How unequal is equality.

[Tashyboy]

Kicked off over the last few days re tennis with a guy saying that men should get more money than women in tennis because they attract more viewers, more TV money and play longer sets.

The world number one has supported these views, but looks like he has backed down a bit since. in the Women's defence they are saying there should be equality in prize money.

However, The cycling tour of Yorkshire chief exec is now going on record and saying how proud he is to be supporting the richest prize in women's cycling by paying £15k to the winner of the one day race. not got an issue with that. but he goes on to say that " even if the same bloke won the equivalent three days comp and overall classification he would still end up 40% cash Behind the woman who wins the woman's race.

Am I missing something here, how's that right? If the tennis scenario is wrong, how's the cycling issue right.

 

[dewsweeper]

Tashyboy,
It is the way of the world nowadays.
As George Orwell wrote"we are all equal but some are more equal than others"or something similar.

 

[Robster59]

The issue I have with the tennis is that women play fewer games (best of 3 rather than best of 5) so even on that basis there should be a difference.

 

[larmen]

I think the equality debate has nothing to do with sport. It's not about someone winning £1.5 million while another is 'only' winning £750k. Both should be really happy.

It should be about some people earning £9,15 an hour while their male work mates earning £9,45.

 

[Papas1982]

The tennis one really does get my goat. Not because of the the fact they play less tennis. I'm sure the top players are as devoted in their training. But professional sport is a business and the men's game subsidises the women's.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Have no issues with equal prize money if they all play the same level of game -

In slams 5 sets each

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The issue I have with the tennis is that women play fewer games (best of 3 rather than best of 5) so even on that basis there should be a difference.

Totally agree. If you play the same game (number of sets) then same money...if not, no, men deserve more

 

[FairwayDodger]

I think the equality debate has nothing to do with sport. It's not about someone winning £1.5 million while another is 'only' winning £750k. Both should be really happy.

It should be about some people earning £9,15 an hour while their male work mates earning £9,45.

Exactly! Amazing that the gender pay gap is a huge inequity in our society but all it takes is a whiff of a rare instance where it benefits a woman and someone needs to start a thread about it.

As for tennis, I can't even be bothered arguing the toss but here's an article that's worth a read on the subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35863208

 

[Tashyboy]

I think the equality debate has nothing to do with sport. It's not about someone winning £1.5 million while another is 'only' winning £750k. Both should be really happy.

It should be about some people earning £9,15 an hour while their male work mates earning £9,45.

But that's the thing about unequal equality, your not wrong that there are two differant pay rates for differant sexes, but why should it stop at the lower pay scale.

my issue was it kicked off when A earned more than B, now B is earning more than A nothing has been said. It's an odd world.

 

[Region3]

For the tennis, I don't have an issue with the fact that the men play more sets (usually) than the women.

All sport is business nowadays, and the prize money should reflect the revenue each gender generates IMO (unless one sex is supporting the other to try to grow the sport).

Can you imagine the top women footballers asking for £250,000 per week because they play the same length matches as the men?
Clubs would go under in weeks because they don't generate the gate receipts and tv money that the men's clubs do.

In the normal working world, the pay for a particular job should be just that, regardless of who is doing the work.

 

[Papas1982]

Exactly! Amazing that the gender pay gap is a huge inequity in our society but all it takes is a whiff of a rare instance where it benefits a woman and someone needs to start a thread about it.

As for tennis, I can't even be bothered arguing the toss but here's an article that's worth a read on the subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35863208

Well from that article it looks like the other events follow common sense. Less than 50% viewers and she's earned. Ore than 50% of Novak. No problem with that at all.

 

[Crow]

The easy thing to do would be to have women only tournaments and men only tournaments, rather than sharing the purse of a tournament where men and women are competing.

Then each is genuinely getting a percentage of the money their tournament generates.

Would make for a less interesting tournament but that's by the by as in most things these days, money comes first.

 

[Imurg]

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

 

[bluewolf]

The ToY prize money is a bit of a red herring really. The organisers have endeavoured to provide a blue chip woman's race. They are keen to publicise the fact that Yorkshire is home to the current 1 day World champ (the ever watchable Lizzie Armitstead). They have full TV coverage and are hoping to make it one of the biggest races on the calendar.

The men's race is somewhat small scale by comparison. There are too many big races in the calendar already, so they can't grow the race in the same way. It's a commercial decision.

 

[irip]

When you look at what sports people earn it is very different to what the normal working man/woman earns which makes it impossible to compare the two.

The sports which generate the most money and are most popular normally do so because of the interest in the male side of the game, which in turn results in the men earning more money, which i believe to be correct, if there is a sport which generates more money and sponsors because of the female competitors then it is only right that the ladies get paid more.

In the normal workplace if two people are doing the same job then they should be paid the same irrespective of gender, but we all know sadly this is not always the case.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The question is do you force equality upon sport or do you allow market forces to set pay scales? If you force equal pay then one side subsidises the other. Sport is entirely different to other walks of life as you get paid purely on an ability to win or to help a team win. Win / lose, it is quite black and white.

Being good at a sport does not entitle you to make a living at it. People have to want to watch you, sponsors have to see there is something in it for them. The football / rugby / cricket analogies are very good ones. Should they be paid equally? No, that would be madness. Womens tennis has done better than Bob Crowe in their negotiations but if they want to get really upity then they should run their grand slams separately from the mens and keep all the revenue that they create. I suspect this will not be happening.

 

[garyinderry]

I respect Novak less after the absolute tosh he came out with to cover up what he said.

 

[Slab]

I’m absolutely in the camp that a salary for the same job should be the same regardless of gender but carrying this over to a prize fund in a sporting competition is a little harder to see.

Its a prize fund not a salary so the equality question for tennis and other sports is should they have equal prizes. Its easy to answer yes they should but are your club trophies & prizes for mens & womens comps equal at your golf club and if not what have you done about it?

For the pro's on the face of it it seems simple enough just make them equal but what’s the next stage, would the male/female comp winners then be entitled to exactly the same equal value sponsorship deal arising from that comp win regardless of personality, expected ROI, market influences etc?

In the real world we live in salaries should be equal

 

[Hacker Khan]

Kicked off over the last few days re tennis with a guy saying that men should get more money than women in tennis because they attract more viewers, more TV money and play longer sets.

The world number one has supported these views, but looks like he has backed down a bit since. in the Women's defence they are saying there should be equality in prize money.

However, The cycling tour of Yorkshire chief exec is now going on record and saying how proud he is to be supporting the richest prize in women's cycling by paying £15k to the winner of the one day race. not got an issue with that. but he goes on to say that " even if the same bloke won the equivalent three days comp and overall classification he would still end up 40% cash Behind the woman who wins the woman's race.

Am I missing something here, how's that right? If the tennis scenario is wrong, how's the cycling issue right.

Because you are trying to simply what is a very nuanced and complicated argument that touches on many areas such as equal rights for women and sponsorship of sporting events?

 

[Stuey01]

£15k for the women's ToY and you're up in arms about it. Are you having a laugh?

What's the prize for the men's TdF or Giro D'Italia, versus the women's equivalent?