Refreshing comments on equality.
- Thread starter Jacko_G
- Start date
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
It makes perfect sense and surely would be a huge benefit, particularly for the LET to host events concurrently or straight after a mens ET event and piggy back of the facilities in place and any sponsorship. If we can get the LET to grow has to be better for the long term sustainability and quality of that tour and bringing women on int he game rather than being reliant in the main for going to the US to compete
Grant85
Head Pro
I think this is something that is on the rise and we will see more and more. We have the Vic Open and the Scandinavian event coming up.
However I do think we are a long way away from genuine equality in terms of prize money. Clearly women's golf is a much less financial rewarding profession than the mens side, as is true for most (all) professional sports.
Pro Golf is a commercial venture and ultimately the Men's game generate huge fan interest and therefore sponsor interest.
There is certainly a lot of fat to trim in the mens game, and while the top woman make decent money there is a real issue in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th tiers. A man ranked 500 in the world is possibly a millionaire (if he's been on tour for a few years) and will have status on a reasonable tour that he can play 20 or so events and make a living. Or else he is a young pro coming through and can still earn enough to keep himself on the road and try and access bigger events.
A woman ranked 500 in the world (if the rankings even go that far) is probably an amateur or a struggling pro. Needs either a generous family or sponsor to be on tour & enter qualifying events and is realistically only going to do that for a few years before packing it up and getting a real job.
Bizarrely, the actual 500 ranked man is Thomas Aiken who has won 7 Million Euros on the ET alone.
With regards to the Vic Open, the mens field is pretty weak so I'd imagine that the woman will genuinely be generating more eyeballs this week. But I don't see how you get the top players on both sides to come together in a regular tour event with equal prize money.
However I do think we are a long way away from genuine equality in terms of prize money. Clearly women's golf is a much less financial rewarding profession than the mens side, as is true for most (all) professional sports.
Pro Golf is a commercial venture and ultimately the Men's game generate huge fan interest and therefore sponsor interest.
There is certainly a lot of fat to trim in the mens game, and while the top woman make decent money there is a real issue in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th tiers. A man ranked 500 in the world is possibly a millionaire (if he's been on tour for a few years) and will have status on a reasonable tour that he can play 20 or so events and make a living. Or else he is a young pro coming through and can still earn enough to keep himself on the road and try and access bigger events.
A woman ranked 500 in the world (if the rankings even go that far) is probably an amateur or a struggling pro. Needs either a generous family or sponsor to be on tour & enter qualifying events and is realistically only going to do that for a few years before packing it up and getting a real job.
Bizarrely, the actual 500 ranked man is Thomas Aiken who has won 7 Million Euros on the ET alone.
With regards to the Vic Open, the mens field is pretty weak so I'd imagine that the woman will genuinely be generating more eyeballs this week. But I don't see how you get the top players on both sides to come together in a regular tour event with equal prize money.
A little after the horse has bolted I’m afraid.
its only really the tennis majors that keep up this notion imo. They gave in to pressure and subsidise the ladies game and now it’s used as a stick against all sports. Anything that’s based around supply and demand shouldn’t need to be equal.
its only really the tennis majors that keep up this notion imo. They gave in to pressure and subsidise the ladies game and now it’s used as a stick against all sports. Anything that’s based around supply and demand shouldn’t need to be equal.
This with knobs on. Why would you expect prize money to be the same when the interest is not there? I like the idea of running tournaments at the same time to help generate interest in the womens game but in terms of prize money it has to stand on its own.
There was a piece by a BBC reporter at the recent Australian tennis Open about tickets for the mens and womens semi's. They had large numbers of tickets for the womens semi's unsold, they were available at around $80AUS a ticket. The mens tickets were sold out, average cost $400AUS. You can apply the same to The Open for both the mens and womens game in this country. People follow and watch what they want, you can't force them to watch a product that does not interest them.
howbow88
Hacker
I agree that prize money should be based on interest, and not whether you have a cock or not. However, I do like how in tennis they do mens and womens events at the same venues. It would be great to see venues that have 2 decent courses alternate with and men at the same event. Eg East Course day 1 men, West Course day 1 women, East Course day 2 women, West Course day 2 men, etc.
Sports_Fanatic
Assistant Pro
I broadly agree on the above, but there is an argument that those who oversee each sport has a duty to perhaps inflate purses of the women's game short term (or men's for example in the case of netball) so that they can get more strength in depth to improve the fields and therefore viewing figures which then may make it self sustainable. This being required due to a sport deliberately being held back historically (e.g. wasn't women's football banned) and/or as a duty to grow the sport and fan base at grass levels for those like the R&A or rugby union boards or organisations that receive grant funding.
I think that is largely being done now already. The England womens rubgy and cricket teams are professional when it is not feasible that they are self funding. The same is true of the womens pro football league. I would be staggered if any of those are self funding and not being supported by the main club. I have no issue with that, nor with the promotion of sport for all. I do find it grating that people demand equal pay as an absolute right when in sports terms it is about bums on seats. We don't expect the players at Northampton Town to be payed the same as those at Liverpool so why expect the prizes for womens golf tournaments to be the same as at mens?
I really like the idea of running tournaments together on the same course, neighbouring courses or concurrently in order to improve the profile of womens golf. Be inventive that way, not just bumping prize money from one side to the other.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
The women would only play 12 holes if they use the tennis model.
They only play 3/5ths of what the men play but get the same money.
If you want equality you must stand on your own feet.
Sadly the crowds are not there for the woman’s game, sad but true.
Sports_Fanatic
Assistant Pro
Also in the LET new revamped tour, there is a new event in England in August (6th -9th). Looks like European Tour also has a TBC event for same dates so I expect another mixed tournament of some sort is to be announced fairly shortly.
User20204
Well-known member
Can't be bothered reading the link but I enjoy watching women's golf but it is not comparable to the mens game and never should it be, in regards prize money, as said above, supply and demand but I do take my hat off to whoever managed to get equal prize money at the tennis, they still must be laughing to this day, stitched them up right good and proper.
Parsaregood
Head Pro
Have to be honest, I wouldn't personally be interested in watching a mixed golf event. I dont believe it would bring the best out in either the men or indeed the ladies. To me golf is a sport for an individual to play against the course, team events are not really my thing. men playing a course off one set of tees and women off another ? No thanks I'll just not bother. I watch the odd womens major and enjoy it but I believe professionally they should leave each other alone, they play two different games in a way. I can see the ladies want more exposure but I believe if this was to go ahead it would lead to men losing spots to women and the men losing the spots would provide a better product for the viewer. Nice try but no thanks.
sunshine
Well-known member
Sport is actually extremely meritocratic. In individual sports like golf and tennis the highest earners are the best players that generate the most interest. If you're good enough, like Serena Williams, you can earn the big bucks regardless of gender.
A lot more men play golf than women, so there is going to be more depth in the men's game. It's ridiculous to expect the 500th ranked women golfer to earn the same as the 500th man when the population of women golfers is tiny so the quality will drop off quickly.
It's like expecting Finland to produce the same number of top class footballers as Brazil. Finland gave us Litmanen but after that?
A lot more men play golf than women, so there is going to be more depth in the men's game. It's ridiculous to expect the 500th ranked women golfer to earn the same as the 500th man when the population of women golfers is tiny so the quality will drop off quickly.
It's like expecting Finland to produce the same number of top class footballers as Brazil. Finland gave us Litmanen but after that?
User20204
Well-known member
Not the best analogy is i using football, I give you Belgium and Scotland.
