Wimbledon equality

Do they charge less to attend women's matches since there are fewer sets?

 

OK.

So, you think that prurient reasons are driving the interest in the women's game?

Perhaps you are right. I may rethink my original comment.

Could the women get paid even better if they voted to play in bikinis?

I don't know what the ratings are, but, I would agree that if they are better, the women should get paid better.

 

That's not a bad question. I think the money question is just for the champions, not the early rounds.

And those matches are played in the same arenas as the men's finals. I have no idea what the ticket prices are, though.

Still, it's sponsor dollars and I'm at a loss as to why any man would feel threatened enough to complain about it. The men aren't getting less. The women are just getting the same. My only guess is someone is upset with the idea of men not being placed in higher regards than women financially.

 

Partly, yes.

Actually, no. Hear me out on this. You can see women in bikinis and lingerie all over the internet, billboards, and TV these days. The outfits in tennis are sexy, for sure, but do still leave something to the imagination. I think a lot of people like that.

They like Sharapova's little black number. Men think she looks hot as hell in it, and women find it interesting that it was inspired by Audrey Hepburn. It's a win-win. Then you've got Serena, who's always wearing something a little outrageous... it's a topic of conversation... a visual sumpin'sumpin' in an otherwise visually-bland setting.

I think exactly what they're wearing is just right for maximum interest.

 

They don't have to if the interest in the women's game is greater to begin with.

Market forces equal that out.

 

Now that the pay thing has changed (thankfully), when will the wearing-white tradition fall? And Lugnuts is right; a little something is more. And I've been told there's lots of pictures of women players in tennis garb on the internets, too.

 

Equal pay for work of equal value is not the same as "identical" work.

It's been a standard of pay equity legislation in pretty much every other biz for, oh, 30 years.

 

With Agassi and Sampras gone, I bet you the average person on the street can name three current male tennis players. The women have much better name recognition and are just as responsible for making a Grand Slam what it is as some guy named Daveydenko or Nalbandian.

I think a lot of people equate a five set match with epic tennis. A lot of times it's just two guys that can't figure out how to close a match.

 

One question:

Why has the men's tour enjoyed a wealthy, stable lead sponsor (Mercedes-Benz) for more than a decade, while the women --- following the pullout of Virginia Slims in the early 90s --- wandered aimlessly without a sponsor for year after year (other than short-lived trysts with Corel and Sanex) before FINALLY hooking up with Sony Ericsson . . . which never would have happened without Sharapova?

Seems odd that with such an appealing game nobody wanted to sponsor the tour until they delivered a sex symbol who, unlike Kournikova, could actually WIN.

That being said, good for them. I love watching women's tennis and, unlike most on here, I enjoy watching a Mauresmo-Henin match (best one-handed backhands in the women's game) as much as a Sharapova-Ivanovic** match, despite the lack of sex appeal in the former.

** If you haven't seen Ana Ivanovic . . . you should.

 

The same reasons the pissers come on and whimper and moan whenever they see some girl on a wrestling or football team, and start blathering, "how come boys can't play on the field hockey team, and how come boys who get cut from the JV boys basketball team can't go play on the girls' varsity?"

Teeny-wiener disease.

Some female somewhere is succeeding, so let's piss and moan about it.

 

I don't think that anyone rationally beleives that women and men should garner different amounts of prize money for winning the same tournement. It's the fact that the term equal keeps getting employed. THus linking quality and effort between the men's and women's game. They are not equal. Which is why there is a women's tour. The women should get the same money because they are at least equal in attracting crowds, ratings and sponsors, i.e market value. But under no circumstance should the product be considered equal. Not just that the men work longer, best of 5 versus best of 3, but atheltic competition is determined by opponents competing against each other using the same rules, this determines the winner. No current female would get out of the 1st round of any tournement if it were gender neutral. Add the men's prize money to the women's prize money and hold an open combined tournement, that's equal. The winner gets it all.
So make the argument that women deserve the same prize money because the market deems women's tennis to be as interesting as the men's, but don't say it's equal. In athletics, equality is determined by merit. The best win, regardless of color or gender. No white cornerbacks and white wide receivers? Tough shit, the competition is open to anyone good enough. Employ the same logic with gender or stop calling it equal.