How unequal is equality.

Imurg said:
I'm all for equality in all walks of life but the cycling decision is strange.
For years, Men have had bigger prize money, rightly or wrongly.
Now there are calls for equality so a cycling event ups the Women's prize to 40% above the Men's....
So.......
What part of equality isn't being understood..?
How can that be described as Equality...?
2 wrongs don't make a right.
If equality is sought then equality should be found.
Not an equality where one side gets 40% more than the other for the same thing.
It adds fuel to the fire
Click to expand...

The balance should compare to the viewing figures of a comparable event.
 
Who is up in arms. Certainly not me. The people that were up in arms have gone deafeningly quiet, now that equal women are getting more.

I am pointing out facts and am interested in people's views, and if you have read all the blog it has been quite educating re why the ToY women are getting more. For the record though my opinion is, if it does create a "blue riband " event in women's cycling then I am all for it.
 
Wimbledon 2008 - Mens Final : Federer vs Nadal - absolute classic, lasted 4 hrs 48 mins of enthralling sport over 5 sets

2014 - Ladies Final - Kevitova beat Eugenie Bouchard 6-3 6-0 in 55 minutes

WTA TV deal = £365m over 10 years

ATP TV deal = £904m over the same period

I support equality in all areas of life but this is different deliverables for a different price - simple economics
 
Scott W said:
Wimbledon 2008 - Mens Final : Federer vs Nadal - absolute classic, lasted 4 hrs 48 mins of enthralling sport over 5 sets

2014 - Ladies Final - Kevitova beat Eugenie Bouchard 6-3 6-0 in 55 minutes

WTA TV deal = £365m over 10 years

ATP TV deal = £904m over the same period

I support equality in all areas of life but this is different deliverables for a different price - simple economics
Click to expand...

Ah ok, so they should be paid by the minute? how about if the womens final was a 7-6, 6-7 , 6-4 thriller, while the mens was 6-0. 6-0. 6-0. Do we have to pay women more that year?
 
CheltenhamHacker said:
Ah ok, so they should be paid by the minute? how about if the womens final was a 7-6, 6-7 , 6-4 thriller, while the mens was 6-0. 6-0. 6-0. Do we have to pay women more that year?
Click to expand...

My point is that the men's game delivers longer matches on average over a tournament, generates more income (ticket sales, TV revenue etc) ... if one individual averaged a 30 hour week but another had to average a 40 hour week for the same earning is that right?
 
Scott W said:
My point is that the men's game delivers longer matches on average over a tournament, generates more income (ticket sales, TV revenue etc) ... if one individual averaged a 30 hour week but another had to average a 40 hour week for the same earning is that right?
Click to expand...

The slight flaw in that argument is that elite sportspeople are not getting paid on a per minute basis. if so Usain Bolt would be skint.
 
Ok let me try again with a different example

Mens open golf vs Womens open golf - both over 4 x 18 holes same rules VERY different prize money...maybe not "right" but an economic fact

Mens game = big sponsors, TV exposure etc

Womens game = struggles for sponsors limited coverage and viewing figures

Should the prize money be the same?
 
Scott W said:
Ok let me try again with a different example

Mens open golf vs Womens open golf - both over 4 x 18 holes same rules VERY different prize money...maybe not "right" but an economic fact

Mens game = big sponsors, TV exposure etc

Womens game = struggles for sponsors limited coverage and viewing figures

Should the prize money be the same?
Click to expand...

This is how it is, until any women's sport (other than beach volleyball ) pulls the same amount of viewers or the same size sponsorship deals as the Men they should not receive the same prize money.
 
Scott W said:
Ok let me try again with a different example

Mens open golf vs Womens open golf - both over 4 x 18 holes same rules VERY different prize money...maybe not "right" but an economic fact

Mens game = big sponsors, TV exposure etc

Womens game = struggles for sponsors limited coverage and viewing figures

Should the prize money be the same?
Click to expand...

I can see an argument for that. It was just the tired lazy old 'they play for 5 sets, they play for 3' argument I object to as it is a lot more complicated than that.
 
freddielong said:
This is how it is, until any women's sport (other than beach volleyball ) pulls the same amount of viewers or the same size sponsorship deals as the Men they should not receive the same prize money.
Click to expand...

I know sport has sold it's soul to corporate sponsorship, but should how an athlete earns their money should be directly and only linked to how much sponsorship/viewers they generate? Nothing at all to do with the amount of time and effort put in to get to that point?
 
Hacker Khan said:
I can see an argument for that. It was just the tired lazy old 'they play for 5 sets, they play for 3' argument I object to as it is a lot more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Why is it more complicated than that ?

There should be no reason for the ladies to not play 5 sets in the Slams.

At the moment because they only play 3 sets a lot of the lady tennis players also enter the ladies and mixed doubles so players like Williams can earn a lot more than some of the men in prize money.
 
Hacker Khan said:
I know sport has sold it's soul to corporate sponsorship, but should how an athlete earns their money should be directly and only linked to how much sponsorship/viewers they generate? Nothing at all to do with the amount of time and effort put in to get to that point?
Click to expand...

Trouble is that time & effort needs to be split against every tournament. You cant reward the combined T&E every week unless its proportional across the players career

So maybe its only £10,000 that covers time & effort for one Wimbledon
 
I think the group that get paid the most should be the group that attract the most spectators.

