CC1981 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 There is a lot of talk on making prize money equal for mens and women's competition in sports. What are your thoughts about it ? Personally, i think some sports such as tennis are perfectly justified in paying less $$ to women - women play best of 3 sets while men play best of 5 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhondy Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 In which other sport apart from golf do women earn prize money anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 I think women should also be made to play the best of 5.I think asking for equality when you are not doing the same work is just political correctness going too far.It's not like they have a physical disadvantage of playing against men(who we have to admit are generally physically stronger) It's not a gender neutral game......women play against women and they should play the same number of sets or don't ask for same prize money. But it works both ways.......when women have done the same work(example...climbed the same mountain) the prize money should be same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 This talk of equating "work" and prize money is amusing. Can anybody define what work is ? the number of sets/points played ? So does that mean Federer's match fee should be reduced if wins in straight sets ? or should it be increased if he plays a five set marathon ? The prize money for any athlete is determined by the value he adds to the sport and as far as tennis is concerned , if its proved that women dont bring in as many fans ( both to the courts and to the TV) as the men do , then they shouldnt be paid as high as the men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Spot on marris. Value in arts, sports, and entertainment can only be judged on marketability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator_05 Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 We've discussed this before. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=3514 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted June 10, 2007 Share Posted June 10, 2007 >>>>This talk of equating "work" and prize money is amusing. Can anybody define what work is ? the number of sets/points played ? So does that mean Federer's match fee should be reduced if wins in straight sets ? or should it be increased if he plays a five set marathon . No ...that means heplayed so well that he didn't need to play the 5... But when rules say......men play best of 5 while women play best of 3...that is not equal work and should not be treated the same. Of course I understand what you mean.... Like sachin getting paid more money while a newcomer getting less money irrespective of performance...like we had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Have any of u seen male models crying discrimination for being paid less. Fact is any tom dick hary feamel model earns more than their male counter-part. To put things in perspective Anna kornikova's earnings were more than Pete Sampras could ever wish to get all along their respective careers. Talking of tennis women play three sets and even that looks a slow game in five sets it will come to virtual crawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Personally, i think some sports such as tennis are perfectly justified in paying less $$ to women - women play best of 3 sets while men play best of 5 ! I disagree. Tennis is one sport where the prize money has to be equal. Keep in mind that the revenues are generated by the spectators and tv audience . In fact, their was a time when William sisters were able to generate more audience than men tennis. So , how can they be paid less especially if people are willing to watch them play. In fact I would think , glamor dolls like Ava and Maria attract as much viewership as men tennis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predator_05 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Not all female tennis players look like Maria Sharapova, so there goes the "marketability" argument. Spectators may pay to watch a handful of pretty girls, but for the most part - women's tennis doesn't enjoy the same level of viewership that it's male counterpart does. Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo are top players but they aren't good looking and they don't sell out the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Not all female tennis players look like Maria Sharapova' date=' so there goes the "marketability" argument. Spectators may pay to watch a handful of pretty girls, but for the most part - women's tennis doesn't enjoy the same level of viewership that it's male counterpart does. Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo are top players but they aren't good looking and they don't sell out the courts.[/quote'] Just couple of years ago , french open had same ratings in USA for both men and women. In fact , Justine Henin was playing Mary pierce then. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/french/2005-06-06-tv-ratings_x.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Do they charge less for women's semis/finals than men's semis/finals in grand slam tourneys? Do they find it difficult to fill up the stadium for women's than men's? If not, they should be paid the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts