Why do women..

[Guest Roop]

..get paid equally at Wimbledon?

 

They play fewer sets, yet the prize money is exactly the same. If we're gonna be arsey about it (which I am, because I'm forever being called a sexist) then women get paid more per hour than the men do, and do less work obviously. That's sexism.

 

Why does this happen? Is it just at Wimbledon?

[I.J]

It's because the Williams brothers keep getting to the final.

 

Only fair.

[Guest Roop]

If the situation was reversed, I'd bet my left bollock that on tournament days Wimbledon would just be a screeching, seething mass of unwashed, over-weight, middle-aged, penis-hating female fury.

 

Yet this goes largely unnoticed.

 

I've lost all faith in this competition. I'm really disillusioned.

[shaun.lawson]

..get paid equally at Wimbledon?

 

They play fewer sets, yet the prize money is exactly the same. If we're gonna be arsey about it (which I am, because I'm forever being called a sexist) then women get paid more per hour than the men do, and do less work obviously. That's sexism.

 

Why does this happen? Is it just at Wimbledon?

 

Wimbledon was the last Grand Slam to agree to it, only last year I think. The others all brought it in ages ago.

 

Women's tennis is full of mismatches, and invariably, if someone surprisingly wins the first set against a top player, they soon get steamrollered. It's far, far easier for top women to cruise through to the quarters or semis of a Grand Slam than it is for top men. And there's no market forces argument either: women's tennis gets terrible ratings at the moment, whereas the men's game - even without Nadal at this event - is tremendously competitive.

 

It wasn't always this way. From Evert to Navratilova to Graf to Seles to Hingis, the women's game used to have popular, highly recognisable Champions; whereas many experts believe Sampras and Agassi saved the men's game from stagnation and becoming utterly unwatchable. But despite their compelling story, the Williams sisters turn as many viewers off as on, and the retirement of players like Clijsters or Henin has left the women's game in a terrible rut right now.

 

Trouble is, very few men are prepared to stick their head above the parapet and say what you've said: that equal prize money is quite clearly a nonsense, and will remain so until the women's game gets its house in order.

[Guest Roop]

Wimbledon was the last Grand Slam to agree to it, only last year I think. The others all brought it in ages ago.

 

Women's tennis is full of mismatches, and invariably, if someone surprisingly wins the first set against a top player, they soon get steamrollered. It's far, far easier for top women to cruise through to the quarters or semis of a Grand Slam than it is for top men. And there's no market forces argument either: women's tennis gets terrible ratings at the moment, whereas the men's game - even without Nadal at this event - is tremendously competitive.

 

It wasn't always this way. From Evert to Navratilova to Graf to Seles to Hingis, the women's game used to have popular, highly recognisable Champions; whereas many experts believe Sampras and Agassi saved the men's game from stagnation and becoming utterly unwatchable. But despite their compelling story, the Williams sisters turn as many viewers off as on, and the retirement of players like Clijsters or Henin has left the women's game in a terrible rut right now.

 

Trouble is, very few men are prepared to stick their head above the parapet and say what you've said: that equal prize money is quite clearly a nonsense, and will remain so until the women's game gets its house in order.

 

I feel a pressure group coming on. I've worded that poorly, given the nature of the thread.

 

Cheers for the info and I agree with your final paragraph. It should be sorted.

[John Findlay]

Wimbledon was the last Grand Slam to agree to it, only last year I think. The others all brought it in ages ago.

 

Women's tennis is full of mismatches, and invariably, if someone surprisingly wins the first set against a top player, they soon get steamrollered. It's far, far easier for top women to cruise through to the quarters or semis of a Grand Slam than it is for top men. And there's no market forces argument either: women's tennis gets terrible ratings at the moment, whereas the men's game - even without Nadal at this event - is tremendously competitive.

 

It wasn't always this way. From Evert to Navratilova to Graf to Seles to Hingis, the women's game used to have popular, highly recognisable Champions; whereas many experts believe Sampras and Agassi saved the men's game from stagnation and becoming utterly unwatchable. But despite their compelling story, the Williams sisters turn as many viewers off as on, and the retirement of players like Clijsters or Henin has left the women's game in a terrible rut right now.

