Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
had to be done. he lost his mind.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Tennis Thread
- Thread starter Mister Wright
- Start date
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This argument is a bit free-market fundamentalist. I feel like if women were working 70% longer for the same pay in any other job, and someone defended it on these grounds, I would think they were a prick.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Haha yeah.
Got to love that people (e.g. Wertheim of SI) attempted to defend him with "his courageous anti-apartheid stance" which consisted of winning Davis Cup by walkovers for the Suid Afrika team and eventually stepping out of one match in 1978 aged 32.
Last edited:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
No its not. Its just reality.
If you think Kukushkin playing 5 sets means more to tennis than Serena playing 2, just because he is on the court longer, do you apply this criteria to other sports?
Since when do we discuss time played in any other capacity other than tennis?
If time is the argument, why don't women football players earn the same as mens footballers? Because the financial reality of the game is completely different. Should the women's t20 world cup be the same for men and women because they both play 20 overs?
Last edited:
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's just bollocks.. you could probably say that for a lot of sports (e.g. football) and only be thought of as ***ist, though perhaps accurate. In tennis, it's just factually rubbish. Women's tennis is immensely popular in its own right.
How is it in any way relevant that mid-ranking men could beat Serena? BJK proved that wasn't the case many years ago, BTW. In any case, it's completely irrelevant.
Kournikova earning more money than Arantxa for her *** appeal goes down in the "life isn't fair" category. Again irrelevant. Sania being the only tennis "star" in a hugely populated country earns far more than some Romanian player ranked in the top-30 in singles.
Sponsorships etc. are never going to be fairly distributed and make up only a small part of the total income for most top players, hence Sharapova's net worth being far more than Serena. There is no point even discussing it. Prize money is controllable, and Slams should certainly make it a point to award equal amounts as a matter of principle.
What do the Olympics do? Does Usain Bolt get paid much more than the women's 100m winner and do the rest complain because they could beat the entire women's field blindfolded? Makes no sense.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
While I tend to agree with you on the question of relevance when discussing women's tennis in its own right, she really, really didn't prove anything other than that a top woman in her prime could beat a 55-year old who had been a great player three decades earlier (and who even then had destroyed another of the top women in an earlier match). Karsten Braasch, on the other hand...
do you have any data to support this?
sure length of a match != quality but the effort to win a best of five is significantly higher than the effort to win a best of three so when they have to work more, why shouldn't they get paid more? the women are right now being paid more for less work in the majors...it is a fact, plain and simple...for regular tournaments where it is best of three for both, being paid equally is a more viable argument...
Last edited:
what do you mean by the bolded phase? in terms of quality of tennis, absolutely it means more than serena playing a three setter...if we are talking about a popularity contest, serena wins hands-down...
you question the relevance of the fact that serena can be beaten a mid-ranking man and then say king proved otherwise? riggs was a 55 year old loudmouth when he lost to king, how does that prove anything about a potential battle between serena and a current mid level player on the men's tour? whether it is relevant to how men and women are paid is a completely different question though...
exactly...
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I didn't know Riggs was 55. Yeah, I guess it doesn't really prove anything, but again as we agree, it's irrelevant.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Work is not just effort expended on the court, women train equally hard, employ expensive coaches, physiotherapists, travel etc.. it's just as much of a full-time job. They play best-of-3 because that is the ideal duration for them to be able to deliver high-quality tennis given their physical limitations compared to men.
Serena would probably win the Calendar Slam 5 years in a row if they made it best of 5 for women, BTW, and people would complain even more.
so in a work environment, a man and a woman get trained equally to do the job, the man works 40 hours a week and the woman works 25 hours a week on the same job (if they are considered employees at the same level and let's assume for argument's sake that the quality of their output is the same) but they should be paid equally...? or should the woman be considered senior/superior because of her gender to justify being paid as much as the man? i believe in equal pay for equal work but what you are arguing about is not an example of that...Work is not just effort expended on the court, women train equally hard, employ expensive coaches, physiotherapists, travel etc.. it's just as much of a full-time job. They play best-of-3 because that is the ideal duration for them to be able to deliver high-quality tennis given their physical limitations compared to men.
