You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Prize money should be proportionate to the revenue generated for the event simples. So if men get 10% of the revenue as prize money, then women get 10% of the revenue that their event generates.
This is how it works anyway.
Let women enter men's competitions if they want to win the big money.
Anyone want to try with mine with a colleague[ ie same job as it is with tennis] so why not try and explain that please. Two colleagues one is PT one is FT so one 4 hours per day one 8. The premise is that both deserve the same pay as it cost them same to get to work. Does anyone actually want to defend that ?
Its not an argument i would wish to try to defend.
And if you’re saying sponsorship is the salary, do you really think Simona Halep earns as much as Federer?…
No, I'm aware that it's different but that's not what we're talking about on this point, is it?
This is how it works anyway.
Not for the Grand Slams, it doesn't.
Like tailwagger, you're creating an artificial separation of men's and women's "events" that doesn't happen in the real world. The organisers of (say Wimbledon) don't put on men's and women's tennis that jut happen to be on the same day, they just have one event: Wimbledon...It has budget for prize money, and that's divided equally.
Tbh, I don't really care, argue away! 🙂
You don’t do the same job as your CEO, do you?…
No I don't and that's why he gets paid more than.
If a salesman generates double the sales of his peers then doesn't he deserve to get paid more? They all do the same job, but his performance makes more money for the company.
Federer generates more ticket sales/broadcast rights and advertising funds than any of the women, so why shouldn't he get paid more?
Not for the Grand Slams, it doesn’t.
Like tailwagger, you’re creating an artificial separation of men’s and women’s “events” that doesn’t happen in the real world. The organisers of (say Wimbledon) don’t put on men’s and women’s tennis that jut happen to be on the same day, they just have one event: Wimbledon…It has budget for prize money, and that’s divided equally.
I don't know how that would work out. No doubt women's beach volleyball tickets are more valuable than men's.
Let the market decide worth.
Like tailwagger, you’re creating an artificial separation of men’s and women’s “events” that doesn’t happen in the real world. The organisers of (say Wimbledon) don’t put on men’s and women’s tennis that jut happen to be on the same day, they just have one event: Wimbledon…It has budget for prize money, and that’s divided equally.
Just because its the same tournament, the mens and womens finals are still separate matches played on separate days to separate audiences
But the organisation, tickets advertising and so on isn't. and once the revenue for the whole event is sorted out, there's no reason not to just divide the prize money equally (which is actually what they do)
cool, huh?
But the organisation, tickets advertising and so on isn’t. and once the revenue for the whole event is sorted out, there’s no reason not to just divide the prize money equally (which is actually what they do)
Like the warmup act gets the same cut at concerts as the main attraction?
Oh wait...
Never mind gender divide, we cant even manage equal pay within a single gender. How can 11 football players on the same team, winning or losing the same game and playing for the same amount of time (excluding substitutions) all get paid different amounts!! its ludicrous!
But the organisation, tickets advertising and so on isn’t. and once the revenue for the whole event is sorted out, there’s no reason not to just divide the prize money equally (which is actually what they do)
cool, huh?
Its definitely cool for the ones who do less hours work but get the same amount of pay.
Its definitely cool for the ones who do less hours work but get the same amount of pay.
It's prize money for winning, not pay for taking part...We already did this, do at least try to keep up.
rolly eyes goes here.
Yes I understand the winner gets the same money but you have to accept that one wins the best of three and one wins the best of 5. One wins by doing less work hence you can argue its unfair as every single female winner played less but got the same pay.
Patronising end line goes here.
sorry, should've included a smiley emoji...
But, they're just playing to rules as set by organisers of the games. And the argument only really applies to tennis, Womens marathon is still 26.8 miles, 100m is still 100m and so on.
you could make the argument, it's not a particularly strong one, as any sport is about winning, not just taking part.
Do women runners get less prize money than men?
Do women runners get less prize money than men?
Yeah and they should get more because they're out there longer.
The way I look at it. Half the population of this planet are male, half are female. There is, therefore, only 1 way to divide prize money. 50/50
People can argue all they want about there being more men than women doing one sport or another. Fact is, why would you want to do a sport where you get less prize money and treated as a second rate attraction.
Why not take it one stage further. Male/female contests with equal prize money. Then a "champions league" where the top men and the top women get to compete head to head for an extra pot. OK, logic says that in almost all cases the men might win, but unless that chance is given, we may never know. And there may well be some sports where abilities are closer than we may realise.
Fact is no prize money (or professional sport) would ever exist if there were no spectators or fans. So it logically follows that the greater the audience the greater the prize money?
