KL is in Malaysia, not Indonesia.
That should hammer home to you the extent of the smoke coming across the Strait (or ‘Straits’, both are used) from Indonesia? Throw in some of the world’s most dangerous pirates, and shallow waters, and it’ll make you appreciate the relative safety of the English Channel.
They should allow them to compete equally and pay them equally. Women today are much stronger than they were years ago. They pump iron and do aerobics…all the same training men do. I’m thinking they can take the extra sets.
If women were going to ‘compete equally’ with men, there should just be one tournament.
Open to all.
Would any woman win a set from a man? Or even a game?
If tennis is just a sport, men should be paid more.
If it’s entertainment, then there should be rules as in beach volleyball and women should have to wear skimpy costumes (I can’t believe I’m writing this rubbish :eek: ) and there should be rock music played between points.
At this point it probably looks like I’m arguing both sides of the issue, but I’ve never bought this line of reasoning. There are different levels of competition in any sport and that’s not unfair. It’s good for the sport, for one thing. If women never see other women playing tennis on TV, fewer of them will follow or take up the game.
People who aren’t able to beat the very best still deserve a chance to compete on high levels. We have four or five different levels of college sports, for example, because a tiny private college is never going to be able to compete with a 40,000-student state-funded school in terms of the athletes it can attract or the facilities it can build.
And some of the top women would probably take a couple of games, but no, I can’t see any of them winning a set.
This is part of why the women are in an interesting position here. I think they should be paid equally, but even if they’re not, the fact is that they’ve got it pretty good. They’re really not doing equal work.
Well, Billie Jean and Bobby proved that indeed, women can kick serious ass on the tennis court. I’d be willing to bet that pound for pound, women are strong enough to compete with men regularly in tennis.
But the point I’m trying to make is that women’s tennis is at least as exciting as men’s. They’re fast, strong, and crowd-pleasers. They should pay them the same amount for Wimbledon finals or whatever comparable match as they do the men.
Um, I was originally being light-hearted.
But Billy Jean King kicked ‘serious ass’? 
:rolleyes:
She was 29 years old.
He was 55!
It was a publicity stunt that got a lot of media attention.
Proof that a woman could do well in an Open tennis event it certainly was not.
I don’t know what on earth you mean by women being ‘fast’ and ‘strong’. They serve much slower tham men and are also physically weaker. Watch any mixed doubles for confirmation.
I am happy to say that no man can match Daniella Hanchukova for looks 
, but then you’re back to entertainment.
Personally nothing beats mens doubles for me for excitement, but I think they get paid less than the singles players.
No woman would beat the top 500 men in the world. If in doubt, ask any club tennis pro. Women’s matches are not infrequently of the order 6-4, 0-6, 6-0, with whole sets over in 25 minutes or less as players take turns to fall to pieces. Some of the top women are not fit. They know that they can beat most of the field by just turning up, and collect an outrageous sum for doing so, and an extra wad of cash for flashing the knickers or a sponsor’s logo.
Compare the men’s game, where a fellow can break through from outside the top 40 at a Grand Slam and win it, as Ivanisevic, I believe, did at Wimbledon a few years back. If a woman is ranked outside the top 40, forget it. She’ll get trounced 6-1, 6-2 by even one the remaining Maleeva sister, who’s old enough to be her grannie. Today there are some very dangerous floaters in the men’s draw for any big event, capable of knocking the big boys out. It’s very competitive and compelling fare compared to your average women’s match.
They’r onlykicking up a face as a classic get-you-revenge-in-first diversionary tactic to draw attention from the fact they are SO overpaid. And know it.
Read ‘fuss’ for ‘face’. I’ve just logged on at 2.15am to escap for a moment or two from the report that has to be submitted tomorrow.
I’m certainly not going to try to argue that the top woman could beat the top man as I don’t believe they could. However, that’s not the point. The prize money is directly correlated to tickets sales and ad revenue. I think a case can be made that the top women draw as many viewers as the men. I know that I watch women and men’s matches equally. At the recent NASDAQ I quite enjoyed both “levels” of play.
Let’s face it, the strongest players aren’t always the most entertaining. If the players are equal, no matter what level, it’s going to be an entertaining match.
College sports? We’re talking about prize money in professional sports. Can you name an example of a pro sport where the lesser league commands higher purses? Or even equal? The closest I can come up with is weight classes in boxing, but IIRC the heavyweights outearn the lighter weights by a large margin.
As for Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs, I’m saddened that anyone is so naive as to swallow the propaganda line that publicity stunt offered. For an actual comparison of women and men in tennis, check out the following article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,543962,00.html
And for those still arguing the point that women draw just as many fans, if it’s about fan appeal then the prizes shouldn’t be awarded based on merit. Give the biggest purses to the hottest chicks, as they’re the ones who draw the fans.
