Wimbledon to pay equal prize money for women

[-Jrabbit]

I don't see it, Drogue. Your conclusion is based on "ifs"...
The fact is, tickets for men's and women's events are the same face value, and TV rights are packaged together.

It should also be pointed out that they did not DROP the payout to the men.

[Solly]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit

It should also be pointed out that they did not DROP the payout to the men.

Irrelevant.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue

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.

It's a factor. If you know beforehand how long something lasts on average then it will effect your valuation accordingly. However length of time played is not the sole determining factor and longer is not always better. If you were watching a world renown band you will still pay more for their 45 minutes than 18 hours of some random Jack and his harmonica. Similarly, if you watched a game of football with end to end excitement and a 5-4 finale you would feel better than having watched a 0-0 draw going to extra time and still finishing 0-0.

The decision comes down to how much you want to pay to watch something given a reasonable expectation of what may happen.

[Drogue]

It's not based on ifs, it's based on the underlying facts:
More people watch the mens game on TV, therefore the mens game is worth more in TV rights;
Queues are longer for legitimate tickets for mens' games than womens' games;
On the black market (ie the price it would cost were these things traded rather than done as debentures), the price of mens' tickets is vastly higher.

On the TV rights, the fact they're bundled together says nothing of their relative values. The mens' rights are worth vastly more than the womens' rights, as more people watch them, hence more in advertising.

Lastly, you do realise the ticket price is nominal. Almost all the seats are held by debenture-holders, which are people who've bought a ticket every day at the entire tournament for 10 years. Buying individual tickets you queue for days, especially for the finals, which shows the economic value is vastly higher than the nominal price for the few tickets that are left.

None of this involves ifs, it just involves facts that show that the mens' game generates more money than the womens'.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by 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.

I think you'll find more men are interested in women's tennis than you think

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see why they should pay the men the same as the women, when the women's tour doesn't even do so.

[Drogue]

I think you'll find viewing figures show differently. Were this beach volleyball, I'd agree, but there are a lot of tennis fans. And a lot of girls who watch for male titilation

[Provost Harrison]

The bastards never show beach volleyball

[Gibsie]

You've clearly not been paying attention to late night Channel 4...

[Provost Harrison]

Evidently not

[-Jrabbit]

@ Dauphin:
Wimbledon tickets are for a session of several matches. The amount of tennis one sees is determined by the length of early matches, the weather, etc. It is decidedly not comparable to "how long the band played."

@Drogue:
It really doesn't matter what the relative TV viewership or street value of "gendered" tickets might be. Wimbledon's actual economic model is AFAICT based on packaging the various events together. Income is gender-neutral, so too should be the payout.

There's no point in constructing arguments on the relative merits of the matches (number of sets played, aftermarket ticket prices, TV viewership, whatever). Whether true or not, such arguments are irrelevant to the economic model under which Wimbledon works.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
@ Dauphin:
Wimbledon tickets are for a session of several matches. The amount of tennis one sees is determined by the length of early matches, the weather, etc. It is decidedly not comparable to "how long the band played."

That's great, but I'm not the one arguing that the length of play is important in and of itself.

[Thue]

How about just reforming the tournaments, changing the mens competition into "men and women", and leaving the womens competition as is? Of course, the starters should be the best players, regardless of gender, with no artificial quota. Then it would make perfect sense to have the biggest prize in the "men and women" tournament.

Then nobody can accuse it of being unfair, as the women have a chance of earning more prize money than the men. As long as they are equally qualified...

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Dauphin
That's great, but I'm not the one arguing that the length of play is important in and of itself.

Sorry. I see that was Drogue as well...

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't see why they should pay the men the same as the women, when the women's tour doesn't even do so.

Irrelevant. This event is not part of either tour.