Men should be paid more - Djokovic

ballysmate

ddraver wrote:

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...

In what way? The paying public decide what sport they are willing to pay their money to support and to what level. No one can change that. That is the fact of the matter. I am not saying that women's sport can not be exciting, just that there is not the same appetite for it.
As has been pointed out, should the doubles and juniors get an equal slice of the pie, even if there is not the same interest and they generate less cash?
What Rick advocates is the women's game being subsidised by the men which I'm sure, expressed in those terms, you would find patronising. But that is in effect what he is arguing for.

inseine

darren636 wrote:

Men PLAY more.
They should be payed accordingly

Mo Farah runs 100 times further than Usain bolt, should be paid 100 times more.

DeVlaeminck

Ballysmate wrote:

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.

Andy Murray made a decent point - should Serena Williams be paid more to win a match than some unknown male player because she brings more interest to the game than he would. Should a Brit be paid more at Wimbledon. Should players from nations who bring in greater TV revenue be paid more than others?

Perhaps we should also seed tournaments so that the most popular players have the best chance of succeeding ?

Is it even possible to disentangle market forces from sporting and societal concerns. There is no law that I know of that compels the grand slams to pay equal prize money - it could be argued that they do so to protect their image and avoid the risk a female boycott would bring - a purely financial decision or market forces.

ballysmate

Rick has mentioned a few times the PMs he has received regarding misogyny. A thought has just occurred. Are these Pms linked to the time when he was a mod? If so, how many concerned me, bearing in mind that no mod, nor anyone else has seen fit to contact me to complain about or ask me to modify my posting.

Now there could be several reasons for this.

1. He made the whole thing up
2. None of the complaints were about me
3. The complaints were about me but the complaints were unsubstantiated.
4. He was inept as a mod and did nothing
5. Perhaps they are recent complaints and as he is no longer a mod he has passed them on and the new mods decided that I had done nothing untoward.

Perhaps there are other option that haven't occurred to me.

ddraver

You re a curious boy Bally...

ballysmate

ddraver wrote:

You re a curious boy Bally...

Can you think of a No.6?

ballysmate

Andy Murray made a decent point - should Serena Williams be paid more to win a match than some unknown male player because she brings more interest to the game than he would. Should a Brit be paid more at Wimbledon. Should players from nations who bring in greater TV revenue be paid more than others?

This is blurring appearance money with prize money. The prize money is set before a ball is struck and before anyone knows the identity of the winner.
Athletics has appearance fees. Oh...hang on... we seem to be back to where participants get rewarded by how much the market will stand. By how much they can generate.

ddraver

Ballysmate wrote:

ddraver wrote:

You re a curious boy Bally...

Can you think of a No.6?

6. It's not all about Bally

ballysmate

ddraver wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

ddraver wrote:

You re a curious boy Bally...

Can you think of a No.6?

6. It's not all about Bally

It is me that he singled out, so let him tell me how many complaints he received.

DeVlaeminck

Ballysmate wrote:

Andy Murray made a decent point - should Serena Williams be paid more to win a match than some unknown male player because she brings more interest to the game than he would. Should a Brit be paid more at Wimbledon. Should players from nations who bring in greater TV revenue be paid more than others?

This is blurring appearance money with prize money. The prize money is set before a ball is struck and before anyone knows the identity of the winner.
Athletics has appearance fees. Oh...hang on... we seem to be back to where participants get rewarded by how much the market will stand. By how much they can generate.

But it follows the same logic that prize money should be linked to the interest a player generates, so you would favour an element of appearance money in the grandslams as for you prize money alone doesn't reward the ability to generate income for the tournament?

Aside from that there was also the point that equal prize money was won largely through the threat of bad publicity which would impact on the tournaments economically. Just a different kind of market forces.

ballysmate

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Andy Murray made a decent point - should Serena Williams be paid more to win a match than some unknown male player because she brings more interest to the game than he would. Should a Brit be paid more at Wimbledon. Should players from nations who bring in greater TV revenue be paid more than others?

This is blurring appearance money with prize money. The prize money is set before a ball is struck and before anyone knows the identity of the winner.
Athletics has appearance fees. Oh...hang on... we seem to be back to where participants get rewarded by how much the market will stand. By how much they can generate.

But it follows the same logic that prize money should be linked to the interest a player generates, so you would favour an element of appearance money in the grandslams as for you prize money alone doesn't reward the ability to generate income for the tournament?

Aside from that there was also the point that equal prize money was won largely through the threat of bad publicity which would impact on the tournaments economically. Just a different kind of market forces.

