniors playing in Eastbourne this w/e at their local under 15's matches should get the same as Murray, girls can aspire to be a pop star and to earn a similar amount to a male.
But that where women have made strides in equality, then they should remain and not be watered back down, i d just like to see more equality at the lower levels of all sport and to try and make womens pro sport a little fairer, so girls can have sporting aspirations and more role models.
so, the leading BC REO (this is a paid BC official ffs) at a race a year or so ago, presented the boys winner of the youth series a nice big trophy, the girls on the podium got nothing and he had to dig around in his pocket and gave them £2 each :? the female winner, never got her trophy, same the following year too - is this fair? is it justified because there are more boys racing? easy to see why.
anyway, Djokovic has now apologized and reworded his remarks, i guess his sponsors dont want to be associated with another Misogynistic sports star?
0 -
mamba80 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:In an earlier post, Rick, I cited the fees such as Madonna can command to show how earnings are linked to whatever the paying public are willing to pay. Using her as an example again, in your world, would you expect her to split her ticket receipts with her support act (Regardless of gender). After all, they are both doing the same job eh?
i dont think Madonna is a Pro Tennis star? so its irrelevant and no one is saying the juniors playing in Eastbourne this w/e at their local under 15's matches should get the same as Murray, girls can aspire to be a pop star and to earn a similar amount to a male.
But that where women have made strides in equality, then they should remain and not be watered back down, i d just like to see more equality at the lower levels of all sport and to try and make womens pro sport a little fairer, so girls can have sporting aspirations and more role models.
so, the leading BC REO (this is a paid BC official ffs) at a race a year or so ago, presented the boys winner of the youth series a nice big trophy, the girls on the podium got nothing and he had to dig around in his pocket and gave them £2 each :? the female winner, never got her trophy, same the following year too - is this fair? is it justified because there are more boys racing? easy to see why.
anyway, Djokovic has now apologized and reworded his remarks, i guess his sponsors dont want to be associated with another Misogynistic sports star?
No she is not a tennis star but is in the entertainment business. Any event that sells tickets or rights for people to watch is an entertainment business, be it sport, music, theatre or whatever.
Rick's view is that women tennis players should attract the same prize money as the men because they are playing at the same venue in the same event, regardless of how much revenue they attract. If we followed his argument then the act at the bottom of the bill would be paid the same as the headliner. Patently absurd.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:mamba80 wrote:
anyway, Djokovic has now apologized and reworded his remarks, i guess his sponsors dont want to be associated with another Misogynistic sports star?
No she is not a tennis star but is in the entertainment business. Any event that sells tickets or rights for people to watch is an entertainment business, be it sport, music, theatre or whatever.
Rick's view is that women tennis players should attract the same prize money as the men because they are playing at the same venue in the same event, regardless of how much revenue they attract. If we followed his argument then the act at the bottom of the bill would be paid the same as the headliner. Patently absurd.
i ve read Ricks comments and i didnt read that into them at all - womens tennis at the grandslams attract v large audiences and women already have parity at these events (they dont in others), so why should that have to change?
the main theme of ricks argument was that it would be nice if men could show a bit more respect toward women in general.0 -
Perhaps you missed this thenRe: Men should be paid more - Djokovic
Postby Rick Chasey » Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:10 am
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.0 -
This page has been blocked at work: reason - pornography. Not sure what that proves...0
-
I'll be honest - I haven't read the whole thread.
slightly off topic but mixed doubles gets roughly a third of the prize money that men's and women's doubles get, is that fair?
The amount seems to be based on which form of doubles gets the most attention/sponsorship/ticket sales. Is that fair?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
bompington wrote:This page has been blocked at work: reason - pornography. Not sure what that proves...
that you work for a very prudish company!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
How do we feel about the news that the women's winner of the Tour de Yorkshire will receive more than the men's winner? Roughly the same amount as the men's prize money for a win at Flanders, Milan-San Remo.
Should add, 1 day race compared to the 3 day men's version.
