Rossy Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 You want the same money, do the same work. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny's Yard Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Women's tennis is boring. I would be happy if they got paid the same as the men to play less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzo Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Williams got the same as djokovic at Wimbledon last year a mere 1.9 million Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted March 21, 2016 Author Share Posted March 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, bonzo said: Williams got the same as djokovic at Wimbledon last year a mere 1.9 million A million for every hour she was on court. She probably took longer to paint her nails and tuck her dick in than she did to play tennis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannannan Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Seen many a top women.s match in the flesh and they were anything but boring.Men's matches not involving the absolute top players against one another can also be "boring" eg final yesterday.But agree where men play best of 5 so should the women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekfaejapan Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 25 minutes ago, Rossy said: She probably took longer to paint her nails and tuck her dick in than she did to play tennis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Rossy and Derek showing themselves up with their misogyny on this thread. The "best of five" argument is a complete fallacy. There's 4 tournaments a year where best of five sets is played on the men's tour. And the tournament where this controversy has arisen isn't even one of them. Top women players would gladly play best of 5, there's simply no big demand from spectators to see it. It could possibly be introduced for the 2nd half of grand slams, where matches are tighter but introducing it from round 1 doesn't make sense IMO. Djokovic let himself down badly yesterday. He aligned himself with an outdated mysognistic nobody, who'd get schooled at tennis by an under 15 girls club champion. Shame on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Rossy said: A million for every hour she was on court. She probably took longer to paint her nails and tuck her dick in than she did to play tennis. Even if she has a dick I'd still let her do me. There's something aboot that lassie. All woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Parklife said: Rossy and Derek showing themselves up with their misogyny on this thread. The "best of five" argument is a complete fallacy. There's 4 tournaments a year where best of five sets is played on the men's tour. And the tournament where this controversy has arisen isn't even one of them. Top women players would gladly play best of 5, there's simply no big demand from spectators to see it. It could possibly be introduced for the 2nd half of grand slams, where matches are tighter but introducing it from round 1 doesn't make sense IMO. Djokovic let himself down badly yesterday. He aligned himself with an outdated mysognistic nobody, who'd get schooled at tennis by an under 15 girls club champion. Shame on him. Fair point. However the prize money, will be raised from advertising, selling of TV rights and ticket sales. The BBC reports the following figures, 973 million viewers for men's 2015 ATP tour, but only 395 million for women's 2015 WTA events and finals. Wimbledon itself reports that 9.2 million watched the Wimbledon mens final, but only 4.3 million watched the womens final. It wouldnt be difficult to deduce that, if sold separately, the TV rights for male tennis would be far more valuable than womens tennis, and as such, advertising would follow a similar path. Ticket sales for Wimbledon dont differentiate between the sexes, you pay for a seat at a venue, not the match. From a purely business perspective, women do not generate the same revenues, so should not receive the same prize money. This isnt a sexual equality issue, nor is it misogny. Edited March 21, 2016 by kumnio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Blackheart Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 The whole argument is a waste of time because it starts off with an artificial, "unequal" divide between women and men and goes from there. I wouldn't suggest they all play together, as even if the males stopped taking steroids, the women would get pummelled, thereby dissuading a lot of females from picking up a racquet in the first place, but arguing about who deserves what is inevitably subjective and becomes a complete waste of time. And, yes, they would get pummelled. Hammered. Wiped off the court. Can't find the link to a story I read about one of the Williams sisters getting pumped in practice from a guy barely in the top 1,000, but Google Kaarsten Brasch and you'll get the idea if you're bothered. Slightly-related, I don't understand why women don't appear to be able to break through in darts or snooker yet. I appreciate the culture may put them off a bit (darts girls?!), but still, there have been women's tours of sorts for a while now with no-one really threatening a breakthrough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fringo Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Parklife said: Rossy and Derek showing themselves up with their misogyny on this thread. The "best of five" argument is a complete fallacy. There's 4 tournaments a year where best of five sets is played on the men's tour. And the tournament where this controversy has arisen isn't even one of them. Top women players would gladly play best of 5, there's simply no big demand from spectators to see it. It could possibly be introduced for the 2nd half of grand slams, where matches are tighter but introducing it from round 1 doesn't make sense IMO. Djokovic let himself down badly yesterday. He aligned himself with an outdated mysognistic nobody, who'd get schooled at tennis by an under 15 girls club champion. Shame on him. Isn't that the point. No demand yet there's a demand in the men's game ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 The Men's game subsidizes the woman's game. Through ticket sales, sponsorship , and other revenue generating things, the male product of the game simply brings in more revenue. If we're talking fairness let's roll it back to getting paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to play a game. How does that work out viewed through the same lens? In direct competition it would be a one sided beat-down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Parklife said: Top women players would gladly play best of 5, there's simply no big demand from spectators to see it. It could possibly be introduced for the 2nd half of grand slams, where matches are tighter but introducing it from round 1 doesn't make sense IMO. You'd probably have to increase the length of the tournaments too. Worth considering from the quarter finals on though maybe as you suggested?