It was not so long ago that the top female tennis players at Wimbledon had to bang their rackets for equal pay. Their male counterparts had been enjoying significantly higher earnings, no doubt a legacy of days when men rule. Recent reports coming out of the Wimbledon tournament has unearthed the same ancient chauvinistic thinking.
The Miami Herald has highlighted the story that defending Wimbledon champion Venus Williams has had to play on Court 2 eight times in the last five years. In that period she would have been the defending champion on two occasions. In stark contrast her male counterpart Roger Federer has played continuously on Court #1 since 2003.
Read the Miami Herald article which outlines the shoddy treatment meted out to top female players at lawn tennis most prestigious tournament.
The BU household rejected the feeble excuses by the Wimbledon management; we however have to highlight Roger Federer’s perspective on the matter. We would have thought that the gentlemanly thing for Federer to do would be to express sympathy and solidarity with his female counterparts. Instead this is what he had to say:
They can put us at Aorangi or Roehampton [practice courts] if they want to. I wouldn’t be disappointed if they put me on Court 2.” And then, in the same breath, he said: “I hope that day will not come for me that I will have to play on Court 2. I understand there’s a little bit of disappointment [for Williams], but I don’t think it has anything to do with disrespect.
A BU household member had a national tennis ranking a few years ago and we have remained avid fans, and they say chivalry is not dead.
77 responses so far ↓
Anonymous // July 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Women don’t play they same game as men. Why should they get paid more.
Pat // July 1, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Anonymous:
Female players are not asking for MORE money. They are asking for EQUAL PAY for entertainment of EQUAL VALUE.
After reading the article, I would not call it disrepect. I would call it sexism with doses of racism thrown in.
Women Tennis Players Not Equal To Men Tennis Players @ Wimbledon ~ The More Things Change The More Things Remain The Same // July 1, 2008 at 8:36 PM
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt was not so long ago that the top female tennis players at Wimbledon had to bang their rackets for equal pay. Their male counterparts had been enjoying significantly higher earnings, no doubt a legacy of days when men rule. Recent reports coming out of the Wimbledon tournament has unearthed the same ancient chauvinistic thinking. The Miami Herald has highlighted the story that defending Wimbledon champion Venus Williams has had to play on Court 2 eight times in the last five years. In that period she would have been the defending champion on two occasions. In stark contrast her male counterpart Roger Federer has played continuously on Court #1 since 2003. Read the Miami Herald article which outlines the shoddy treatment meted out to top female players at lawn tennis most prestigious tournament. The BU household rejected the feeble excuses by the Wimbledon management; we however have to highlight Roger Federer’s perspective on […] [...]
David // July 1, 2008 at 11:28 PM
To our minds what is interesting about this story is the fact that this ’sexist’ behaviour has been happening in the UK in 2008 during a major sporting event. Why has the Press turned a blind eye up to now? In a land where advocacy is present more than other places why the silence?
Bimbro // July 2, 2008 at 2:27 AM
David // July 1, 2008 at 11:28 pm
To our minds what is interesting about this story is the fact that this ’sexist’ behaviour has been happening in the UK in 2008 during a major sporting event. Why has the Press turned a blind eye up to now? In a land where advocacy is present more than other places why the silence?
*********************
Dave, could it be for the simple reason that men’s tennis, as men’s football, is simply, more popular than women’s tennis!
I think ur umbrage is OTT, on this occasion. In my experience these matters are decided by the normal, interaction of the laws of demand and supply and have little or nothing to do with sexism or racism. Did the white, female tennis players enjoy any higher-status playing conditions than the Williams sisters? I should be surprised if they did!
Inkwell // July 2, 2008 at 7:26 AM
BU
Scheduling both Venus and Serena to play their singles as well as their doubles matches on Court 2, which for good reason is called “The Graveyard of Champions” sure makes it look as though The All England Tennis Club was doing all it could to make sure she didn’t progress in the championships.
Add that to the fact that Venus, the defending champion, who has won the tournament on no less than four occasions in the last eight years, is inexplicably seeded seven so that she would meet higher seeded players early in the tournament and that she and Serena won the doubles title twice, 2000 and 2002, but are seeded eleven, and you have a picture that is questionable, to say the least.
My suspicion is that they have a problem with Richard Williams. His appearance and antics I suspect are offensive to the hoity toity British upper social echelons which populate Center Court and they don’t want him being an embarrassment come Saturday.
Too bad! They will just have to smile their false smiles and show us their much vaunted stiff upper lip.