 

Trouble is, very few men are prepared to stick their head above the parapet and say what you've said: that equal prize money is quite clearly a nonsense, and will remain so until the women's game gets its house in order.

 

It's simple. Equal money then equal amounts of sets played as in the woman play five or the men come down to three. Though if the women go to five it may take some of them two days to complete a match.

 

 

 

John

[I.J]

If the situation was reversed, I'd bet my left bollock that on tournament days Wimbledon would just be a screeching, seething mass of unwashed, over-weight, middle-aged, penis-hating female fury.

 

Yet this goes largely unnoticed.

 

I've lost all faith in this competition. I'm really disillusioned.

 

You should start watching the darts. There's only one woman in it and she gets thrashed in the first round of every tournament.

 

That'll learn her.

 

[Commander Harris]

..get paid equally at Wimbledon?

 

They play fewer sets, yet the prize money is exactly the same. If we're gonna be arsey about it (which I am, because I'm forever being called a sexist) then women get paid more per hour than the men do, and do less work obviously. That's sexism.

 

Why does this happen? Is it just at Wimbledon?

An absolute nonsense. Will players for Arsenal Ladies be demanding parity with Cesc Fabregas et al?

 

I'm all for equal pay for equal jobs, but it's simply not an equal job. It's a completely different competition and, some would argue , essentially a different sport. If a woman thinks she's good enough and wants to earn the top money let her compete in the men's game and see how she enjoys that equality.

[Guest Roop]

An absolute nonsense. Will players for Arsenal Ladies be demanding parity with Cesc Fabregas et al?

 

I'm all for equal pay for equal jobs, but it's simply not an equal job. It's a completely different competition and, some would argue , essentially a different sport. If a woman thinks she's good enough and wants to earn the top money let her compete in the men's game and see how she enjoys that equality.

 

****in' right! Wibblers is a sham.

[Cigaro]

Its womens tennis.

 

It is by definition ****e.

[Darren]

It's interesting to see no women have replied to this yet. Probably because it is totally indefensible and a complete sham. Or maybe because they are too busy ironing.

[I P Knightley]

It's simple. Equal money then equal amounts of sets played as in the woman play five or the men come down to three. Though if the women go to five it may take some of them two days to complete a match.

 

 

 

John

 

Completely agree that the situation is farcical.

 

You've got the women's competition in Eastbourne that recently opened up to have a parallel men's tournament. Why? Because the sponsors & TV were piling in a huge amount more to the Queen's Club tourney that ran at the same time and Eastbourne was losing support.

 

It's ridiculous that the female winners of the Masters Series tournaments actually get more prize money than their male counterparts. Even though they're all best-of-three matches, the men make for much more interesting matches all the way through the tournaments. I say that but I haven't watched a women's tennis match for a good 4 years; the match results, though, suggest they're as dull as ever.

 

Then you get to the Grand Slams. I used to do statistical analyses of the tournament results but stopped as it just got me depressed.

 

What does a woman have to do to win it? 7 matches, the first 4 will be 6-2 6-2 at most and they'll be on court for no more than an hour, grunting and screaming.

 

The men, though, will play at least 50% longer. The matches will be closer & therefore more entertaining. You won't have a high ranking player being beaten without a whimper just because he's on the blob or something.

 

I tell you what. If you ever want to secure a disproportionately lucrative deal for yourself, you should get some militant lesbians onside to argue your case. This is a proper silk purse coming out of a sow's ear.

 

You got me started...

[The Merse]

It really, really, really annoys me this does.

 

It is so uncompetitive it's embarrassing.

 

Keep hitting it back and forward till someone hits it into the bottom of the net.

 

Hardly any of the matches even go to 3 sets and are won at an absolute canter.

 

As Ivana says 6-2 6-2 is a fairly predictable scoreline, although alot of them are usually something like 6-3 6-0, as the woman who loses the first set completely chucks the towel in.

 

I'm all for equal rights (I guess), but come on that is not equality.

[I P Knightley]

Now I'm really fizzing!

 

I'm watching the Roddick/Chardy game. Chardy's coming back into it in the second set but it goes to break point against him. It's getting interesting for one of the tournament favourites so what do the BBC do?

