*Official* Tennis Thread

[The Sean]

Ha ha yes, it's possible for the mens and ladies champions to play the same number of sets in the most extreme example, just as it's equally possible for the men to play two-and-a-half times more.

But yeah I know the argument, like I said it's just a personal thing.

 

[benchmark00]

Prize money is decided by the commercial revenue generated by the tournament. They're playing in the same tournament so they rightly get the same money. It's possible for the Men's and Ladies Champion to win the tournament and both play the same number of sets. You can't start dividing it up based on time spent on court.

So the doubles winners should get the same prize money as the singles because they play at the same tournament?

 

[Jayzamann]

I think the length of womens' finals is exacerbated when compared to the length of mens'. Especially at Wimbledon. Who remembers the straight sets walkover Serena did on her sister in 2008 compared to that epic between Nadal and Federer? And that wasn't the first time, either. Rafter and Ivanesevic in 2001 comes to mind as well.

I am genuinely interested in the outcome on womens' tennis, but I don't see how (especially in the Australian Open) Serena Williams can physically compete in -and win- both the singles and doubles without the workload coming into question.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So the doubles winners should get the same prize money as the singles because they play at the same tournament?

If they were responsible for generating commercial revenue, yes. But as it's a side show with half empty stands, minimal overseas TV interest and sparse interest from advertisers it's a stupid suggestion at best - probably deliberately so.

 

[superkingdave]

If they were responsible for generating commercial revenue, yes. But as it's a side show with half empty stands, minimal overseas TV interest and sparse interest from advertisers it's a stupid suggestion at best - probably deliberately so.

Would be interesting to see how much tv etc revenue would be generated by Men's and Women's if they were sold as separate tv packages. Tickets for the men's final are more expensive even though both the men's and women's doubles are played after the womens final (MD will play after the mens)

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Would be interesting to see how much tv etc revenue would be generated by Men's and Women's if they were sold as separate tv packages. Tickets for the men's final are more expensive even though both the men's and women's doubles are played after the womens final (MD will play after the mens)

I should point out that I'm only aruging why I believe they deserve equal prize money.
The absolute reason they get it is down to the politically correct age that we live in.

 

[Goughy]

Prize money is decided by the commercial revenue generated by the tournament. They're playing in the same tournament so they rightly get the same money. It's possible for the Men's and Ladies Champion to win the tournament and both play the same number of sets. You can't start dividing it up based on time spent on court.

If you want to say it is on principle then I would disagree with you but respect and accept your opinion. However, the commercial revenue argument doesnt hold value or water.

Top women players earn less than male tennis players outside of Majors and they do not generate the same level of commercial revenue. Also the big thing about commercial revenue is TV. TV is paid for by ad revenue and a mens game being longer is worth far more in terms of ad revenue generated.

Id also be interested in the breakdown of games on mainstream TV channels. I dont have the numbers. Perhaps over the fortnight the women and men each have 50% of the coverage though this year in the US I have barely seen a womens game covered.

The revenue argument is false. If there were seperate majors for the different ***es do you think the same revenue would be generated? If anything right now the men are subsidising the women to play less at a lower standard with less public interest in what many would argue is a more shallow talent pool. Frankly Im amazed the men are taking it as it makes no sense at all as the numbers just dont add up.

As I said, on principle you can make a case. IMO, on economics, you cant.

 

[superkingdave]

Not only are they taking it Goughy, they have actually agreed to have 2 more joint tournaments between WTA & ATP next year.


CBC.ca Sports

seems strange

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If you want to say it is on principle then I would disagree with you but respect and accept your opinion. However, the commercial revenue argument doesnt hold value or water.

Top women players earn less than male tennis players outside of Majors and they do not generate the same level of commercial revenue. Also the big thing about commercial revenue is TV. TV is paid for by ad revenue and a mens game being longer is worth far more in terms of ad revenue generated.

Id also be interested in the breakdown of games on mainstream TV channels. I dont have the numbers. Perhaps over the fortnight the women and men each have 50% of the coverage though this year in the US I have barely seen a womens game covered.

The revenue argument is false. If there were seperate majors for the different ***es do you think the same revenue would be generated? If anything right now the men are subsidising the women to play less at a lower standard with less public interest in what many would argue is a more shallow talent pool. Frankly Im amazed the men are taking it as it makes no sense at all as the numbers just dont add up.

As I said, on principle you can make a case. IMO, on economics, you cant.

You're picking holes in an argument I never made. That the men's game is more popular would not be disputed by anyone, including the top female players. That's why in the past the men got greater prize money. It isn't, and never has been anything to do with playing 3 or 5 sets.

 

[Jono]

No one was questioning Agassi's prize money when he wiped Rainer Scheuttler off the court in the 2003 Aust Open final in one of the most one-sided contests of recent times.

Always happens when Serena smashes someone because she's 100 times better than them.

Just let it be.

 

[Jono]

And typical bull**** too. Serena just won her 13th Grand Slam, and all the talk here is about prize money

Anyway didn't watch the match, but I imagine she was clinical as she was throughout the tournament.

Zvonareva lost not only the singles final, but womens' doubles too on the same day. Ouch.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And typical bull**** too. Serena just won her 13th Grand Slam, and all the talk here is about prize money

Anyway didn't watch the match, but I imagine she was clinical as she was throughout the tournament.

Zvonareva lost not only the singles final, but womens' doubles too on the same day. Ouch.

Didn't quite match Betty Stove who in 1977 lost all three.

 

[Goughy]

And typical bull**** too. Serena just won her 13th Grand Slam, and all the talk here is about prize money .

My point, a) prize money, is completely unrelated to b) Serena. I couldnt care less if Serena, Martina or Billy Jean King won Wimbledon. It has no relevance to my point.

 

[Jono]

Yet this argument only comes up when she smashes someone in a Slam final.

There was no talk of this when Clijsters made her comeback and won the US Open last year.

 

[Matt79]

Have a cry Jono.

 

[Jono]

i.e. I'm right and you can't dispute your point.

 

[_Ed_]

I don't understand the argument that pay should be allocated on the basis of how many sets they play. Do you see that ever applying to cricket - i.e. players receiving more than seven times as much pay for a Test as for an IPL game? I don't think anyone would dispute that Tests are much harder work, but the IPL is more marketable and lucrative, so that's where the money is. And you can't dispute the marketability of quite a few of the players in women's tennis.

Having said that, I've always thought women should play five-set matches in Grand Slams. Don't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to handle it - especially players like the Williams sisters. Phenomenal athletes.

 

[Matt79]

i.e. I'm right and you can't dispute your point.

ie. we could all be right but you'd still be doing your 'leave britney alone bit'



Anyway, will be massive tonight if Berdych can win - will be the first man to have ever taken out the top 3 seeds in a Grand Slam. Go Tommy!

 

[Jono]

Other than Del Potro, has anyone ever beaten Federer and Nadal in the same Grand Slam tournament?

 

[Matt79]

Didn't Djokovich do it in the Aus Open he won?

EDIT: no, he beat Federer, but Tsonga beat Nadal in the other semi.