Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Wimbledon pays equal prize money

I

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
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
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
iGav said:
At Wimbledon, men play the best of 5. Women the best of 3.
Click to expand...

Benjamin said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

;)
 
Jaffa Cake said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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:
 
Jaffa Cake said:
I agree totally, iGav
Click to expand...

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.
 
iGav said:
Did you see BBC News this morning?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jaffa Cake said:
I think that the ideal solution would be to cut men's matches down to three sets each, the same as women's
Click to expand...

Aren't some tournaments already like that?

Jaffa Cake said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
iGav said:
Aren't some tournaments already like that?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
panoz7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A footballer on the bench half the season gets paid a lot less than a regular starter...
 
psychofreak said:
A footballer on the bench half the season gets paid a lot less than a regular starter...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Abstract said:
Women should really be embarrassed about some of the women fighting for "equality".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
RedTomato said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr. Durden said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not only that but they get pregnant between sets and take maternity leave keeping everybody waiting years for the match to continue.:rolleyes:
 
If actors were paid piecerate, James Cromwell would be the richest man in Hollywood. Where would the justice be in that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back