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 They are all paid too much at the very top Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hauniscots Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It's the problem of not being able to express an opinion now without getting some discrimination tag. This is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, do you not think he has a fair idea how far ahead he is of women in tennis and who fans want to see on court. We should start listening to these people rather than jump on the stuff we don't like. To be even more ridiculous, should women football players not earn the same as men? No, because watching a womens game would tear the shirt off ye. Same as tennis, men are worth so much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Hard to feel any sympathy or even interest in rich men arguing for more money over rich women. Why not make it cheaper for fans or spread the money further down the rankings? Sure I read somewhere that after a certain cut off players are lucky to break even on the tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 In all seriousness, there's nothing mysoginistic in pointing out that it should be equal money for equal work. Fair enough, in 3 set tour events for both men and women, the prize money should be the same. In Grand Slams, the prize money for women should be 3/5 of the money that men are paid. Let's be honest here, it's not unknown for some women players to win a Grand Slam by playing almost the same amount of tennis in a whole tournament that a male player can play in one match. That's without even bringing in the fact that male tennis brings in far more sponsorship and TV revenue that women's tennis. Equality = good....positive discrimination = bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan_Don Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 9 hours ago, Ormond said: Even if she has a dick I'd still let her do me. There's something aboot that lassie. All woman. WTF That's some seriously messed up stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Rossy said: In all seriousness, there's nothing mysoginistic in pointing out that it should be equal money for equal work. Yeah, that wasn't the bit I was referring to, as you well know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 There are a couple of arguments here. First is the 3 set or 5 set issue which has been talked about here already that that only affects the 4 grand slam tournaments. The other is with regard to spectators but the fallacy here is people think the men's game is always superior or in higher demand to the women's game. This is untrue as prior to Federer in the days of serve and volley, the women's game was in higher demand to the men's game. Also, if there are matches and finals in tournaments where the top 4 men are not playing, the women's side has similar spectator numbers. Essentially, right now the men's game has had a relatively long period of success due to Federer, Nadal, Djoko and Murray. Outside of those 4 and potentially in the future, the high demand for the men's game drifts off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 17 minutes ago, MacWalka said: There are a couple of arguments here. First is the 3 set or 5 set issue which has been talked about here already that that only affects the 4 grand slam tournaments. The other is with regard to spectators but the fallacy here is people think the men's game is always superior or in higher demand to the women's game. This is untrue as prior to Federer in the days of serve and volley, the women's game was in higher demand to the men's game. Also, if there are matches and finals in tournaments where the top 4 men are not playing, the women's side has similar spectator numbers. Essentially, right now the men's game has had a relatively long period of success due to Federer, Nadal, Djoko and Murray. Outside of those 4 and potentially in the future, the high demand for the men's game drifts off. We're speaking now though, since the implementation of equal pay at Wimbledon. As a Prize fighting fan, I see folk getting paid millions to fight while better fighters only get £20,000. You get paid what you draw in that sport. So it's easier for me to view it in that context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Sexist boor Raymond Moore has resigned from his position as CEO of Indian Wells tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock strap Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 15 hours ago, Ormond said: Even if she has a dick I'd still let her do me. There's something aboot that lassie. All woman. I have got some serious concerns about you bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jock strap said: I have got some serious concerns about you bud Nae bugger in my local understands it either. But a powerful curvy woman is better than a wee skinny lassie. I like big butts and I cannot lie, nae Arab bugger can deny..... Edited March 22, 2016 by Ormond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock strap Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ormond said: Nae bugger in my local understands it either. But a powerful curvy woman is better than a wee skinny lassie. I like big butts and I cannot lie, nae Arab bugger can deny..... If you like women with big arses and a boaby, then you carry on mate. Makes absolutely no difference to me. I'm still your buddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.