Post by Yellow
Post by kat Post by Yellow Post by Fredxxx Post by Yellow Post by Fredxxx Post by Yellow Post by Vidcapper Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
Post by Fredxxx Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.
If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I can only comment on Wimbledon. You pay to go in and can wander around
the outside courts watching whatever you like. Or you pay for a ticket
for a seat in the Centre court, for example, and you have it for the day
for whatever is scheduled.
Oh OK - so you do not buy a ticket for a particular game. Interesting,
No, you get several games if you buy a Centre Court ticket. There is a
general sort of schedule - 1st day, 1st match, last year's male winner
against some unseeded player, running through the rounds and days to the
final. Centre Court will always have the top players' matches, things
might run late and you expect a quarter final but it's still the
previous round, the top seeds might get knocked out early.. So you don't
know exactly what you will see until you get there.
I have only been once and only with a ticket to wander around the
outside courts. Much cheaper and still see some good stuff. :-)
Post by Yellow Post by kat
For the slams men's matches will probably last longer as they have to
play a minimum of 3 sets as opposed to women's 2, but any particular
match could indeed be over 6-0 6-0 6-0 with short games, while a women's
match could be fought to several deuces, 7-6 7-6 15-13 or something.
That is what I was trying to say to Fredxx. While I appreciate that
women's tennis has a lower limit on the maximum number of games that
does not mean that, on average, women spend less time on the court than
On average, in the majors, they will. A lot of men's matches do go to 4
or 5 sets. But men's tennis got boring for a few years, all aces and
serve and volley, very rare to see a good back and forth that lasted. I
think they did something with the balls, was supposed to slow them down.
Still seems fast but somehow we see more strategy and less brute strength.
Post by Yellow
Of course they might, I have no idea, but in any case it is clearly not
the point as we do not pay any sports folk based on how many minutes
they spend engaged in their match-day activities.
We do not pay footballers, rugby players, cricketers or F1 drivers for
the minutes they are on the pitch/track but for their worth as part of a
spectacle that viewers are prepared to pay for and their ability to
So why do some folk keep arguing that it should be the key to
calculating how much women tennis players, but only women tennis
players, are compensated?
I can vaguely see where they are coming from, you pay for a day ticket
and see a number of matches, which on average will be fewer ( while
taking the same time ) if it is all male than if it is all female.
Thus more women need to be paid from the same ticket money.
But as far as I can see the one and only thing that really matters is -
who is it that people want to watch playing? If men are a bigger draw
then sure, pay them a bit more. Or, make the women more interesting -
make their matches 5 sets too. I am sure they could do it.