Wimbledon pays equal prize money

[miloblithe]

I think the women should be paid more than the men. Who wants to watch men's tennis anyway. Snoozefest. Ace. Ace. Double fault. Ace.

Give me women's tennis any day. Much more interesting.

 

[MrSmith]

I think the women should be paid more than the men. Who wants to watch men's tennis anyway. Snoozefest. Ace. Ace. Double fault. Ace.

Give me women's tennis any day. Much more interesting.

Funnily, the most enjoyabe tennis I ever saw was watching Pete Sampras. The most enjoyable snooker I ever saw was watching Steve Davis. Neither light up their sport with their personality but both entertained with their concentration and almost perfect level of play. So for me, men's tennis is far more enjoyable.

 

[Mr Skills]

I'm sorry but to divide the money by how many sets may be played is ridiculous. If payment was really decided by how hard the job was, then the person who cleans the players' changing room toilet would be getting at least a hundred grand for the tournament.

Like it or not, payment is largely about supply and demand. This is why Steve Jobs (a gigantic company struggles without him, but there is only one of him available) has $7,000,000,000 and yet I work just as hard and have... slightly less


.

 

[R.Youden]

Just to join this debate a bit late...

I went to Wimbledon a few years ago and was stood in the freezing cold all night (if I knew that in advance I wouldn't have gone!) and managed to get centre court tickets for £30. We saw three matches and I am ashamed to admit that I fell asleep in the women's game!

Watch a mens game and then watch a women's game straight away, different game all together! Sorry but the men provide more entertainment so they should be paid more.

 

[faustus67]

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.

Rinky dink link

Were your argument correct then woman should be paid 3/5 of what the men make. They are not. It was a token difference for whatever reason. Either pay them 3/5ths or pay them the same. Besides, watching Roger Federer annihilate someone in the first round in 48 minutes is a quick set. Why not give them an hourly wage, to be completely fair?

 

[RedTomato]

Were your argument correct then woman should be paid 3/5 of what the men make. They are not. It was a token difference for whatever reason. Either pay them 3/5ths or pay them the same. Besides, watching Roger Federer annihilate someone in the first round in 48 minutes is a quick set. Why not give them an hourly wage, to be completely fair?

I agree. I don't understand why the same people who complain about women receiving the same pay per match also want them to receive the same pay per set. Both 'set' and 'match' are very vague notions of timespan. Some sets can take longer than a whole match.

I have often seen women's matches between two equally matched top players take longer and be far more draining than some of the mens matches, so by that reasoning, should these women be paid more than the men?

Either pay both sexes by the hour (yeah right, welcome to 6 hour marathon matches ) or just pay them both the same and be done with it!

Would Madonna or Barbara Streisand or Tina Turner or Nicole Kidman receive less pay if they played a slightly shorter set or had less screen time than some of their male backing cast?

Did Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now get paid only a couple of bucks cos he was only on screen for a few seconds?

This is a stupid discussion and I'm fed up with people desperately grasping at thin excuses to pay women less.

 

[Mr. Durden]

By that logic you'd have to let women be company directors.

Not sure exactly what you mean there. There are plenty of company directors who are women. Im probably just not understanding what you are saying.

 

[MrSmith]

Im probably just not understanding what you are saying.

 

[philbeeney]

I think they should have a free for all, men and women all together.

Can you imagine Roger Federor (sp?) competing against either of the Williams Sisters.?

Or Anna Kournikova against Tim Henman.

 

[Keebler]

what i would like to know is what the average match times are?

ladies matches seem to be much more competitive in terms of the ball keeping in play for longer periods of time. men's matches are all about the serve - points happen quicker from what i remember.

i'm not a tennis expert, but i do like to watch it.

any data on that would be worth checking out.

 

[skye12]

Women should play real matches-thats best of 5!!!

women don't run a 13 mile marathon..always
thought womens tennis players had very marginal
levels of fitness next to the men.

They should have the pay reduced, not raised.