 

Switch over straight away to see some British woman who you've never heard of before and won't hear of again after tomorrow losing her first round match to some other woman who you might have heard of (I didn't pay attention). That's what they did.

 

It's wrong in so many ways!

[Rick Grimes]

You won't have a high ranking player being beaten without a whimper just because he's on the blob or something.

 

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

They all want equality. But only when it suits them.

 

This is something that really annoys me too, and as said previously, they should either be paid less, or play five sets. Simple.

[I P Knightley]

They all want equality. But only when it suits them.

 

This is something that really annoys me too, and as said previously, they should either be paid less, or play five sets. Simple.

 

They wouldn't manage five sets.

 

Correction. If they were to stretch it to 5 sets it would resemble a pair of pensioners patting it about in the park.

 

A 5-setter just finished on court 6 which lasted over 4 hours. None of it shown on the Beeb of course, they're too busy creaming themselves over some British no-hoper piece of blart getting ceremoniously dumped out. Hanescu beat Navarro 12-10 in the fifth. Without seeing it, I can only go on the stats and the fact that Hanescu had no double faults indicates they were keeping the standards pretty decent to the end.

 

In the same amount of time, you would have been on your 4th consecutive women's match and that includes allowing for the knocking up & tossing the coin.

 

Wage thiefs!!!

[shaun.lawson]

Completely agree that the situation is farcical.

 

You've got the women's competition in Eastbourne that recently opened up to have a parallel men's tournament. Why? Because the sponsors & TV were piling in a huge amount more to the Queen's Club tourney that ran at the same time and Eastbourne was losing support.

 

It's ridiculous that the female winners of the Masters Series tournaments actually get more prize money than their male counterparts. Even though they're all best-of-three matches, the men make for much more interesting matches all the way through the tournaments. I say that but I haven't watched a women's tennis match for a good 4 years; the match results, though, suggest they're as dull as ever.

 

Then you get to the Grand Slams. I used to do statistical analyses of the tournament results but stopped as it just got me depressed.

 

What does a woman have to do to win it? 7 matches, the first 4 will be 6-2 6-2 at most and they'll be on court for no more than an hour, grunting and screaming.

 

The men, though, will play at least 50% longer. The matches will be closer & therefore more entertaining. You won't have a high ranking player being beaten without a whimper just because he's on the blob or something.

 

I tell you what. If you ever want to secure a disproportionately lucrative deal for yourself, you should get some militant lesbians onside to argue your case. This is a proper silk purse coming out of a sow's ear.

 

You got me started...

 

 

In 2005, Venus Williams won a supposedly thrilling final 9-7 in the final set against Lindsay Davenport, coming back from championship point down. In the commentary box, Tracy Austin raved about what a wonderful match it had been - but in truth, it was anything but. Venus' performance had been an utter joke for a good set and a half - and the moment she pulled herself together, Big Linds started to fade.

 

Women's matches are regularly won from match point down; men's matches almost never are. I'm pretty sure that in the entire open era, no male player has ever been match point down at any point in the Championships and gone on to win Wimbledon; but it's certainly happened in the women's event. Why? The genius of tennis' scoring system lies in its cruelty: if you're not teak tough mentally, you get nowhere in the men's game. But amongst the ladies, Sabatini (), Novotna, Martinez, Clijsters and Mauresmo were all notoriously mentally fragile, yet every one won at least one Grand Slam title.

 

Maybe their fragility made them easier for the public to relate to - but if you consider the calibre of men's Champions over the years, it's a sick joke to compare the two or pay the same. When have you ever seen a women's final as extraordinarily high in quality as Nadal-Federer last year, or as dramatic as Ivanisevic-Rafter in 2001? Similarly, when have you ever seen a masterclass in women's tennis to compare with Pete Sampras' impossibly perfect destruction of Andre Agassi - who himself played quite brilliantly throughout - in 1999? It just doesn't happen.

[shaun.lawson]

Back when the All England club steadfastly refused to allow women equal prize money:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/tennis/news/1999/06/29/ten0705/

 

All Chauvinist Tennis Club

 

Ah, tradition. There's nothing to beat the All England Club: tennis whites, grass courts, the bow to the royal box, the insufferable sexism. It's astonishing, but here at century's end sit the lords of Wimbledon, still harrumphing at the idea of equal pay for men and women and dreaming of the days when women knew their place. Last week Chris Gorringe, the chief executive of the All England Club, set the tournament back a few decades when he justified paying the women's champion $72,000 less than the men's winner by saying that otherwise "we wouldn't have so much to spend on the petunias." Petunias?

