Wimbledon pays equal prize money

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by iGav, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. iGav macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #1
    This just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. Every year this subject comes up, and until this morning (when one of the presenters on BBC Breakfast queried the sports presenter that this was actually unfair because women play substantially less sets at Wimbledon then men and thus earn proportionately more) I've never seen or heard anyone else mention this discrepancy.

    Now is it just me... but where's the equality in this?

    According to Wimbledon's website, excluding the the 4 qualifying rounds for both men and women.

    Both men and women play 4 rounds. Then there's the 3 final rounds comprising of the Quarters, Semi's and the Final's.

    At Wimbledon, men play the best of 5. Women the best of 3.

    Meaning that;

    Men, potentially play 35 sets in total (excluding the qualifying rounds).
    Women, potentially play 21 sets in total (excluding the qualifying rounds).

    Taking into consideration the previous prize money of men £655,000 and women £625,000.

    Men potentially earn £18,714 per set at the current prize total.
    Whereas women potentially earn £29,761 per set at the previous prize total.

    Now, take into consideration the increase in the ladies prize money. And women now potentially earn £31,190 per set.

    Now is it just me... but where's the equality in that?

    Even my mum thinks it's wrong. :p

    Rinky dink link
     
  2. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
  3. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #3
    I agree totally, iGav – it's something I point out each year when one of my tennis-loving female colleagues complains about how the the Wimbledon prize money is allocated. In fairness though, it does serve the men right for playing such a stupid sport.

    I've decided I'll protest this outrageous decision by not watching any tennis. :)
     
  4. Benjamin macrumors 6502a

    Benjamin

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    while I agree that effort should equal money... that is not how equality is justified. personally i think everything should be best of 5 since it 1 shows more tennis, 2 because makes a more interesting match (comebacks, etc.) but 3 (as a biz student) more time to sell ads. Anyway thing is that 392,994 to 655,000 for payout wouldn't look good.
     
  5. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #5

    I agree that female tennis players should be on the court longer, so that I can watch their...er...tennis skills for longer. Obvioulsy!

    ;)
     
  6. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #6
    I'll join the protest with you :)

    The men should be paid the same as the women anyway, they are all big girls..................they won't even play when it's raining :rolleyes:
     
  7. Benjamin macrumors 6502a

    Benjamin

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    it is 5:30 am i must really be tired since i didn't add that allusion into my original post... damn. :eek: :eek:
     
  8. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #8
    Did you see BBC News this morning? I think it was Bill who pointed out exactly the same... and the Sports Presenter (don't know him) just squirmed, and spouted some right crap about it being about quality, not quantity. Good f**king job really when the women can polish off a match in less than an hour. :p

    But really... you either have equality or you don't, and in this case we don't. And it's wrong. Doubly so when the female players are trying make out like they were the victims of inequality. :rolleyes:

    New balls please. Weheh.
     
  9. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #9
    I can't say I did, although I spotted the story on their website as I had my start of work cuppa.

    I think that the ideal solution would be to cut men's matches down to three sets each, the same as women's – that way, they're playing equal length matches for an equal amount of money, and best of all Wimbledon will be shorter so our screens aren't filled up with bloody Sue Barker any more than they need to be.
     
  10. iGav thread starter macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #10
    Aren't some tournaments already like that?

    True. I like the way you're thinking. ;) Though 'The Best of 1' would be better still. :D

    Anyway... I think it's just plain, old fashioned misandry. :p
     
  11. panoz7 macrumors 6502a

    panoz7

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #11
    Everything but the majors (i.e. french, US, aussie, and wimbledon).

    I personally wouldn't have a problem with the women getting the same pay as the men. In what other sport are you paid by the length of time you play?

    This would be somewhat analogous to complaining that a reliever gets paid more then a starting pitcher in MLB. Pitchers aren't paid on a per inning basis. Just because a reliever might not have as much endurance as a starting pitcher (just as women might not have the endurance of men) doesn't mean they should only be paid for the number of innings they pitch.
     
  12. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #12
    Absurd. Want more? Do more.
    It's embarrassing what these women's rights groups are pulling. Do they want equality or preferential treatment? Because the latter seems to be closer to the truth.
     
  13. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #13
    A footballer on the bench half the season gets paid a lot less than a regular starter...
     
  14. panoz7 macrumors 6502a

    panoz7

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #14
    That footballer is on the bench half the season because there are people on the team who play the game better then he does. This is not the case with women tennis players.
     
  15. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #15
    Women should really be embarrassed about some of the women fighting for "equality".
     
  16. andysc macrumors regular

    andysc

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #16
    Wimbledon is still the only major that requires players to wear all white. Wonder if that will still last for a while?
     
  17. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #17
    Indeed. It weakens the cause as well. I wrote something along those lines in my post but edited it out to the point I was really getting at. (but since you mention it)

    It gets right on my tits. <-- a suitable expression in this instance.
     
  18. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #18
    Wow I am all for equal pay but I didnt put two and two together about them not playing as much so now they actually earn quite a bit more. :confused:
     
  19. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #19
    The thing about this is it's not about sexual equality it's about money as a lot of things are.I can remember when Billie Jean King and others started fighting for this,the point is women's tennis generates more money than men's (for some very dubious reasons :) ) so why should they be paid less if anything the should be paid more. That fact that it's all part of the bread and circus's aspect of Capitalism is a different discussion.
     
  20. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #20
    It's been pointed out elsewhere that the top 8-10 women players are so much better than the rest that they tend to polish them off very quickly, often barley breaking a sweat. This leaves them free to play in the doubles as well. If they do well in all 3 draws they often end up earning more than the men who's game as much more strength down the order (and they play 5 sets) so most of them don't play in the doubles.

    Yes in doing this the women are playing more tennis for the higher returns, but it's not exactly a hardship is it?
     
  21. RedTomato macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #21
    Since when have top entertainers or sportspeople at the peak of their profession been paid according to the length of time they were on stage?

    You want the best, you have to pay what they ask per performance or per match.
     
  22. Mr. Durden macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado
    #22
    To me thats kind of the point, though. Not only do they play fewer sets, but they arent the "best" either. I think it would be a hard argument to make that the top 10 women tennis players could beat the top 10 male players. So now we have a group of people who dont play the same, and are second tier (for lack of a better term) making as much money as the people who are the best at the sport and work harder for the money. Not fair. If everyone needs to be paid the same, maybe they should stop having seperate mens and womens divisions.
     
  23. MrSmith macrumors 68040

    MrSmith

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    #23
    By that logic you'd have to let women be company directors.
     
  24. calculus Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #24
    Not only that but they get pregnant between sets and take maternity leave keeping everybody waiting years for the match to continue.:rolleyes:
     
  25. MrSmith macrumors 68040

    MrSmith

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    #25
    If actors were paid piecerate, James Cromwell would be the richest man in Hollywood. Where would the justice be in that?
     

Share This Page