Some interesting stats on viewing figures, games played, time on court etc......
So it logically follows that the greater the audience the greater the prize money?
Depends if you have decided an outcome and then tried to justify it. Again if you had equal money from the start how would you justify having lower prizes for men?
Some interesting stats on viewing figures, games played, time on court etc……
but it's the same bollocks argument...it's PRIZE money, not wages...you get it for winning not taking part..how many times..?
viewing figures are a rubbish metric anyway, if the final for the women is on a less attractive day to watch, guess what will happen...
Should straw men get the same pay as straw women?
hmmm... does it depend on which of them is the main straw breadwinner for the straw kids?
[i]perchypanther wrote:[/i]
…also, makeup is REALLY expensive.
Good point - which is why men should be paid more, because they're uglier and need to use more of it
Discriminating against someone because of their sex is just fundamentally wrong to most people. So if we want to abolish sexual discrimination then we have to treat everyone equally.
Therefore we should scrap all 'female' sport and just have sport.
In cycling why is it fair to say that we need female only competitions because women aren't as fast as men, yet at the same time say that women should be rewarded the same as men for something they are not as good at?
If everyone competes together how could anyone complain that wasn't fair?
[i]Junkyard wrote:[/i]
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Yes I understand the winner gets the same money but you have to accept that one wins the best of three and one wins the best of 5. One wins by doing less work hence you can argue its unfair as every single female winner played less but got the same pay.</span>
Not quite sure if you're trolling, as I would have expected you to understand the nuances behind equal pay for sportswomen which most here are ignoring (and I won't go into here). But the counter to that particular argument has already been done - for a top sportsperson the vast, vast majority of the "work" they do isn't competing. Even whilst at a tournament you'll find female tennis players doing spending far more than 3/5 of the amount of time male tennis players doing things they are required to do which is part of the role of a professional tennis player - whether that's practicing, having a massage, doing press conferences etc. To suggest they're only working when they're on the court playing a match is somewhat simplistic.
The Johanna Konta vs Simona Halep quarter-final at 7.4m viewers became the most watched Wimbledon Ladies’ match on BBC record.
The Gentleman’s Singles Final had a peak of 6.4m and the Ladies’ Singles Final peaked at 4.7m.
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/faq_and_facts_and_figures.html
viewing figures are a rubbish metric anyway, if the final for the women is on a less attractive day to watch, guess what will happen…
Or even if the final is not the most popular match 😉
but it’s the same bollocks argument…it’s PRIZE money, not wages…you get it for winning not taking part..how many times..?
I get that and never claimed it was wages. The crux of my point is that there would be no prize money if there was no business behind it and in a business environment its usual to reward your higher earners with higher salaries.
Cricket, golf and football showed some of the biggest disparities although prize money for women has increased substantially in these sports over the past three years.
Other sports that do not reward male and female competitors equally according to the study are cliff diving, ski jumping and cycling events. Women are allowed to enter the world championships in darts and snooker but also have their own separate competitions, where prize money is a lot less.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/40299469
Most sports don't think like that now....
To suggest they’re only working when they’re on the court playing a match is somewhat simplistic.
to suggest someone who plays the same sport as best of three is not doing less than someone who plays it over the best of five is not simplistic its just wrong
Do i understand the point made - yes , its not complicated[ nor is the counter] that I assume you also understand .
We disagree that is all. I think its fine to pay women less for tennis as they play less sets. Others think its not because they both won. I am quite surprised some wish to argue they dont do less mind - and accuse anyone who says this of trolling.
Paying women less becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Mtb is an expensive sport. Anyone capable of running at the front is having to spend a considerable amount on their bike. When that has to come out of your discretionary income, it's a big hit.
Low prize money means women are discriminated against and there is less participation than there would otherwise be.
I don't see why women's races couldn't be the same length as men's, or for that matter, run in conjunction with the men's.
We disagree that is all. I think its fine to pay women less for tennis as they play less sets. Others think its not because they both won. I am quite surprised some wish to argue they dont do less mind – and accuse anyone who says this of trolling.
Well Tennis doesn't at least at the Grand Slam level, do they do less? in a match yes unless the men warp it up super quick, are the matches worse? That is for the tennis fans, but anyway they are one of the sports getting on with it.
The work it takes to be a top level tennis player? Well it's about the same for men and women.
I am quite surprised some wish to argue...
Said the new boy 😆
Most normal people, ie not on here, would regard womens sport less interesting to watch than mens, so therefor they should get paid less.
Unless its beach volleyball of course.
But, they’re just playing to rules as set by organisers of the games. And the argument only really applies to tennis,
Most men's matches are best of three sets.