Yardbroom // July 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Generally the top rated male players attract more spectators than the top rated female spectators. Consequently they are placed on what are euphemistically called the “show courts.” Over recent years this was reflected in the prize money paid – higher to men than women – of course this has now changed. One argument for the previous situation was that men played the best of five sets, women played the best of three.
Another factor in the allocation of courts, a rated British player -Andy Murray – for example has not got to be in the world’s top ten. He will be allocated a show court because of the number of spectators who will watch his match.
It is not unknown for a television programme to be rearranged, if a top rated British player is doing well in a live transmission.
It is rumoured that for todays match Murray vs Nadal, on the black market tickets are being exchanged for £2,000.
I would be reluctant to run away with the idea that racism is evident here. Popularity, expected number of spectators, public interest, British players on the show courts are all factors.
Jelena Jankovic a Serb, the N02 seed – higher than Venus or Serena Williams – had to play her game on Court N0 18. She remarked after she was “almost playing in the parking lot. I almost needed a helicopter to get to my court”.
Serena and Venus have not played as much this year as they usuall do, hence their low world rankings and seeding.
Their father is a different issue Wimbledon has put up with him for all these years, and the family have had a lot of deserved success there.
I do not think there is any racism here, but then there are only a few things in life that you can be sure of.
me // July 2, 2008 at 8:33 AM
As an avid follower of tennis i just wnat to clear up a couple of misconceptions.
Womens tennis since the advent of the Williams sisters and martina Hingis et al has been more popular in both in terms of TV ratings and ticket sales.
The Williams in particular represent a major draw at ANY tournament ( as do Maria Sharopova, Ana and a few others).
Putting Venus and Serena on court so ofetn does not compute in any way really. These ladies command very high APPEARNCE fees world wide!
Now Roger is a big draw as is Nadal and several other mens players ( andy roddick, james blake). Murray will draw the english so no problems with him being on the show court. But why relagte the williams to Court 2???
Livinginbarbados // July 2, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Read the London Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article4245129.ece, where the story has been covered.
Racism? Perhaps, every major player put out to a non-show court was NOT British? Like the French did with their players in last month’s French Open. Britain’s major player has had all of his game on Centre Court. Shameless those Brits! But they also delayed a major new TV program to show the end of Andy Murray’s match. Wonder if we’d do the same in the Caribbean for cricket? I remember transmissions being cut so that the TV schedule of “All of our lives” or some soap opera could be aired.
Sexism? Hardly. True, Federer and Nadal have not been put out to no. 2, but fact is they are the box office draws. Part of the fun of Wimbledon is seeing the top players on the non-show courts where you sometimes dont even need to get into a stadium to see the match fully?
Equal pay for equal entertainment/value? Not giving my personal view, but look at the matches that bring in the spectators.
me // July 2, 2008 at 8:42 AM
I maintain that the Williams are a HUGE draw!
The Devil // July 2, 2008 at 8:49 AM
I’d pay good money to see Serena … even play tennis! LOL.
me // July 2, 2008 at 9:32 AM
she is the cover girl for Ebony this month!
She not heavy she's my sister.. // July 2, 2008 at 9:39 AM
“She is one of our biggest medal hopes and I do wish her well. In spite of the setback she can still perform at the top of her game. I hope she can still find the necessary opportunities to train and race.”
………………………
This is Esther Suckoo reaction to Jade Bailey being disallowed a Germany visa to train. This statement sums up why the nation’s sports is in disarray. Suckoo you are the sports minister . You should be assuring Miss Bailey that you and the Government will do whatever it takes within its capability to get her to Beijing. Mis Bailey already promised to give her all for a medal.What about the useless Barbados Olympic Association? They seem to be purely interested in lavish parties for big shots and travelling first class.
Bimbro // July 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM
The Devil // July 2, 2008 at 8:49 am
I’d pay good money to see Serena … even play tennis! LOL.
**************************
Doan tell me that Bajans beginning to get a sense of humour. But whaever nex!!!!
Duh might be hope for lil Buhbadus yet, den!!!!
The Devil // July 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Poor Minister Byer-Suckoo. She seems like a nice lady, probably a competent doctor, means well.
me // July 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM
She everyhwre, in every paper and pun my TV every nite… to say what?
