Should Wimbledon pay women as much as men for playing?

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=ShibbOleth]
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?
[/QUOTE]

I’ve never been to Wimbledon - some day, some day - but I go to the US Open every year and I am sure it uses the same system Wimbledon does. Tickets are not sold to individual matches, they’re sold for sessions (morning or afternoon, day or night). You buy tickets to a session, with several different price plans determining what matches you will actually see and where you will see them. The most expensive ones will let you sit in the main stadium and you’ve got the best chance of seeing the big stars there; others will let you wander the grounds and see a greater number of matches with players of (generally) lesser star quality. The sessions cost the same regardless of who is playing, and prices go up as the tournament goes on. In any given session, you’re almost definitely going to see men and women.

I couldn’t answer any questions about revenue or advertising.

22

Just a note about advertising: in the UK, Wimbledon is televised (and indeed radioised, if that’s the word) by the BBC which does not carry direct advertisements.

I am in two minds about the women players at Wimbledon being paid the same as the men. On the one hand, women may not play as many sets as the blokes do, but on the other, the obnoxiousness of most of the blokes’ kits in general and haircuts in particular makes me want them to take a pay cut down to the women’s level.

23

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I vote for this. If you’re not going to pay the same, at least base it on economic reality instead of that lame argument about the amount of work. If they make more money from the men’s side because of greater interest or because of the longer matches on tv (more commercials), then just say that, and I think almost everyone would at least see the point, even if they didn’t really like it.

24

By the way, the winning player for each tournament gets:

Mens’: £630,000 = $1,126,443.91

Womens’: £600,000 = $1,072,848.74

So honestly, not much difference.

It is true that the best women can play doubles as well, while most men can’t have enough energy.

25

I have grown into a pretty loyal tennis fan, both of the men’s and women’s games, in the past few years. I’m not very knowledgable, nor particularly cognizant of the technical details of the game, but I am a big fan.

I enjoy watching women’s tennis because I love to watch hot chicks who are gifted athletes. I enjoy watching men’s tennis because I love to watch sports being played at the highest level. The two concepts are markedly different. The level of tennis between the men’s and women’s game is as disparate as NFL and NCAA football. As a simple example, men chase down damn near everything, whereas the women will just let shots go by them without making an effort all too often.

The argument about the men playing more sets is an okay one, if not particularly strong. There are definitely more commercials in a men’s match, and if you get a session ticket, odds are most of that session will be men’s tennis. (Assuming the standard 90 minute women’s match followed by a standard three hour men’s match.) Put another way, each men’s match will comprise more of that session ticket than any women’s match, meaning the men’s matches are more represented in the cost of that session ticket.

I would strongly advocate reducing men’s matches to three sets, but I’m guessing that makes me a phillistine. Watching somebody get tired isn’t a very interesting aspect of sports. That’s why boxing has rounds, for example.

As for who should get paid more? You can’t really argue against the draw, as the draw is what justifies the salaries of all “overpaid” professional athletes, movie stars, and famous people in general. S/he who puts the asses in the seats should rightfully reap the rewards.

There is a major flaw in this argument, though. The winner of the big money isn’t often the one who drew in the most fans. Winning a purse in sports is supposed to be about merit, not fan appeal. By the logic of the draw, tournaments featuring Anna Kournikova should have offered higher prize money just by virtue of her being the biggest draw of her time. Many women would scoff at that because she didn’t earn it through skill on the court, but rather by looking hot. Of course, she never won a singles tournament, but that even further illustrates the problem. If she was drawing most of the fans, but not winning the purse, why should the purse have been increased when the winner wasn’t part of the draw that brought in the “extra” money?

That’s generally the same problem with women’s tennis compared to men’s. The men are better on the court, but the women are hotter to the majority of sports fans. So even if the women draw more fans, winning the biggest purse should really be a function of merit, not ratings.

Basically, if sports are truly a meritocracy, men’s tennis should offer the bigger purses. (hehheh)
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
…The men’s game, of course, is completely dominated by Roger Federer. Great for Roger; bad for men’s tennis.
<snip>
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.
[/QUOTE]
This does not compute. I find Federer’s matches riveting because he wins it with everything but serves. And Andy Roddick really needs to advance past the first round before you can legitimately complain about his aces making the game boring.

Right now, in the current world of tennis, I find the men’s games to be far more interesting than the women’s. Aces haven’t been all that common in the semifinals and beyond of late. It’s been all about shot selection, placement, and legs.

26

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
I would strongly advocate reducing men’s matches to three sets, but I’m guessing that makes me a phillistine. Watching somebody get tired isn’t a very interesting aspect of sports. That’s why boxing has rounds, for example.
[/quote]

I disagree, not to sidetrack the thread. Conditioning is a factor in any sport, and drama and heart are what make for great matches. And I imagine the “getting punched in the head” factor has a lot to do with the rounds in boxing.

I have to agree. The men who really make things boring rarely stay at the top. The Roddicks, Johanssons and Gonzalezes are done in by their lack of versatility. And as proof, I submit the fact that several posters to this thread probably don’t know who those other two guys are. :wink:

27

[QUOTE=Mahaloth]
By the way, the winning player for each tournament gets:

Mens’: £630,000 = $1,126,443.91

Womens’: £600,000 = $1,072,848.74

So honestly, not much difference.

It is true that the best women can play doubles as well, while most men can’t have enough energy.
[/QUOTE]

The difference is slightly larger when you look at the total men’s and women’s purses, which is where I imagine the 87% figured cited earlier in this thread comes from; here is a chart of the 2004 numbers procured on a quick google, for instance.