Thinking rather cynically, it's cracking publicity opportunity for them in the current climate thanks to the tennis.0 -
Dinyull wrote:How do we feel about the news that the women's winner of the Tour de Yorkshire will receive more than the men's winner? Roughly the same amount as the men's prize money for a win at Flanders, Milan-San Remo.
There is virtually no chance whatsoever of the men's TdY becoming a major event. On the other hand, they might as well pay out big money for the women, because there's a chance of turning that race into a key part of the racing calendar.0 -
For once the use of the word "skirt" can be excused0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Perhaps you missed this thenRe: Men should be paid more - Djokovic
Postby Rick Chasey » Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:10 am
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.
Djokovic agrees with Rick... yet more apologies from the Serbian.0 -
Djokovic should get less price money for failing to man up. If you're going to make a comment that it is obvious will cause controversy but is your genuine view then be prepared to defend it. If you're not prepared to do that don't say it in the first place. Whichever, don't come out trying to claim you were misunderstood and that you were actually trying to say something completely different.0
-
Agreed, he's not stupid and knew exactly how his comments would be taken and the fuss it would cause. Obviously feels passionately about the subject.Pross wrote:Djokovic should get less price money for failing to man up. If you're going to make a comment that it is obvious will cause controversy but is your genuine view then be prepared to defend it. If you're not prepared to do that don't say it in the first place. Whichever, don't come out trying to claim you were misunderstood and that you were actually trying to say something completely different.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
seanoconn wrote:
Agreed, he's not stupid and knew exactly how his comments would be taken and the fuss it would cause. Obviously feels passionately about the subject.Pross wrote:Djokovic should get less price money for failing to man up. If you're going to make a comment that it is obvious will cause controversy but is your genuine view then be prepared to defend it. If you're not prepared to do that don't say it in the first place. Whichever, don't come out trying to claim you were misunderstood and that you were actually trying to say something completely different.
he obviously is stupid, he didnt realise these remarks would cause such controversy but at least Andy Murray has won this one 0 -
The first reply to this thread wasPostby bompington » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:33 pm
Prepare for
1. Twitterstorm
2. grovelling apology in short order
3. Women's tennis to get no more exciting
1 and 2 came to pass and am willing to bet so will number 3.
Novak should have stuck to his guns, he was right. Perhaps his sponsors pointed out the % of their customers that were women, I don't know.
Unfortunately in today's world you cause uproar if you go against the PC script. You get called racist, sexist or perhaps misogynist for stating the bleedin' obvious.
I'm sure I would be unable to post this if Rick still had his special powers, I'd be banned. For what? Supporting a view that flies in the face of someone else's PC dogma, no matter the truth of the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs
Edit For anyone that knows me, there is some self deprecating irony in what I've posted. 0 -
If you think I call you that just because of this thread, you're wrong.
I'd come to that conclusion long ago, and just figured it was appropriate, given it's pointless arguing gender issues with a misogynist.
It's not about political correctness. I'll happy call you a c@nt if you want. It's more about you always take the side that disadvantages women in relation to men. In fact, you only talk about women in any positive light when sexualising or objectifying them.
Your "if they played naked" comment is a decent example of that.
You talk about the unequal status quo as 'facts', as if that justifies the unequal status, rather than aspiring to a more equal society. You do that, fundamentally, because you deep down don't want that. So in this instance, there's an equal position - men and women get the same money for winning the singles tournament, and you basically say 'well the facts are people are by their nature sexist when it comes to watching sport, by preferring watching men, so we should make sure that unequalness is reflected in the pay'.
That's not an enlightened way to look at it.0 -
What I find most curious is how many other men, the same type who post pictures of half naked women in threads all come out of the woodwork and cry foul and make personal attacks against me when I call it out.
I'll take it because I honestly care very little about what people like that think about me. I'll accept the PMs I get thanking me for standing up instead.
After all, wouldn't want you lot to round on them.0 -
There only appears to be one person person making it personal but hey ho.......Rick Chasey wrote:What I find most curious is how many other men, the same type who post pictures of half naked women in threads all come out of the woodwork and cry foul and make personal attacks against me when I call it out.