Real Ting // July 2, 2008 at 1:09 PM
ink well
Add that to the fact that Venus, the defending champion, who has won the tournament on no less than four occasions in the last eight years, is inexplicably seeded seven so that she would meet higher seeded players early in the tournament and that she and Serena won the doubles title twice, 2000 and 2002, but are seeded eleven, and you have a picture that is questionable, to say the least.
————————————————————
not really you know ; only the i,2,3 and 4 seeds are assured of being separated until the semifinals. All of the other seeds and players go into the ‘draw” and it is the luck of the draw from there on. for example the number 1 seed may have in her quarter of the draw the numbers 5,7, 11, 14, 17 and 20 seeds while the number 2 seed may have only the 10, 16 28 and 30 seeds in her quarter. That is why you hear some “draws’ being classified as a “tough draw” or a “brutal draw” so I wouldnt read too much into their seedings.
For the record I do think that the Williams’ sisters because of their record at wimbledon should have been seeded higher. the problem is though that the organisers just chose to stick with the world rankings. this is an ongoing dilemma in seedings for majors whether seeding should be done according to the official ATP rankings or whether performance on the specialist surfaces like clay or grass should be given a heavier weighting in determining the seedings. It would be interesting to determine whether Federer or Nadal was ranked No. 1 seed for the French Open, after all Federer is the undisputable longstanding world # 1 while Nadal is the unquestioned King of clay.
Real Ting // July 2, 2008 at 1:18 PM
for all of those who are championing the fact that the williams are a huge draw, this may be true to you but the undisputable fact is that male tennis is far more competitive and appealing than women’s tennis to the average afficionado. there is more power speed and skill in the mens game; more endurance, stamina and fight as well. hence the fact that both white stars and the williams were relegated to Court 2. i think Sharapova and another top seed lost on Court 2 this year. It is called the graveyard of champions because of the high number of highseeds who have lost there. this suggests that not just the Williams have been relegated to that court among top players.
there is no racism or sexism in placing them there.
David // July 2, 2008 at 5:30 PM
We agree with me’s position. The William’s sisters is a big drawing card any place any time. It is not about their seedings this year only it is about their legacy in the tournament as well. They deserve more respect.
Livinginbarbados // July 2, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Women’s tennis is odd. In regular season games (WTA circuit) it’s best of 3 sets; in Grand Slams (like Wimbledon) it’s best of 3 sets. For men in regular season (ATP circuit) it’s best of 3 sets but in Grand Slams best of 5. If things are relatively the same (for which equal pay would argue), why not have the same format across the board, with women playing best of 5 in Grand Slam? Or is it that women’s tennis is better value. You only need to see best of 3 to feel happy, but for men we may need to get dragged out for 5 sets.
One only has to look at the schedule for Wimbledon to see that this time round the Williams can only meet in the singles final. I hope that if they meet in the finals they take their revenge over the court 2 business and play patty-cake for 2 sets, and are tied, then play on Centre Court till dark in the 3rd set and force the committee to reschedule the continuation back on Centre Court the next day. That would be cute!
me // July 2, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Until Rafeal Nadal actually put up a challenge against federer over the last 2 yeras mens tennis had dropped sigbificantly in the ratings. Whenever the Williams are on court people tune in. I have seen them at the US open and trust me on this people come out to seethem ( whether they like them or just wnat to see them get beat which happens quite often)….
Women do not fare well in 5 sets…not a good look for women. But they can pack alot of excitement in 3 sets. .. the games are different in that women rally much more then men so their points ofetn last lonegr …
The Williams especailly the defending chamapion should not be on court 2 so often!
Inkwell // July 3, 2008 at 7:27 AM
Real Ting
Last year at Wimbledon, Venus won the tournament from a seeding of 28, if I recall correctly. You think the organizers would have taken note this year? Don’t tell me they base theirs on world rankings. case in point, Baghdatis world ranking 25, Wimbledon ranking 10. Why?
The ranking system is unprofessional. This year Nadal was ranked 2 at the French after Federer, 1, even though he had won it the previous three times, beating the same Federer in ‘06 and ‘07. Crazy!! What does he have to do to be ranked 1 at the French?
Livinginbarbados // July 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM
Inkwell, the Williams sisters’ ranking fell because they stopped playing so they could not accumulate point; they were busy modelling and building their businesses. David Nalbandian had same situation as did Agassi back in the day. Your low ranking does not stop you being a good/great player,and it can mess up the show because your low seeding puts you against a high seed earlier than ability and form could justify.