 

Britain's No. 1 player, Tim Henman, citing the disparity between purses on the men's and women's tours, advised the women to leave the Grand Slams alone and called them "greedy" for having the gall even to raise the issue. After Henman took a sound thrashing in the British press, Jim Courier begged to be asked about the topic so he could chime in on Henman's side. "Everything he said is true," Courier said.

 

Not content to let the matter rest, the All England Club issued a press release noting that the prize money on the men's tour is 50% more than on the women's and pointing out that the four women semifinalists at Wimbledon last year -- Martina Hingis, Jana Novotna, Nathalie Tauziat and Natasha Zvereva -- took home more prize money during the 1998 tournament than the men's semifinalists, Tim Henman, Goran Ivanisevic, Richard Krajicek and Pete Sampras. What the release didn't mention is that Wimbledon has virtually never followed the example of the pro tours when setting policies. Nor did the release acknowledge that those four women also played doubles last year, while the four men didn't.

 

So the All England Club proved itself not only cheap, sanctimonious and chauvinistic, but deceitful too. All for the sake of relative pocket change.

 

You can see how impossible it was for male players to raise even principled objections. If ever there really was an example of PC gone mad, it's here.

[Denny Crane]

 

In 2005, Venus Williams won a supposedly thrilling final 9-7 in the final set against Lindsay Davenport, coming back from championship point down. In the commentary box, Tracy Austin raved about what a wonderful match it had been - but in truth, it was anything but. Venus' performance had been an utter joke for a good set and a half - and the moment she pulled herself together, Big Linds started to fade.

 

Women's matches are regularly won from match point down; men's matches almost never are. I'm pretty sure that in the entire open era, no male player has ever been match point down at any point in the Championships and gone on to win Wimbledon; but it's certainly happened in the women's event. Why? The genius of tennis' scoring system lies in its cruelty: if you're not teak tough mentally, you get nowhere in the men's game. But amongst the ladies, Sabatini (), Novotna, Martinez, Clijsters and Mauresmo were all notoriously mentally fragile, yet every one won at least one Grand Slam title.

 

Maybe their fragility made them easier for the public to relate to - but if you consider the calibre of men's Champions over the years, it's a sick joke to compare the two or pay the same. When have you ever seen a women's final as extraordinarily high in quality as Nadal-Federer last year, or as dramatic as Ivanisevic-Rafter in 2001? Similarly, when have you ever seen a masterclass in women's tennis to compare with Pete Sampras' impossibly perfect destruction of Andre Agassi - who himself played quite brilliantly throughout - in 1999? It just doesn't happen.

 

 

I think the 1995 final between Graf & Sanchez-Vicario was the last engrossing Ladies' final. Particularly when Graf broke Aranxta in the final set to set up serving for the match (game was 20 minutes long if I can recall)

[felix]

The equal pay argument shouldn't be about who works harder / who plays more sets, but should be about public popularity and like it or not; womens tennis (I don't include the Williams sisters here) is often more appealing than the mens game.

 

To truly evaluate prize money , and because men & women almost uniquley, play the same tournament, at the same time, you'd have to check tv ratings for mens/womens games, and also find out who spectators had come to watch. Only then could you accurately say - one sex deserves more prizemoney than the other.

[shaun.lawson]

I think the 1995 final between Graf & Sanchez-Vicario was the last engrossing Ladies' final. Particularly when Graf broke Aranxta in the final set to set up serving for the match (game was 20 minutes long if I can recall)

 

What was refreshing about that was, apart from one volley which would've left her serving for the match had she iced it, Sanchez had to be broken by Graf: she didn't give it away, unlike Sabatini in '91 or Novotna in '93. The Barcelona Bumblebee had nowhere near the talent of a number of top players - but made up for it with work ethic and self-belief.