I tend to be with Ellis for the most part… well, except for that crazy three set thing :slight_smile:

28

Just wanted to pass on one piece of info from Sports Illustrated columnist Jon Wertheim. He’s in favor of the equal prize money, but this partly answers a question people here have been asking.

29

What just occured to me is that if the women are truly getting shafted, they should strike. That would show the Wimbledon organizers. I’m not a unionist much generally. But if they’re convinced that there’s really money out there that they can get, then they should do what they can to look out for their own financial interests.

30

There’s no way they’ll strike, but Venus Williams said they’d be doing some things to voice their displeasure.

31

[QUOTE=Cardinal]
What just occured to me is that if the women are truly getting shafted, they should strike. That would show the Wimbledon organizers. I’m not a unionist much generally. But if they’re convinced that there’s really money out there that they can get, then they should do what they can to look out for their own financial interests.
[/QUOTE]
I agree in principle, but the economics don’t really make sense for that.

First off, there is no union, so they’d have to organize extremely fast. But the pay disparity is pretty damn small compared to the total pay they get now. So if they boycotted successfully this year, and got the same prize money as the men starting next year, how many years would they need to recoup the lost revenue from the missed event?

I don’t have the numbers to answer that, but with the notoriously short shelf-life of a women’s tennis career, I doubt that it would make financial sense for those that boycotted.

32

[QUOTE=astorian]
Shoot, if it turns out they’re a BETTER box office draw than the men, they should be paid MORE money than the men.
[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly. I know during Kournakova’s (prolly mangled that) heyday the women’s game got a lot more viewers than the guys. I think that’s still the case.

33

[QUOTE=Wolfian]
My thoughts exactly. I know during Kournakova’s (prolly mangled that) heyday the women’s game got a lot more viewers than the guys. I think that’s still the case.
[/QUOTE]

She had a heyday?

Womens’ tennis has gotten higher ratings at some points in history…but it has always been more boring IMHO.

34

[QUOTE=Marley23]
I disagree, not to sidetrack the thread. Conditioning is a factor in any sport, and drama and heart are what make for great matches.
[/QUOTE]

Then why not make it best four sets out of seven?

Conditioning is certainly a factor, but obviously there’s some ideal balance between conditioning and entertainment value. I’m not convinced men’s tennis should be reduced to three sets - I’d like to see a study done of how many 2–0 and 2-1 set leads result in comeback wins - but, hey, it’s not unreasonable to look into it.

One idea I would not be opposed to would be limiting first and second round matches to 3 sets, then going to 5 beyond the third round.

35

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Then why not make it best four sets out of seven?
[/QUOTE]

Why did you bother asking this question? :stuck_out_tongue:

36

No, and more fools the other tournaments for doing so. Wimledon pays 'em too much, but then they’re a bit old-fashioned that way - over-developed sense of chivalry or something.

If I believed in reincarnation I want to come back as a woman tennis player. Paid all that cash for padding a ball back over the net. If I was aloowed, I’d ask to be reincarnated as a half decent looking broad with blonde hair and Russian name. Or perhaps a Chinese bird, given that so many American blokes are into the bamboo. Then I’d make a friggin’ killing. And still get beaten by the top 1,000 men in the world, who’re struggling in some doss house between playing tournaments in some challenger series.

I’d love Ms BJ Moffat-King to do my PR. She’s conned so many people, not just trendy lefty liberals with too money, with her crap, if I ever need someone to promote me in an area where I have no chance in a free market, I’d be on the phone to get her to spout her nonsense.

37

It depends what women want. If they want equal pay based on commercial considerations (e.g. the tkt and ad revenue they generate), then they should also agree to whichever player of the day who also does fashion spreads and photo shoots for men’s magazines (eg Kournikova a few years back) being paid more (for taking part in the tournament) than a female player whose appearance does not lend itself to similar commercial exploitation. Not because it’s social justice, but because the plain fact of the matter is that she is generating more interest for the tournament, more media coverage, and more revenue.

If they want equal pay based on performance, then scrap the ‘mens’ and ‘womens’ distinction and have one tournament for all. Then we’ll see who works the hardest.

If the equal pay is not to be based on either commercial considerations or performance, then on what shall it be based?

38

roger thornhill, did you post that while drunk?

It just reads like a drunk post to me…spelling errors…wild ideas…ramblings.

39

“Padding the ball?” I think most of these women decrease the quality of their tennis by hitting too hard and not doing much else.

I’m not even going to touch “into the bamboo.”

40

Stone cold sober, Mahaloth. I was in a hurry, and am not a touch typist, which would explain the “spelling errors”. (BTW, do you make “spelling errors” or do you make “typos”?) Your careful and marked choice of words puts me in mind of Shaw, I think, who summed up such as approach to lexical choice for (damning)effect in the quip: ‘I travel, he tours, you trip.’ As for wild ideas, I think it was Dr Johnson of who it was written that he preferred notions to facts (I think the meaning was more akin to what we wd call factoids today.) As for ramblings, the Johnsonian comparison is complete!

Marley, you stay true to your pledge of chastity, at least partial chastity, and you’ll stand out among your fellow Americans, and increas your appeal to your ‘native’ women tenfold. The mail order bride catalogues in these parts have to be reprinted so often that the burning of whole forests in Indonesia caused a sports competition in Kuala Lumpur to be abandoned last year.