i believe whoever performs better must get better bucks. & i think most will agree that mens tennis is miles ahead of womens tennis..
However, at times it feels sexist when womens get paid less than men inspite of performing better..
rafa816 : this is a great topic for debate..thanks for opening this up !!!
I have to disagree on one of ur points..where u said :
ook to the record books. The longest women's match ever in a slam took 4 hours and 44 minutes. There have been 11 matches in men's slam history that have taken over 5 hours. As compared to 0 in women's slam history. The longest match in women's slam history, as in longest ever, completely ridiculous, was equivalent to a tiring marathon for a guy's match. But not anywhere near the longest in history.
You completely ignored the fact that the longest match for womens was on a best of 3 sets GS match..while those of men were of best of 5 sets..if u look at longest match for best of 3 sets for mens, there will be only a handful of matches ...
My take : if womens feel they should get equal prize money, they should change their match setup to best of 5 sets..( or at least the semis or finals should be best of 5 sets..)
But i wonder whether anyone would like to watch womens tennis in a best of 5 sets match /???
That was my point, though. Men put in so much more time on average, and yet get the same amount of prize money as women. Basically, they're getting paid less per hour than women. If it was the other way around, and men were getting paid more per hour in this day and age, there would literally be riots.
suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?
This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with. Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.
I'd like to see specific stats on that. As in percentages. Plus, even if the guy wins after going up 2 sets to love, it takes out thrill. Look at the 2008 Wimbledon final. Widely considered one of the best matches of all time, but if it was just best 2 of 3, it would've just been a standard straight sets win.
women argue that irrespective of the work done, they make almost the same profits that men make for ITF through slams.........
no other sport pays both the sexes equally as far as i know.........being a man i understand how much that hits the male ego of a tennis player........
lesser players like simon and tipsarevic straight out lashed at the current prize money system but fedoriva, faker, nadull and mugray being the pamper boys of ITF keep quiet and behave like they support equality.........they get their pay packets alright so there is no need for them to go out of the way.........
but still there would be people like fed with a little more than normal ego.........i am sure he is burning inside that an utter screamer like sharapova screams for 50 minutes in the french slam final and took away the same prize money as he did in the wimbledon final........for somebody as "open" and "honest" like his fans claim, i cannot believe he resisted himself for this long on this issue........i guess if the journalists have him drink a couple of shots of vodka and then take his interview, we might see his real take on this issue........
Actually, as far as 'faker' as you call him (Djokovic) is concerned, he's been asked about it and says that they don't deserve equal prize money because they aren't working as hard with just best 2 of 3 sets:
Q. You've got the same amount of prize money as the women's event here, but it's configured in different ways. If you were to win, you're actually going to earn less than the women because the distribution is different. Are you happy with the way that the men's prize money is being distributed?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: I don't want to go too deep about that. There's been a lot of talks about that. Look, I'm not paying attention on the women's tennis. This is something that's not in our hands.
What is in our hands you have to be concerned about, and that is to increase the prize money and really work on some things that we really deserve. I don't think it's fair to have equal prize money, that's for sure.
Tried to find the whole interview, but couldn't.
Anyways, let's look at it from the profit is the same. Is it? I'd like to see a comparison between Men's Final Attendance vs. Women's Final Attendance, since those are the only days where a men's match and women's match are completely separate. Plus, from what I understand, Wimbledon charges more for men's tickets, and always has at least the same attendance, so the profit is higher in men's tennis.
And we can look at men's tennis and women's tennis in a level of competitiveness. Federer has 17 slams, and that is considered RIDICULOUS!!! While on women's tennis, you have Margaret Court with 24, Graff with 22, and Navratilova and Evert with 18 each. And what about the race for number 1? How many men have held the World Number 1 ranking without having a slam title? None. How many women? Let's see, Dinara Safina, Caroline Wozniacki, Jelena Jankovic, etc. Quite a few? As competitive? Certainly not.
So, the only argument left is quality. Is women's tennis a better quality of tennis? The fastest serve in women's tennis ever is 129 mph. There are men that average that much. Forehands in men's tennis are decently often seen 100+ mph. A 70-something mph forehand in women's tennis is considered impressive. What about 1-on-1, woman vs man? There have been 3 'Battle of the Sexes' matches in tennis.
1) Bobby Riggs vs. Margaret Court: Riggs cleaned this up EXTREMELY easily, 6-2 6-1. Despite the fact that Riggs had retired 14 years earlier and was 55 at the time, while Margaret Court was in her prime and was just 31. Fair? Not at all. And yet the man still easily dominated. And even if they were of the same age, Riggs was by far one of the best male tennis players, having only won 3 slam titles (though it's hard to judge at the time by slams with the whole pro vs. amateur stuff going on). While Margaret Court, as shown above, had tons of titles and is widely considered the best women's tennis player of all time.
2) Jimmy Connors vs. Martina Navratilova: Eh, both were washed up at the time and long retired, but still worth pointing out that Connors won 7-5 6-2.
3) Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King: BJK actually won this one 6-4 6-3 6-3. But again, IT IS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT that Riggs was 55 at the time and had been retired for 14 years. BJK was in her prime, though, and was just 30 at the time. So how is this fair?
So, as shown, men's tennis is more profitable, more competitive, and better quality. So, IF ANYTHING, men should be paid the same, IF NOT MORE, for their efforts. Yet, they're paid less for their work? It's ridiculous. Here's an article:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/210746-women-dont-deserve-equal-prize-money-at-wimbledonNow, remember, this is 2009, so the author is right in questioning who people like Azarenka and Radwanska are. They were still unknowns at the time.
