Wimbledon to pay equal prize money for women

[dudemanjack]

Sharapova

[Gibsie]

Just hit it!

[Solly]

Originally posted by dudemanjack
Sharapova

Bit jowelly

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by reds4ever
So the women will be playing best of 5 sets this year at Wimbledon?

That argument is a silly one in my opinion. The length of time played is not really relevant, except in as far as people are willing to pay more to see a longer game.

The amount paid should be commensurate with the money drawn in by the competitors taking part and reflect the winnings needed to draw the competitors into the competition.

If women's tennis is more popular and so brings in more money, then women should be paid more. Simple. I know I would pay more to see a women's beach volleyball game then a men's game for instance. Therefore female beach volleyballers should get more prize money than the equivalent men's competition.

[-Jrabbit]

Are tickets to the women's Wimbledon events priced the same as men's?
Is attendance equivalent?

These should be the determining factors.

[Dauphin]

I think TV rights probably raise more money.

Plus, tickets are sold by location (Centre Court, Court 1 etc) and by day rather than by the games scheduled. Obvious exception/congruence being the final days play.

[DinoDoc]

The fact they play less shouldn't enter into it?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Dauphin


That argument is a silly one in my opinion. The length of time played is not really relevant, except in as far as people are willing to pay more to see a longer game.

The amount paid should be commensurate with the money drawn in by the competitors taking part and reflect the winnings needed to draw the competitors into the competition.

If women's tennis is more popular and so brings in more money, then women should be paid more. Simple. I know I would pay more to see a women's beach volleyball game then a men's game for instance. Therefore female beach volleyballers should get more prize money than the equivalent men's competition.

Women's tennis scrounges publicity and funding off the men's game. As I said earlier, if tennis were a women only sport, it would be as popular a sport to watch as netball.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fact they play less shouldn't enter into it?

Not directly, no. If yes, then why not pay by the hour.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Gobble gobble.

Is that all you think women are fit for, oral sex? Misogynist

[Kontiki]

I don't see why women don't play best of five in the grand slams. Are marathons shorter for women too? Maybe a women's 200 meter race should only be 150 meters in the Olympics.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Dauphin
That argument is a silly one in my opinion. The length of time played is not really relevant, except in as far as people are willing to pay more to see a longer game.

Isn't that the point? If at a gig a band play for 45 mins the crowd feel short changed. If a boxing match ends in the first round, the crowd feel a bit hard done by.

But there are two points really; either:

1) you accept that sport is a capitalist venture and thus the higher prize money is paid when one side attracts most of the crowd. The ticket price (when trading is allowed) is always higher for the mens game than the womens, suggesting people go to see that more, so men should be paid more, as you demostrated in the latter part of your post; or

2) you believe in equal pay for equal work, regardless of the capitalist consequences. Which means that to get equal pay, women need to do the same work., ie. 5 sets.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fact they play less shouldn't enter into it?

Why should it? Prize money is determined by victory, not the number of strokes played or elapsed time. This isn't labor, this is entertainment.

Income from television is for the package -- men and women's events together. Ticket sales are based on court location, not who (or which gender) is playing.

If Wimbledon doesn't determine any portion of its income based on gender differences, there's no logical reason the payout should be differentiated.

Now grow up, boys.

[Solly]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit


Why should it? Prize money is determined by victory, not the number of strokes played or elapsed time. This isn't labor, this is entertainment.

Income from television is for the package -- men and women's events together. Ticket sales are based on court location, not who (or which gender) is playing.

If Wimbledon doesn't determine any portion of its income based on gender differences, there's no logical reason the payout should be differentiated.

Now grow up, boys.

Are there any women-only or men-only competitions, so we can use those as a yardstick?

[Drogue]

Wimbledon does determine it's income from the difference. If you take out the mens game, the TV rights drop to less than half, as the TV viewings for women are less than for men. The fact it's bundled as a package doesn't mean one isn't more valuable than the other. My PC was bundled with Windows, but I know damn well that the PC was worth a lot more than Windows is.