On the surface, it seems rather obvious that they should. I’m all for women earning the same salary for the same job, but Wimbledon argues that it isn’t the same job for women to win the championship.
In fact, they argue they pay the fairest wages of all the tournaments.
Women only play best of 3 matches, while men must struggle through match after match of best of 5. The difference is quite signifigant. I believe a man can play as much as 21 more sets of tennis to win(*).
Wimbledon pays women about 87% what it pays men, while not demanding 87% of the sets. Wimbledon states this is actually unfair to the men, who almost always are forced to play more tennis for less share of the money.
Take a little further now. Most men don’t play doubles in the major tournaments because the best of 5 sets take so much out of them. Women can play in both tournaments, place lower and make more money than the average man.
The Australian, French, and U.S. Opens all pay women the same winnings.
I suggest the increase the women’s game to best of 5 sets. Martina Navrátilová has suggested this for years. She even said if they had done this, she would have won more due to her being more fit.
Anyway, what are your opinions on this? I’m a huge tennis fan and am torn myself. I certainly don’t want to be unfair to men or women. I’d just say increase women’t sets to 3 of 5 and close the question.
Since tennis like all major sports is a “business” or rather an “entertainment business” and salaries or winnings are paid from the revenues generated by these businesses, I think it would be fair to base the winnings on how much money the women’s tournaments bring in vs. the men’s. Do tickets sell for the same prices? Do TV ads sell for the same prices?
When someone offers money in exchange for goods/services, they can always be turned down. If the women are not happy with the pay, they should turn down the offer.
It kind of is. Rewards for sports stars are not like salaries, they’re like rents. The next best wage an ordinary person could earn is very close to the one they currently earn. A checkout chick could be a waitress. But a sports star makes far in excess of the next best paying job. Arguing that men and women have the same “job” isn’t sensible.
The difference in the number of sets is not really the issue; it’s not piecework. If you’re going to pay by the set, you then should pay men less if they win in straight sets than you would if they go the full five. Obviously, that’s a bad idea: it could lead to men throwing games in order to always go five sets (and women throwing games to make sure they go three)
The issue is the amount of income Wimbledon gets for setting up the match. If the same number of people watch women’s play, and if Wimbledon gets the same TV/radio revenue for men and for women, then women should be paid the same for a match. Since the first two “if’s” are true (I’m assuming Wimbledon sells out, and the TV revenues are a lump sum for the tournament), then the women getting paid the same as the men is perfectly fair.
Now, it’s a separate question if women should be playing five sets per match. But the fans show up to see two top women play three sets, just like they show up to see two top men play five. Wimbledon makes the same amount of money in either case.
The number of sets argument is a total red herring. A woman’s golf tournament has the same number of holes as a men’s tournament but the purses are a tiny fraction. For that matter last week the purse of the woman’s tournament was half that of the Senior men’s tournament and that was only 54 holes, not 72.
The only argument that I accept is whether they pull in an equal share of the revenues or not. That’s a question that would require a lot of research into attendance, television coverage fees, paraphernalia sales and all the other revenue streams. (Ad revenue is an indirect indicator since it goes to the tv network, not to Wimbledon. I doubt that the women’s and men’s events get separate packages so it shouldn’t count one way or the other for a share of the purse.) I don’t know that answer, and any attempt to figure it would have to realistically account for all tournaments not just the one. I do know that female tennis stars get several times as much media attention as the men. So I’d be really surprised if they didn’t pull in the money as well.
I seem to remember reading something a while ago (no cite…sorry) that stated women’s tennis was better-watched (duration) , with greater numbers. If that’s true, I would say women should be paid more.
Tennis faces a problem (especially lately) in the US. It’s not a popular sport, the faces in the game are all foreign, and it suffers from a country-club label. As a long-time player (4.5, if anyone in area wants to play!), I would love to see tennis take a greater portion of the American Sports Conciousness.
As a slight hijack, I think that for the most part (the garbage-form Williams excluded), women’s tennis is far more instructive to watch. Entertaining…not sure, but useful for tips on technique and strategy.
As a final iteration, if women generate better ratings, pay them more. Tennis is a business that is interested in growing, and needs to make strides in parts of the sport where people are interested. If that’s the women’s game, then so be it.
Well, taken it to an extreme, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Tyson got less money than he would have if his fights were expected to last more than 1 round, which makes sense.
But in general, it’s what brings in the cash. If women’s tennis is more popular they should get more despite the fact they play fewer sets, and vice versa.
Well, he didn’t. When he was fighting, he got as much as anyone else – and more once he was champ. Boxers negotiate their payment for each bout, and the length doesn’t enter into it.
It doesn’t matter to the promoter if the fight ends in the first round or the 15th – he gets the same gate in either case. So the offer to the boxer is going to be based on how much he can charge and still fill the arena, plus whatever TV will pay.
‘They can take their rackets and go home if they don’t like it’ really doesn’t address the question of whether women and men should get the same money. Of course the women can refuse to participate. The men can refuse to participate too if they’re unhappy with their payouts. What does that have to do with the question of unequal payouts?
I don’t think you’ll find any female players who want this. Martina only plays two or three singles matches a year these days. I’d prefer the tournaments all offered equal prize money, but I don’t have a problem with the number of sets argument.
Does Wimbledon charge as much to attend a women’s match as a men’s match? Also, do they draw the same revenue per match, in terms of television right and advertising?
Maybe it is my libertarian viewpoint, but I do not see a problem with unequal payouts when the players are free to participate or not, as they wish. I don’t see legislation as a positive in a case like this.
Now, if the players were forced to participate, then I might concede, but they are not forced to play.
I wouldn’t phrase the debate in terms of justice and equality. I’d phrase it in terms of economics.
Saying “Venus Williams does the same job as Roger Federer” may be true, but it’s irrelevant to whether she deserves the same pay. Tom Cruise and his co-stars in “Mission: Impossible” are doing the same job (acting), but no one would argue that everyone else in the cast deserves to make $20 million.
If the women bring in the same crowds as the men, if they get teh same TV ratings, if the tickets for women’s events cost as much as the tickets for men’s events, they should get the same money.
Shoot, if it turns out they’re a BETTER box office draw than the men, they should be paid MORE money than the men.
Personally, I generally prefer men’s tennis in general, but lately I’ve been more drawn to women’s tennis. One reason is that the current stable of women is much broader than the men’s. I’m too lazy to look it up, but in the last 5 tournaments I’ve watched, I believe there were 5 different winners and possibly a dozen contenders. The men’s game, of course, is completely dominated by Roger Federer. Great for Roger; bad for men’s tennis.
(The notable exception, of course, was Sunday’s Monte Carlo ATP championship where the little whippersnapper, Rafael Nadal, beat Federer in 5. Of course, that was on clay, but it will hopefully lead to an interesting French Open final.)
The second reason I prefer women’s tennis is because one player cannot dominate the other based on nothing but serves. Sorry, but there’s no sport in watching Andy Roddick serve up 20 aces in a game. I’m with McEnroe on this one. When they switched from wooden racquets, they hurt the “crafty” part of the game in deference to more power. I’d prefer to see longer matches with more variety than a slug match between two power players anyday.
I have series tickets to the men’s Tennis Master series event here in Cincinnati, which costs me about $500, not including concessions, etc. We have a second tier women’s tournament but so far the biggest “star” that we’ve drawn is Patty Schnyder, who won it last year. If it ever builds up to include top 10 players, I’ll be forking out the dough to see it.
Sooo, long way to answer the question, but yes, I believe there should be more parity as to what is being paid to these athletes. Maria Sharapova packs in more fans than someone like Carlos Moya. Why not pay her more?