Nobody here is delusional enough to think that women comprise the audience for women’s tennis, right? Look at women’s soccer for an example of how well women’s sports sell when they have to rely on women for an audience.
I don’t think there’s another professional sport where the men and women really attract comparable levels of attention. The PGA and LPGA might be the closest, but in baseketball, boxing, baseball/softball, soccer and any other sport I can think of, the men outdraw the women by such an enormous degree that the “equal pay” argument is just plain goofy.
I’m not talking specifically about men and women; I’m talking about the best league of a sport compared to a league with lesser competition. One of the primary reasons that women’s sports draw less is because the women’s leagues are lesser competition.
But that’s not the only way to have a lesser league. Boxing weight classes was an example; your average heavyweight could knock around the lighter weights pretty easily. But as I said, the heavyweights enjoy the biggest purses.
Is there any sport where a lesser league enjoys prize parity with the elite league?
*Of course * it’s about fan appeal. Without fans, you wouldn’t have a tournament.
Prize money doesn’t have to be given to the hottest chick because she’s already making more money in endorsements than she is on the tennis circuit. Ultimately talent is what appeals to most fans, I hope. But if a player happens to have that lethal combination of talent/looks (e.g. Patrick Rafter or Anna Kournikova), well, that’s all the better. The fans who show up just to see that player end up helping to subsidize the rest of the players. That’s okay.
It’s no different than how in the NFL, the “hot” teams which consistently sell out all their games and draw huge audiences end up sudsidizing the mid-tier teams who can’t consistently fill up the stadium.
It’s hard to tell what you’re actually advocating and what reasons you have for them. With this bit it looks like you’re suggesting that all entrants in a tournament should receive equal prize money, instead of the lion’s share going to the winner. (And note that ticket sales and local revenue are a miniscule amount of team income in the NFL. The vast majority of money comes from the unified league-wide national television contracts, which now pay billions of dollars per year.)
Note that there is no prize money in team sports, where winning is its own reward. Purses are phenomenon unique to individual sports. (Counter-examples welcome.) Individual sports like tennis and golf award the most money to the winner, and then graduated lesser amounts to the other entrants.
The winner of the big money is usually not the one who drew in the fans. (The notable exceptions would be Maria Sharapova in tennis and Tiger Woods in golf. The Williams sisters were a big draw back in the day, but that day has long since passed.)
While the endorsements are indeed individualized money, women make much more than men in endorsements. Unlike endorsements, the prize money in sports tournaments is awarded purely on merit. The women’s tour fields much lesser competitors, and so the merit of the women’s game is less than that of the men, and thus the lesser prize money can be justified. Because prize money is based on merit.
If somebody can offer any example in the sports world where prize money is equal in the lesser leagues as it is to the elite league, that would at least show a precedent.
Aren’t those that have more fans / draw a bigger crowd already paid more? I thought this was called an “appearance fee” (I know Tiger Woods often gets more in appearance fees than the winners purse)
If men are playing for longer, and a tougher game, of course they should get paid more. IF the ladies think they deserve the same amount, strike and demand it, based on “solid” economic arguements, not on equal rights rhetoric.
FWIW - I think the men “earn” more because of the tougher game they play.
Well, they’re fitter and practise harder, because the competition’s that much stronger. But they earn more primarly because, ceteris paribus, they’re better. Who’s going to pay as much to watch Scunthorpe United (fill in a crappy football team) as Manchester United or Arsenal (fill in a top football team). Only nutters or people who have a vested interest in trying to con theworld into believing them by disingenuous ‘arguments’ - really, appeals to emotions, such as liberal guilt - or sleight of hand.
I thought I’d bump this thread since there has been an update.
I still think all four Grand Slams should change the ladies game to 3 out of 5 sets and equalize the set requirements as well.
I guess this is fine, though.
Oh well. Play worse tennis for fewer games, put fewer bums on seats, and take home the same money. That seems fair. Still, it’s Wimbledon’s money, not mine.
This reminds me of boxing. I’ve always found the lightweight divisions to be far, far more interesting to watch because you see strategy and finesse in the fight (the footwork of an Olympic flyweight once had me mesmerized), but it’s the heavy weight division that seems to draw the most as far as “entertainment”. Everyone pays to see the “one big, trademark punch”.
Like watching Pete Sampras serve a ways back. The Serve. Wow, how spectacular! A thrill… BUT do you get your money’s worth? I would LOVE to see the women play 5 sets. The nuances in their games are so much more interesting, whereas often (although there are many more well-rounded players these days – I’m looking at you Federer) men are paired up and they each have their “one superpower weapon” that has to be overcome. There’s a hint more predicatability than with the women’s matches. You know who you think the champ will be, but you always know that the underdog still might pull off a win in a women’s match. That much more exciting to watch.
Pay the women as much, sure, but let them play 5 sets so everyone can be happy.