In Pro Tennis, Should Women be Paid as much as Men?

[RhodyYanksFan]

I say no because they don't play best of 5 sets like the men.

Thoughts?

[THEBOSS84]

I doubt they generate the same $ as the men do for the league, so no.

[CanoForPresident]

I say no because they don't play best of 5 sets like the men.

Thoughts?

Id rather listen to women play tennis than watch them play it.

so no.

[ruthianblast]

As long as they generate as much revenue; sure.

[ajra21]

do you mean in grand slams or on the tour events?

[Blokee]

If they play as much sets as the men and bring in as much $ then sure. Until then - no.

[b_joseph]

No...a few years ago they had an argument for it because most people watched female more than men because of the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Henin etc.

But these days, the Federer vs Nadal thing has made mens tennis more popular again.
Mens tennis is at such a good place right now that you cant really have a solid reason as to why they should be paid the same.

[Snatch Catch]

Who cares if they play as many sets? All that matters is that people are willing to pay the same amount of money to sponsor and view them as they are for men.

If that's the case, then they should get paid the same. If they generate the same amount, pay them the same. If they generate more money, play them more.

[mentalgidget]

Should Nadal be paid less when he wins in 3 sets as opposed to 5?
Should Nadal be paid more for winning in 3 sets than S. Williams for doing the same?

[Cattledog]

I say no because they don't play best of 5 sets like the men.

Thoughts?

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but I totally agree with you. In some of these matches (especially the early rounds), players like Serena Williams and Jelena Jankovic are done in like 45 minutes. In the meantime, the men are slugging it out for hours. In the marathon, women don't run 16.1 miles, but rather 26.2 just like the men.

[keg411]

I say yes. Women's tennis is a HUGE sport. This isn't like the WNBA where people don't watch. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if there were times in history where women's tennis was more popular than men's tennis.

Also, for those of you who only watch Grand Slams - for most of the tour men only play a best-of-three as well. The men ONLY play a best of five at the Grand Slams and an occasional final (for instance, the final at Miami for the men is best-of-five but for every other match, it's best-of-three).

[gdn]

I say yes, but make them play 5 sets.

[Yanks1976]

It's all about money...if they generate the same, pay the same. If what they generate is different, pay accordingly. Edited to add that the number of sets don't matter to me. If people want to watch, sponsors want to pay, I dont care if they only play for 9 minutes. It is all about the bottom line.

[EvanJ]

I say go by the number of sets. I believe in equal pay for equal work (if at nonmajors men and women need to win the same number of sets they should get equal pay) but I don't believe in giving women equal pay for less work at majors. Going by the revenue generated would be going by a variable that changes from tournament to tournament and it is not known in advance exactly what the TV ratings for a major will be but it is known in advance how many sets the men need to win and how many sets the women need to win.

[Snatch Catch]

I say go by the number of sets. I believe in equal pay for equal work

It's not equal work because women only play women. Men only play men.

Should the guys (sans Igawa) on the SWB Yankees make the same as the team in the Bronx because they all play 9 innings?

Should the guys in the D-League make the same as the NBA because they both play 4 quarters of basketball?

[Yankee Tripper]

I doubt they generate the same $ as the men do for the league, so no.

I'm not so sure about this statement any more.

[keg411]

I say yes, but make them play 5 sets.

Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.

[gdn]

Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.
Men only play 5 sets in Grand Slams.

Right, so I thought we were talking about grand slams only. Who cares about the circuit?

[Snatch Catch]

Do the women's finals sell out the same as the men's? Are the ticket prices the same?

If they are, then the women should get paid the same.

If there was a third event at Wimbledon where groundskeepers raced to spike the lawn, and it sold out the stadium over the same amount of sessions, they should get paid the same, too.

[gdn]

Women's tennis no longer has even half the draw of men's tennis. If anything, they should be paid less.

[Snatch Catch]

Women's tennis no longer has even half the draw of men's tennis. If anything, they should be paid less.

If this is the case, I agree.

[gdn]

If this is the case, I agree.

They sell out tickets, sure, but no one really gives a sh|t. Gone are the days of Steffi and Martina and Monica. Heck even Araxnta, Gabriella, Mary Pierce.

Now it's all ivanova this, kurilenko that. Can't even tell you the top 10 in the world and I've been following tennis since I was 2.

[Snatch Catch]

They sell out tickets, sure, but no one really gives a sh|t. Gone are the days of Steffi and Martina and Monica. Heck even Araxnta, Gabriella, Mary Pierce.

Now it's all ivanova this, kurilenko that. Can't even tell you the top 10 in the world and I've been following tennis since I was 2.

Wait, but they're still selling out the Grand Slams?

[gdn]

Wait, but they're still selling out the Grand Slams?

of course. There are only 4 a year. I don't know if all the first/second round matches sell out, but the top performers obviously do. There's only one US open semifinal, final a year, etc., so tickets are incredibly limited.

[In Mo I Trust]

They should be paid based on the amount of revenue generated, if it is the same as men they should be paid the same, if less they should be paid less, if more they should be paid more. I can't fathom how any other argument holds any weight.

[Snatch Catch]

They should be paid based on the amount of revenue generated, if it is the same as men they should be paid the same, if less they should be paid less, if more they should be paid more. I can't fathom how any other argument holds any weight.

Exactly. This is where I'm at with it.

[THEBOSS84]

I kinda said that with the second post of the thread...

[gdn]

They should be paid based on the amount of revenue generated, if it is the same as men they should be paid the same, if less they should be paid less, if more they should be paid more. I can't fathom how any other argument holds any weight.

Because they don't play the same game as the men do, at least in the Grand slams?

[cupcollector99]

depends on what they wear.

[Snatch Catch]

Because they don't play the same game as the men do, at least in the Grand slams?

What does the game have to do with it? If they sell out the same number of seats, at the same venue, at the same prices, what does it matter how long they play?

[gdn]

What does the game have to do with it? If they sell out the same number of seats, at the same venue, at the same prices, what does it matter how long they play?

The problem is that it's a zero sum game. There are only so many tickets available for sale, so whether they garner the same revenue at a Grand Slam is less a function of the draw of the women's game and more a function of the draw of a Grand Slam.

If there are 50, 000 people who want to watch a match at this Grand Slam and only 5,000 of them can watch a men's match, the rest are gonna go watch whatever is available.

By the same token, all the boy's matches are also sold out, so should they make the same as the men's?

It's a totally different equation in the grand slams, given the heightened demand and the extremely limited supply.

[ajra21]

i suspect that if the women's circuit brought in the same level of sponsorship, then they would be paid more. when it comes to the grand slams, i simply don't know the difference between the two games in terms of revenue, prize payments and whether the sponsoship for these events are brought in separately (which i doubt).