[Denny Crane]

What was refreshing about that was, apart from one volley which would've left her serving for the match had she iced it, Sanchez had to be broken by Graf: she didn't give it away, unlike Sabatini in '91 or Novotna in '93. The Barcelona Bumblebee had nowhere near the talent of a number of top players - but made up for it with work ethic and self-belief.

 

With the Sabatini final Graf did do her part to wrestle it from her - that shot to break Gabriela for the last time was top draw.

[shaun.lawson]

With the Sabatini final Graf did do her part to wrestle it from her - that shot to break Gabriela for the last time was top draw.

 

Mmm... Sabatini also had a backhand volley that would've given her Championship point. Instead of attacking it like a tigress, she pushed at it tentatively like a pussycat, and blew her chance. Twice she served for the title; twice she produced service games so weak I swear you could hear the ball quack.

 

Had she won that match, she'd have been a fulfilled player, and reached number one in the rankings. Instead, she stayed at number three, and went into gradual decline - which intensified for good after a catastrophic loss from 6-1 5-1 up and having ten match points against Mary Joe Fernandez at the 1993 French Open. With Seles tragically out of tennis for a good couple of years, Gaby should've been Graf's main rival. Instead, she was so devastated by this unthinkable defeat she lost all focus and passion for the game; and just to show the power of the internal scars she'd been left with, she again managed to lose from 6-1 5-1 against Kimiko Date in 1995.

 

Too nice to be a Champion, Gaby. Far, far too nice.

[Moriarty]

Mmm... Sabatini also had a backhand volley that would've given her Championship point. Instead of attacking it like a tigress, she pushed at it tentatively like a pussycat, and blew her chance. Twice she served for the title; twice she produced service games so weak I swear you could hear the ball quack.

 

Had she won that match, she'd have been a fulfilled player, and reached number one in the rankings. Instead, she stayed at number three, and went into gradual decline - which intensified for good after a catastrophic loss from 6-1 5-1 up and having ten match points against Mary Joe Fernandez at the 1993 French Open. With Seles tragically out of tennis for a good couple of years, Gaby should've been Graf's main rival. Instead, she was so devastated by this unthinkable defeat she lost all focus and passion for the game; and just to show the power of the internal scars she'd been left with, she again managed to lose from 6-1 5-1 against Kimiko Date in 1995.

 

Too nice to be a Champion, Gaby. Far, far too nice.

 

im sure this has been said before but:

 

how the **** do you know all this random crap about everything shaun?

[shaun.lawson]

im sure this has been said before but:

 

how the **** do you know all this random crap about everything shaun?

 

In Gaby's case, simply because I was a huge fan of hers - posters of her adorned my bedroom wall throughout my teens.

[Moriarty]

In Gaby's case, simply because I was a huge fan of hers - posters of her adorned my bedroom wall throughout my teens.

 

and what about every other result of every other sport ever conceived?

[shaun.lawson]

and what about every other result of every other sport ever conceived?

 

I think I'll plead the Fifth on that one!

[Guest Roop]

and what about every other result of every other sport ever conceived?

 

He's the human manifestation of Google, mate.

[Moriarty]

He's the human manifestation of Google, mate.

 

he is statto

[I.J]

Shaun - what did you think of my 6-4, 3-6, 7-5 victory over my mate Kev at St. Margaret's Park when we were 14?

 

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun - what did you think of my 6-4, 3-6, 7-5 victory over my mate Kev at St. Margaret's Park when we were 14?

 

 

You obviously cheated.

[Moriarty]

You obviously cheated.

 

[I.J]

Hmm. This Lawson fellow knows more than I thought.

 

[deesidejambo]

The equal pay argument shouldn't be about who works harder / who plays more sets, but should be about public popularity and like it or not; womens tennis (I don't include the Williams sisters here) is often more appealing than the mens game.

 

To truly evaluate prize money , and because men & women almost uniquley, play the same tournament, at the same time, you'd have to check tv ratings for mens/womens games, and also find out who spectators had come to watch. Only then could you accurately say - one sex deserves more prizemoney than the other.

 

If it was a choice between Federer v's Nadal on one channel and Sharapova v's some other babe on the other, I'll take the women every time. Especially in HD. Pay the ladies more I say.

[Moriarty]

Hmm. This Lawson fellow knows more than I thought.