I'll take it because I honestly care very little about what people like that think about me. I'll accept the PMs I get thanking me for standing up instead.
After all, wouldn't want you lot to round on them.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:You talk about the unequal status quo as 'facts', as if that justifies the unequal status, rather than aspiring to a more equal society. You do that, fundamentally, because you deep down don't want that. So in this instance, there's an equal position - men and women get the same money for winning the singles tournament, and you basically say 'well the facts are people are by their nature sexist when it comes to watching sport, by preferring watching men, so we should make sure that unequalness is reflected in the pay'.
That's not an enlightened way to look at it.
That's actually a really good point and a way of looking at the problem - at least as it pertains to sport - that is not talked about enough. Too often the conversation falls into the mire of just accepting that womens sport is "less good" when for the majority of sports, it's just "different". In some cases - athletics, tennis - that difference makes no difference to what makes the sport good to watch, and in some cases - cycling - it actually can make it much better.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I'd come to that conclusion long ago, and just figured it was appropriate, given it's pointless arguing gender issues with a misogynist.
Well Rick, if my view was misogynist, surely it would have been easy for someone as educated and enlightened as your good self to demonstrate it as such. You chose to revert to name calling which I assume means that I had previously overestimated your intellect or that I was in fact correct in my view.It's not about political correctness. I'll happy call you a c@nt if you want. It's more about you always take the side that disadvantages women in relation to men. In fact, you only talk about women in any positive light when sexualising or objectifying them.
Your "if they played naked" comment is a decent example of that.
Call me what you want. I am not the one who tried to link my stance about the merits of the level of prize money to the disgraceful behaviour suffered by your fiancee.
The if they played naked remark was perhaps in poor taste to a man of your sensitivity. As I explained though, it does demonstrate that the women's game lacks interest and also that the women players themselves use their sexuality in the promotion of their game.
The other example of a thread that supposedly showed my misogynist tendencies didn't do any such thing did it?You talk about the unequal status quo as 'facts', as if that justifies the unequal status, rather than aspiring to a more equal society. You do that, fundamentally, because you deep down don't want that. So in this instance, there's an equal position - men and women get the same money for winning the singles tournament, and you basically say 'well the facts are people are by their nature sexist when it comes to watching sport, by preferring watching men, so we should make sure that unequalness is reflected in the pay'.
Facts? You seem to be in denial of them. Men's tennis generates more income and interest than the women's game in undeniable. It is not about unequal status, it is about prize money. The Ladies' Champion is still the Ladies' Champion, the Men's Champion is just that. They should be rewarded by whatever the market is willing to pay.
The general public's interest in watching sport is what it is. Because it is not what you think it should be doesn't alter the entitlement to prize money does it?
You assert that I don't want to aspire to a more equal society. Nonsense! All I have pointed out is that the men generate the income and the women take a disproportionate amount of it. It is YOU arguing for less equality.That's not an enlightened way to look at it.
That is a view in the real world.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:You talk about the unequal status quo as 'facts', as if that justifies the unequal status, rather than aspiring to a more equal society. You do that, fundamentally, because you deep down don't want that. So in this instance, there's an equal position - men and women get the same money for winning the singles tournament, and you basically say 'well the facts are people are by their nature sexist when it comes to watching sport, by preferring watching men, so we should make sure that unequalness is reflected in the pay'.
Facts? You seem to be in denial of them. Men's tennis generates more income and interest than the women's game in undeniable. It is not about unequal status, it is about prize money. The Ladies' Champion is still the Ladies' Champion, the Men's Champion is just that. They should be rewarded by whatever the market is willing to pay.
The general public's interest in watching sport is what it is. Because it is not what you think it should be doesn't alter the entitlement to prize money does it?
You assert that I don't want to aspire to a more equal society. Nonsense! All I have pointed out is that the men generate the income and the women take a disproportionate amount of it. It is YOU arguing for less equality.
You have totally dodged his point there...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0
. 