You will see the reason for the rankings if you do a little checking on the ‘net. There are different ranking systems for men and women at Wimbledon. For men there is a formula that use world ranking, recent performance on grass, etc., but no adjustment by seeding committee. For women, it’s world ranking and if the committee feels that some adjustment is needed.
Most of the tournaments just follow the world rankings; Wimbledon is different. Being ranked 1 or 2 does not matter in the sense as you will only meet in the final.
Likewise the world rankings follow a clear formula based on points for tournament wins, and how you do this year relative to how you did the previous year; also explained on ATP’s website.
Inkwell // July 3, 2008 at 8:01 AM
I am well aware of the systems used for rankings. I am saying that they produce unrealistic results. Case in stupid point, they don’t seed Safin and he proceeds to knock out the no. 3 seed in round 2.
Even John McEnroe, doing commentary on NBC yesterday was highly critical.
me // July 3, 2008 at 8:38 AM
there is no excuse for seeding the williams that low give n that they have been playing pretty decent tennis of late AND they Always do well at Wimbledon!
garry // July 3, 2008 at 9:02 AM
At the end of the day the points system means nothing, the player that wants to win the most and plays the best tennis will win, it is as simple as that! When woman start playing 5 sets like men then they should start getting paid the same.
I personally find woman’s tennis more exciting and watch able than men’s tennis, nothing quite like watching a good looking lady running around a tennis court……
me // July 3, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Venus is through to her 7th final at Wimbledon in TWO SETS!
Real Ting // July 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM
congrats to her but to inkwell and others understand that it doesnt matter whether you were ranked at 6 or 60 that will not change who you will play as seeds are NOT separated in the draw unless they are seeded 1-4 and they are assured of not meeting each oother until the semis. this restriction does not apply to any other seeds or players.
Pat // July 3, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Well, Serena is now through. They will play each other for the Venus Rose Bowl. I will not miss this match for a pot of gold.
David // July 3, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Hopefully the story of the Williams sisters will be immortalize in movies, books and folklore. Given their background they could have easily become giddy with success and gone the route of many of the child prodigies gone before in tennis and other sports. When we see the Williams girls on the court it becomes more than tennis for the BU household.
May their achievements inspire others who are only in a position to dream.
The Devil // July 3, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Venus vs Serena ! Can I have both of them…?LOL. BTW what ever became of their father?
David // July 4, 2008 at 6:48 AM
We are taking bets and our money is on Serena!
Real Ting // July 4, 2008 at 9:05 AM
u would have to be de devil in truth if you could handle both of those ladies. lol
The Devil // July 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM
To the Real Ting
I know I would dead trying but that is one time the Devil would be in Heaven.! LOL
before any sour puss wants to crucify me (and as one could guess that Crucification thing really scares the hell out a devil), IMHO the Williams sisters are magnificient athletes in terms of both the physical and mental approaches to their game and overall a credit to their family and their country as well as to the sport of tennis.
My money is on Venus… no Serena.. yes Venus ..then again maybe Serena …shucks!!!
me // July 4, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I want Venus to win but she seesm to lose to Serena psychologically
Micro Mock Engineer // July 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM
… my money is on Venus David.
Pat // July 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Devil.
Richard was there for the semi-finals and after Serena won, left to go back to the US. He said he is not going to watch one point scored. It is too painful to watch them beating up on each other.
My money is on Serena. I think she is the better player.
me // July 5, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Serena is on fire unfortunately for venus
The Devil // July 5, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Venus, Venus, Venus…..good for her (fifth wimbledon title)!
Micro Mock Engineer // July 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM
LOL me… the race is not for the swift…
Pay up David! and me (you should have to pay double)! and Pat!
Actually, I’ll give you a chance to go double or nothing on tomorrow’s outcome…
…my money’s on Nadal.
David // July 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
@MME
We congratualte you on the winning pick and race to recoup at your offer of double or nothing on Nadal. It will be Federer cake walk!
Bush tea // July 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM
MME – good pick.
…pity you won’t be going two for two with your peak oil call…. that call is dead wrong LOL
Micro Mock Engineer // July 5, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Touché BT… I was taking a little breather from the peak oil debate (and rearranging some business now that oil has topped $145… LOL), but will respond to ST’s last post… maybe I can even get you, ST and GM to agree to an appropriate wager that reflects our divergent views on the subject.
Pat // July 5, 2008 at 11:35 PM
MME,
It was luck! However, I will go with Federer. If this match is as good as it was about two years ago, there will be no loser. That match lasted five hours. It was hynoptic, I did not want to get up to go p.