 

 

told you man. He IS statto!

 

[shaun.lawson]

told you man. He IS statto!

 

 

My finances are about as strong as his too!

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/celebrity/article.html?in_article_id=430274&in_page_id=181

 

... But rest assured, I don't sit around in pyjamas all day. Going commando is much more my style...

[Moriarty]

My finances are about as strong as his too!

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/celebrity/article.html?in_article_id=430274&in_page_id=181

 

... But rest assured, I don't sit around in pyjamas all day. Going commando is much more my style...

 

you even know all about celebs finances!

[shaun.lawson]

you even know all about celebs finances!

 

 

To be fair, I had thought that was fairly common knowledge. Highly amusing given how he made a living in the years before the **** hit the fan.

[IronJambo]

The equal pay argument shouldn't be about who works harder / who plays more sets, but should be about public popularity and like it or not; womens tennis (I don't include the Williams sisters here) is often more appealing than the mens game.

 

To truly evaluate prize money , and because men & women almost uniquley, play the same tournament, at the same time, you'd have to check tv ratings for mens/womens games, and also find out who spectators had come to watch. Only then could you accurately say - one sex deserves more prizemoney than the other.

 

lesbian

[Denny Crane]

In Gaby's case, simply because I was a huge fan of hers - posters of her adorned my bedroom wall throughout my teens.

 

 

Folks. I strongly suspect he didn't use blu-tack!

[I P Knightley]

I'm very alarmed at the level of in-depth knowledge of the women's game being trotted out, not only by Shaun, here.

 

There were some BURSD.

 

They patted a ball about a bit.

 

One of them got a shiny trophy.

 

End Off!!

 

Britain's No. 1 player, Tim Henman, citing the disparity between purses on the men's and women's tours, advised the women to leave the Grand Slams alone and called them "greedy" for having the gall even to raise the issue. After Henman took a sound thrashing in the British press, Jim Courier begged to be asked about the topic so he could chime in on Henman's side. "Everything he said is true," Courier said.

 

A number of people may want to revise their opinions of Tiger Tim based on that.

 

Sterling fellow - speaks nothing but sense!!

 

To truly evaluate prize money , and because men & women almost uniquley, play the same tournament, at the same time, you'd have to check tv ratings for mens/womens games, and also find out who spectators had come to watch. Only then could you accurately say - one sex deserves more prizemoney than the other.

 

With the exception of one or two perverts, I think we all know the answer. And the message for the (deeside)perverts () is, use Google Images!!

[Groot]

you even know all about celebs finances!

 

and the fact he could pull up that link wihin 2 minutes of the picture being posted

 

I can just imagine him sitting in front of a bank of PC's all the information in the world at his finger tips

[shaun.lawson]

and the fact he could pull up that link wihin 2 minutes of the picture being posted

 

I can just imagine him sitting in front of a bank of PC's all the information in the world at his finger tips

 

 

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[holymoly]

..get paid equally at Wimbledon?

 

They play fewer sets, yet the prize money is exactly the same. If we're gonna be arsey about it (which I am, because I'm forever being called a sexist) then women get paid more per hour than the men do, and do less work obviously. That's sexism.

 

Why does this happen? Is it just at Wimbledon?

 

I could have sworn I read exactly the same thing in the Metro letters page. Exactly the same thing.

[I.J]

I see that one of the British women who got pumped out today rushed out a press conference in tears after being questioned perhaps a little unfairly by a journalist.

 

Good on her I say - Her man was doubtlessly waiting on his tea.

[Cigaro]

I see that one of the British women who got pumped out today rushed out a press conference in tears after being questioned perhaps a little unfairly by a journalist.

 

Good on her I say - Her man was doubtlessly waiting on his tea.

Crying AND running? At the same time?

 

Is there no end to these womens skills?

[Johanes de Silentio]

I have absolutely no complaints regarding women's tennis - in my opinion, it's worth every goddamn penny!

 

Money well spent!

[John Findlay]

Crying AND running? At the same time?

 

Is there no end to these womens skills?

 

I think you will find the sisterhood justify that as multi-tasking.

 

 

 

 

John

[Romanov Stole My Pension]

Does anyone have any kind of viewing figure comparisons?