As I said, the prize money is set before anyone enters and the organisers have no way of knowing with 100% certainty who will win.
If the organisers want to offer appearance money, it is up to them isn't it. Wimbledon could offer appearance money to popular players in the hope that they will progress to the later stages. Could backfire if as in the case of defending champ Lleyton Hewitt, he gets knocked out in the 1st round.
Any appearance money would stand separate from any prize money.
I suppose you are in to the realms of money being syphoned off by the top stars to the detriment of others. But that is a different argument.
You could also have the anomaly of someone like Serena Williams getting knocked out in the 1st round and earning more than the eventual winner.
But as I say, that would be up to the tournament organisers.
The original thread was about the disparity or otherwise in the men's/women's game. Any introduction of appearance money would affect both games so is moot in this instance.
Besides, what would some people say if the top men were to be offered more than the top women? :roll:

pblakeney

Here is a thought.
How can you have equility in sport when it's entire reason for existing is to prove that some are better than others?

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

Here is a thought.
How can you have equility in sport when it's entire reason for existing is to prove that some are better than others?

Very sage.
Bet you didn't read that in The Guardian.

seanoconn

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick has mentioned a few times the PMs he has received regarding misogyny. A thought has just occurred. Are these Pms linked to the time when he was a mod? If so, how many concerned me, bearing in mind that no mod, nor anyone else has seen fit to contact me to complain about or ask me to modify my posting.

Now there could be several reasons for this.

1. He made the whole thing up
2. None of the complaints were about me
3. The complaints were about me but the complaints were unsubstantiated.

4. He was inept as a mod and did nothing
5. Perhaps they are recent complaints and as he is no longer a mod he has passed them on and the new mods decided that I had done nothing untoward.

Perhaps there are other option that haven't
occurred to me.

My inbox is full of complaints about rick's potty mouth. Of course I can't substantiate this as I would be betraying the trust of the sensitive souls he offended, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Here is a thought.
How can you have equility in sport when it's entire reason for existing is to prove that some are better than others?

Very sage.
Bet you didn't read that in The Guardian.

Out of my own mind.
I surprise even myself sometimes.

Stevo_666

It's also odd that those who disagree with Rick are saying so on this thread but pretty much everyone who agrees with him is saying so via PM - allegedly.

ballysmate

My inbox is full of messages from women (and men, lest I be thought misogynist) asking for photos..
Again, confidentiality dictates that I can't say who they are from though.

BTW Sean, yours is in the post.

rick_chasey

Nah I get more PMs suggesting female members of my family get raped or killed.

I got a lot less after a spate of banning a year or so ago.

If you are seen to be feminist you seem to be fair game for some horrendous abuse. It's easier to deal with when you're mod. Less so when not. So I can see why people wouldn't put themselves up for that.

ballysmate

Rick. There is no place for abuse, I agree.

For the record, it never occurred to me to label you a feminist nor anything else. You were just wrong, simple as.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick. There is no place for abuse, I agree.

For the record, it never occurred to me to label you a feminist nor anything else. You were just wrong, simple as.

Whats feminist about wanting the status quo of the equality of prize money in G/Slams to continue?

Cant change sports like womens pro cycling over night and this thread wasnt about that but it doesnt mean we shouldnt try, if that means some cross subsidy from the mens game, is that so wrong? after all, without women, none of us would be here!

as i said earlier, its about creating an atmosphere where girls can aspire to top level sport, in an equal way boys can, instead of objectifying girls, as fodder for footballers.
otherwise you are penalising them for being girls, and how can that be right?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Nah I get more PMs suggesting female members of my family get raped or killed.

I got a lot less after a spate of banning a year or so ago.

If you are seen to be feminist you seem to be fair game for some horrendous abuse. It's easier to deal with when you're mod. Less so when not. So I can see why people wouldn't put themselves up for that.

Maybe an over-reaction but reporting them to the boys in blue might give them a wake up call. Same with the chaps who abused your fiance - at the very least ending up on the register might make them stop and think before repeating their actions

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick. There is no place for abuse, I agree.

For the record, it never occurred to me to label you a feminist nor anything else. You were just wrong, simple as.

Whats feminist about wanting the status quo of the equality of prize money in G/Slams to continue?

Cant change sports like womens pro cycling over night and this thread wasnt about that but it doesnt mean we shouldnt try, if that means some cross subsidy from the mens game, is that so wrong? after all, without women, none of us would be here!

as i said earlier, its about creating an atmosphere where girls can aspire to top level sport, in an equal way boys can, instead of objectifying girls, as fodder for footballers.
otherwise you are penalising them for being girls, and how can that be right?

I suggest you reread what I posted and you quoted.
I never ever said it was feminist!!!

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's also odd that those who disagree with Rick are saying so on this thread but pretty much everyone who agrees with him is saying so via PM - allegedly.

there are few who agree with rick and have said so on here and yes Bally, apologizes, i misread what you wrote.

ballysmate

No probs.

Pross

inseine wrote:

darren636 wrote:

Men PLAY more.
They should be payed accordingly

Mo Farah runs 100 times further than Usain bolt, should be paid 100 times more.

