Equal Pay for Ladies Tennis!

tednphil

UTC Legend
The first Ladies semi final lasted 1 hour 13 mins.

The second semi final was over in even less time.

It will be interesting to see how long the men's semi's will last tomorrow, because the 4 semi final winners will all receive the same payment and each loser will also receive the same as the other 3 losers.





.
 
Good hourly rate
Singles
Winner £2,350,000
Losing finalist £1,175,000
semi final £588,000
Quarter final £294,000
4th round £176,000
3rd round £111,000
2nd round £72,000
1st round £45,000
 
Does it bother the male players? If not I’d have to wonder why it would bother anyone else?

Are the ticket prices the same?
 
We had a similar-but-not-same issue with women's professional hockey. Players threatened to strike for better pay, hoping the NHL would step in. Didn't happen, now the 6-team League appears to have folded. Problem here is that there was really very little demand for the product ..... so no fan base = no revenue.

With the tennis, the stands seem to be equally full for the women's and men's game, certainly at the highest level, so equal pay looks like it make sense. I suppose you could argue that it should be proportional-ized .... i.e ladies 2/3 vs men 3/5.
 
It’s not equal hourly rate of pay though.

And can 6-1 6-3, then 6-1 6-2, be good value for money for the paying public who expected more than a total of 2 1/4 hours of tennis for a Wimbledon semi final day?

At least the cricket provided good value for money for everyone .
 
Good value for money I think he wrote. I understand where he's coming from, I never watch tennis so I don't know if its value for money or not.
38 million in Prize money. How Wimbledon can generate that kind of prize money amazes me.

But value for whose money?

I doubt he or you goes to Wimbledon each day, or to any other tennis grand slam for that matter.

So if your sat watching on your telly at home why does it matter, to him or you?


As for the prize money...

If you've ever been to Wimbledon before, during, and after that fortnight you'd get it. The event/place is a global cash cow.
 
But value for whose money?

I doubt he or you goes to Wimbledon each day, or to any other tennis grand slam for that matter.

So if your sat watching on your telly at home why does it matter, to him or you?


As for the prize money...

If you've ever been to Wimbledon before, during, and after that fortnight you'd get it. The event/place is a global cash cow.
But value for whose money?

I doubt he or you goes to Wimbledon each day, or to any other tennis grand slam for that matter.

So if your sat watching on your telly at home why does it matter, to him or you?


As for the prize money...

If you've ever been to Wimbledon before, during, and after that fortnight you'd get it. The event/place is a global cash cow.

"So if your sat watching on your telly at home why does it matter, to him or you?"
I wrote i don't watch tennis. as I find it very boring to watch, and I don't care who gets paid the most. but I understand what he means. if they both played the best of 5 sets, equal money would be fair.
 
It’s not equal hourly rate of pay though.

Putting aside the fact that an hourly rate of pay is hardly a benchmark or rationale in sports etc..... they aren’t paid by the hour. We won’t get more Charabanc Cup prize money when MkDons beat us on penalties in round 3 versus a regular 90 minutes.

What about a woman’s match going 6-4, 6-7, 7-5 versus a men’s match ending 6-0, 6-0, 6-0.... how would we structure the prize money there?
 
Last edited:
Why don't women play 5 sets? Does anyone know?

In most tennis tournaments, ATP, WTA, men and women play the best of three sets, but in the Grand Slams of Wimbledon, the Australian Open, the French Open, and the US Open, only the men are challenged to play best of five.

Tradition - The first and most relevant reason is tradition. For the most part, the women have always played best of three sets. This is probably rooted in the outdated and sexist notion that the additional exertion is too much for women to handle.
The sport’s governing bodies and the television networks want shorter matches - The leadership of the ATP and WTA tours are very concerned with the marketability of the sport (and rightly so). Being able to provide an attractive package to television sponsors and fans is critical to their goals, and obviously those of the networks, too. Best of five set matches greatly increase the length and variability of match times, making the product far more difficult to televise and far harder to sell the rights to.

Fans actually don’t want to watch the women play five sets - Although many vocal fans claim to want to see the women play five set matches, the data suggests otherwise. The WTA tour actually experimented with a best of 5 format in the 80's and 90's. From 1984 to 1998, the tour's year end championships were best of 5 sets, although only three of those matches went the distance. The format was discontinued in 1998 due to poor ratings and difficulty in scheduling and generating interest from television. It had also been argued that in most of the matches, the quality of play dropped considerably later in the matches.

The players don’t really want to play five setters - The tour is a brutal grind. Players are being taxed physically more and more each year, as the level of play and physicality rises. And there is precious little off season in which to recover. The last thing most players want is to have to play even more tennis, and increase their chance of injury while reducing their recovery time. The men tolerate it because of tradition, and because it would be a bad look to suggest shortening their matches. But many of the men don’t want to play best of five tennis. And very few of the women really want to start now.
Its been tried but the matches just got boring, as the women were just too tired to compete at a high level over 5 sets.

.
 

;