Serena would probably win the Calendar Slam 5 years in a row if they made it best of 5 for women, BTW, and people would complain even more.
Last edited:
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Making it just about the length of the match doesn't work.. would you want to extend that logic and pay them by the amount of time spent on the court? Federer would be at a huge disadvantage.. distance covered during points? How hard they hit the ball?
My point is that being a professional tennis player is a full-time occupation. Grand Slams are the pinnacle of the sport and they should recognize the fact that both men and women work equally hard at their profession by paying them equally. Women's Grand Slam matches are best-of-3 because it is the best tradeoff between quality and fairness. Having said that, if the majority of women's players voted that they'd rather play best-of-5, I wouldn't mind. I doubt it would be fun to watch though, their bodies wouldn't hold up to the punishment.
The argument that the tournament director makes (and Djokovic agrees with) is different from yours though.. they argue that male players deserve a bigger prize money because they bring in more money from TV, spectators etc. I don't agree with that either, because then you would also have to implicitly agree with BCCI's arm-twisting antics and the Big 3 riding roughshod over the smaller countries.
My point is that being a professional tennis player is a full-time occupation. Grand Slams are the pinnacle of the sport and they should recognize the fact that both men and women work equally hard at their profession by paying them equally. Women's Grand Slam matches are best-of-3 because it is the best tradeoff between quality and fairness. Having said that, if the majority of women's players voted that they'd rather play best-of-5, I wouldn't mind. I doubt it would be fun to watch though, their bodies wouldn't hold up to the punishment.
The argument that the tournament director makes (and Djokovic agrees with) is different from yours though.. they argue that male players deserve a bigger prize money because they bring in more money from TV, spectators etc. I don't agree with that either, because then you would also have to implicitly agree with BCCI's arm-twisting antics and the Big 3 riding roughshod over the smaller countries.
i wouldn't because that would penalize them for being efficient/good at their jobs...the analogy is inaccurate at best...
sounds a lot like trying to fit "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" into a capitalistic environment...in terms of pure quality of tennis, men's games are miles better, in terms of the amount of work they do (in majors), men have a tougher ask and spend significantly more time on court...if women were not getting paid proportionally, i would agree that it is an injustice but equal pay because of whatever unmeasurable intangibles that are used to make it seem like a level playing ground is unfair as well...
the tournament director is clearly a misogynist prick but i thought novak's argument was more along the lines of "since we work more, we should get paid more"...if that is inaccurate and he was just repeating what the other guy was saying, i don't agree with him...because my point is more about the quality and quantity of the work both of which favor the men getting paid better...
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pretty sure that Djok was saying that tv ratings for mens tennis is higher than womens so it could be argued that the former deserves a bigger slice of the pie
Anyway, things aren't going to change as it would be a PR nightmare for the game
yeah i realize things aren't going to change...
and the discussion is really pointless, i just get irritated enough to be drawn into the conversation when i see things like popularity, ratings, gender discrimination etc used to justify equal pay here...
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The argument is not about whether womens' tennis is popular or not
It's about whether it is as popular as the mens' game and the fact is that it isn't at the moment.
Therefore, it could reasonably be argued that the men deserve a bigger slice of the prize pool than their female counterparts
Unfortunately, the genie was let out of that bottle years ago and it wont change anytime soon
As you say "life isn't fair"
Btw, forget about the Olympics.
I would bet my house on the fact that a notorious choker like Asafa Powell earns more per annum than the female 100 metre champion
Why?
Because people are far more interested in seeing guys run sub-10 seconds than a female run times more than a second slower
As you say, "life isn't fair"
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Well we're talking about salary and prize money Anil. So obviously the relevant point is interest and money in the game.
Its pretty simple. You guys can bring up quality and who would beat someone etc. all you like, but at the end of the day the discussion is based on the concept of B]prize money[/B]. That prize money has to come from somewhere.