And I'll take about 75% longer than Mo to complete the World Half Marathon on Saturday so should get paid 75% more than him. He also gets a 15 minute head start on me which is a bit unfair!

pblakeney

I thought they at least played with the same balls.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/m ... pen-tennis

msmancunia

Dudes

Just a quick note from a female BR poster, just to back up some of what Rick has said, as you may not be aware of what it's sometimes like on the forum when you're not a bloke. It can get misogenystic, sexist, and on occasion, quite abusive. I stopped coming into Cake Stop after such an episode, (and I'm only in now because I've been typing up Joey Barton interviews as a favour to his ghostwriter for his autobiog and he's giving me a headache and I needed a break :-). ). Sometimes it's in open forum, sometimes it's by way of PMs, and sometimes someone will say something nasty to give the guys a laugh, and will then PM you to say "I'm not really like that, I was only joking", which in some ways, is the most cowardly. I can take a joke, but sometimes it goes beyond the pale and the mods (especially Rick) do their best to try and keep all the cyclists, sexists, racists, jokers, and fans in line, without turning the forum stale.

Mamba80 - outing myself a little, I work for BC. It is still a very male dominated organisation but the staff are working hard to change this. The problem is that the national council and the regional boards are almost exclusively male, very road and track heavy, and this shows no sign of changing. Some regions are worse than others. I sit in the national council meeting every year and out of 110 votes, no more than 15 are women. I did a rough estimation and the average age was pushing sixty. I'm all for using experience, but that's a bit too far - we have several councillors who are in their mid-80's. More women need to put themselves forward to go on regional boards and become national councillors and push for change for womens and girls racing, for more events, and better prize money, and this needs to come from the bottom up. Maryka Sennema does a sterling job, but there needs to be more like her, who dont let themselves be intimidated by the old guard. Lastly, you need to think of it as trying to turn round an ocean-going liner - we are doing our best, and have a women's strategy which is hitting targets, but it will take time to change the 100 year old habits of the sport that we all love.

finchy

DeVlaeminck wrote:

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.

Missed this comment until now. Even at top international level, the size of the pitch appears to cause some problems in women's football. I tried to watch a few games recently, but attacks broke down too easily because midfield players couldn't get up to support the forwards in time, too many attempted long passes fell short of their target and full backs often failed to support their wingers on the overlap. The result was a complete lack of fluidity and I never got the feeling that a goal or attack could just come out of nowhere.

I don't know if men were faster in 1900 than women today (athletics records suggest that a female athlete today will be at about the same sort of level as a male athlete in the early part of the last century, but that could well be the dope), but modern audiences are used to watching men play football at much higher speeds, so that is the mark by which female footballers will be judged. I'd like to see slightly smaller pitches being given a trial, then ask the players and fans what they think. Given the pitifully low numbers of spectators at matches these days, I can't see anything wrong with trying out some new ideas.

ballysmate

Anyone see the Boat Race yesterday? The commentator referred to the Men's Race a s 'The Main Event'.
I almost switched the telly off in disgust. :roll:

mamba80

msmancunia wrote:

Mamba80 - outing myself a little, I work for BC. It is still a very male dominated organisation but the staff are working hard to change this. The problem is that the national council and the regional boards are almost exclusively male, very road and track heavy, and this shows no sign of changing. Some regions are worse than others. I sit in the national council meeting every year and out of 110 votes, no more than 15 are women. I did a rough estimation and the average age was pushing sixty. I'm all for using experience, but that's a bit too far - we have several councillors who are in their mid-80's. More women need to put themselves forward to go on regional boards and become national councillors and push for change for womens and girls racing, for more events, and better prize money, and this needs to come from the bottom up. Maryka Sennema does a sterling job, but there needs to be more like her, who dont let themselves be intimidated by the old guard. Lastly, you need to think of it as trying to turn round an ocean-going liner - we are doing our best, and have a women's strategy which is hitting targets, but it will take time to change the 100 year old habits of the sport that we all love.

i dont buy any of that, CTT seem to manage to treat girls more equally in this region and nationally, they are hardly awash with women running the sport, my daughter gets equality in a TT but not in BC run RR
CTT have cats for girls and women across all their competitions and a fantastic champions night for all.

But it comes from BC, i ve never seen guide lines sent to race organizers on equality, BC dont have a jnr girls nat RR series and you dont have sep points for jnr girls in womens RR, BC support youth girls/boys a great deal but at 16yo any who havent got on a ODA are dropped like (as one parent said) "like they ve done something wrong" how is that encouraging girls to stay in the support?
my advice to any women putting herself fwd is dont bother, my GF did and was met with an attitude which said " you do as you told and put on RR for us and thats all we need you for, so shut up and know your place woman"
we tried v hard to get more equality for youth girls, waste of time and tbh upset local BC officials and as one parent said, your kid wont get picked for RSRs regional teams etc that was her experience and i suspect also happened to at least one other girl (who left the sport) and there is no where to go with complaints as BC dont want to upset Volunteers!