Spectors including home viewing attracts more revenue thus being able to pay more money for prizes.
 
Hacker Khan said:
I know sport has sold it's soul to corporate sponsorship, but should how an athlete earns their money should be directly and only linked to how much sponsorship/viewers they generate? Nothing at all to do with the amount of time and effort put in to get to that point?
Click to expand...

Yes but that is why they are getting the money in the first place that enables them to train 7 days a week etc.

Without corporate sponsorship there is no prize fund
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Why is it more complicated than that ?

There should be no reason for the ladies to not play 5 sets in the Slams.

At the moment because they only play 3 sets a lot of the lady tennis players also enter the ladies and mixed doubles so players like Williams can earn a lot more than some of the men in prize money.
Click to expand...

Alright enough is enough I can't take this <whiny voice>Ooh the women only play three sets</whiny voice> crap any more.

Ask the top female players and I bet they'd love to play five sets. Ask the tournament directors and they'll have palpitations at the very thought of it. Yay an extra week for each of the slams!

I'm not a great tennis fan but it is what it is and both the men's and women's championships are a big part of the grand slam experience. Make any of them men-only and it would be greatly diminished. When I do watch tennis I have seen some really turgid men's matches and some brilliant, compelling women's ones. And vice versa!

Make no mistake, nobody is excited about watching milos raonic vs john isner so it's not the "men's game" that is the big draw subsidising anything. It's Federer, Djokovitch, Nadal, Williams, Sharapova etc that are the big draws - the stars of the game of both genders.

Spectators at the slams, TV and media coverage, sponsors are all there because of the slam experience in its entirety not to watch two male non-entities whacking it over the net from the baseline for 3, 4 or 5 sets.

It really really pisses me off that one of the few areas in life where there really is gender pay equality - tennis grand slam prize money - causes so much bitterness and resentment from sad gits that don't have anything better to worry about. In the real world women are systematically discriminated against and paid less - across the board from low skilled right up to boardroom level jobs.

For example, my wife is a lawyer and she showed me this. Female solicitors earn FORTY-TWO percent less than their male counterparts.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2015...ifference-between-male-and-female-solicitors/

Where is the outrage about that, forum? I don't recall any threads about that? No, but the slightest hint that women might actually benefit from some inequity or even that it's "unfair" (boo hoo) that we have actually been treated equally in some regard and the sad gits are up in arms.

Get your heads out of your arses, gentlemen!
 
FairwayDodger said:
Alright enough is enough I can't take this <whiny voice>Ooh the women only play three sets</whiny voice> crap any more.

Ask the top female players and I bet they'd love to play five sets. Ask the tournament directors and they'll have palpitations at the very thought of it. Yay an extra week for each of the slams!

I'm not a great tennis fan but it is what it is and both the men's and women's championships are a big part of the grand slam experience. Make any of them men-only and it would be greatly diminished. When I do watch tennis I have seen some really turgid men's matches and some brilliant, compelling women's ones. And vice versa!

Make no mistake, nobody is excited about watching milos raonic vs john isner so it's not the "men's game" that is the big draw subsidising anything. It's Federer, Djokovitch, Nadal, Williams, Sharapova etc that are the big draws - the stars of the game of both genders.

Spectators at the slams, TV and media coverage, sponsors are all there because of the slam experience in its entirety not to watch two male non-entities whacking it over the net from the baseline for 3, 4 or 5 sets.

It really really pisses me off that one of the few areas in life where there really is gender pay equality - tennis grand slam prize money - causes so much bitterness and resentment from sad gits that don't have anything better to worry about. In the real world women are systematically discriminated against and paid less - across the board from low skilled right up to boardroom level jobs.

For example, my wife is a lawyer and she showed me this. Female solicitors earn FORTY-TWO percent less than their male counterparts.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2015...ifference-between-male-and-female-solicitors/

Where is the outrage about that, forum? I don't recall any threads about that? No, but the slightest hint that women might actually benefit from some inequity or even that it's "unfair" (boo hoo) that we have actually been treated equally in some regard and the sad gits are up in arms.

Get your heads out of your arses, gentlemen!
Click to expand...
Not bitter about it as it doesn't affect me

I used to steward at Wimbledon and could see who the people wanted to see - even on the show courts for the top lady players there were lots of empty seats but the men's were solid booked with queues at return

If ladies want to play 5 sets then I don't think it would take much to get the organisers to change it

If the thread was about equal pay for lawyers then I would post and agree they should be paid the same for doing the same job at the same level for the quality. But I wouldn't know there was unequal pay for lawyers.

I spent 22 years working in an environment where every single person regardless of sex gets paid the same if they are the same rank and trade - I have no issues with that at all
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would we agree that the higher the quality of the sport the higher the rewards should be?

If so, let's have a tournament of the top 16 men vs the top 16 women. See how that goes.

No?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Equality & Diversity in the NHS
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
Robster59
Robster59
rudebhoy
The Hole-in-One Gang: How Golf Bettors Beat The Bookies
Replies
8
Views
4K
abjectplop
A
MendieGK
It's unfortunate that complaining is sometimes the only way.
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
MendieGK
MendieGK
Birchy
NW OOM 2015 Player auction
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
9K
Odvan
Odvan
Birchy
North West OOM 2014 Player auction
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
22K
garyinderry
garyinderry
Top