Micro Mock Engineer // July 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Federer and Nadal are such incredible athletes! A cakewalk huh David? :)
… David, Pat and me (and I suspect BT, although he was non-committal) I forgive your debt in its entirety.
Now, if only I could help at least one of BU’s ‘Peakers’ see the light… how about it BT… gonna help me make it 3 for 3?
David // July 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM
We yield Sire!!!
Pat // July 6, 2008 at 7:24 PM
MME, yuh good. Twice is not luck. I will drink a dragon stout for you.
Bill // July 6, 2008 at 11:54 PM
This isn’t about discrimination. Men’s tennis is simply more popular than women’s tennis. Tickets are more expensive for men’s matches, and TV ratings are continually higher for them.
Female players really have no legit complaint. They are paid equally despite playing far fewer sets over the course of the tournament. As long as they play only best-of-three, their game will not be the same spectacle and shouldn’t get Centre Court attention.
Sally // August 12, 2008 at 4:18 AM
Males play five sets of harder, faster tennis.
They draw bigger crowds, they increase the ATP’s economy.
They do more work, they deserve more money!
It’s ridiculous that women should be paid the same.
And I myself am a woman, so i cannot be accused of being biased, feminists are just whiney little girls, terrible images to be associated with the female stereotype.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 14, 2008 at 6:26 AM
Wait David… you think we looking at a repeat of the men and ladies Wimbledon finals in Beijing? Whu loss… that would be sweet fuh days.
Anyone taking bets on the outcome of the 100m final? :-)
David // August 14, 2008 at 6:54 AM
lol trust you to want to embarrass the BU family again! We going with the young legs-BOLT!
Micro Mock Engineer // August 14, 2008 at 7:07 AM
LOL…
I wid you on dat one… actually here is my 1-2-3 (but I reserve the right to revise my pick after the heats)…
1. Usain Bolt
2. Walter Dix
3. Asafa Powell
… I have left out Tyson Gay (fourth place). As for Asafa, I think he is easily beaten psychologically… and Walter Dix look capable and fearless with no expectation pressure (a lethal combination)…
Micro Mock Engineer // August 14, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Well… my hopes for a Wimbledon repeat have been dashed.
Steve // August 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM
The women should not get equal pay at wimebldon, they show get 3/5ths, The men play best of 5 and the women play best of 3 sets
Mus // September 2, 2008 at 7:05 PM
If woman want equal pay they should have to play 5 sets like the men.
CrazyClive // November 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Mus doesn’t go far enough.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with women continuing to play best of three sets. Sets isn’t the main issue. Moreover, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with women earning prize money equal to that of men in top-level tennis. They believe, quite firmly, that they are the equal of any male tennis player.
But is this true or is this bollards? There’s only one way to find out. Play the men in the one draw. Now there’s a thought.
Micro Mock Engineer // January 30, 2009 at 8:59 PM
David,
Nadal / Federer again this Sunday… on a hard court this time… here is your opportunity to redeem yourself :-)
David // January 30, 2009 at 9:09 PM
@MME
Nadal is the form player with the better record in recent times. Federer is the class champion whose skills have started to decline. We pick Federer only because Nadal’s semi-final game was energy sapping :-)
What say you?
Micro Mock Engineer // January 30, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Well… Nadal has beaten Federer in 12 out of their 18 meets, but to date Federer has had a slight edge over him on the hard court. I agree with you… that grueling 5 hour game will weigh heavy on Nadal. I’m inclined to go with you on this one.
Anonymous // February 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM
:-)
Another incredible game David. Nadal has now stamped his authority on all surfaces. Hard to believe he was able to play with that intensity for 5 sets… seems to have taken Federer by surprise too LOL
Micro Mock Engineer // February 1, 2009 at 10:27 AM
… that last anonymous post was me.
David // February 1, 2009 at 10:36 AM
The baton must be passed to Nadal now. He deserves the accolades which will be heaped on him AGAIN. He has played at a high octane level for a sustained period which has broken one of the all time best in Federer.
Your pick for the Super Bowl? As always we are a sucker for the underdog:-)
Technician // February 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Ah David……now ya talking my sport !!
The Steelrs are tough but since ‘my’ team was beaten (Eagles)…I have to back the team who eliminated them (arrgghh).
Lets see how they are going to stop that lightning bolt……Fitzgerald.
Steelers 17….Cardinals….27.
Technician // February 1, 2009 at 11:47 AM
About Nadal David…..he is FIT !!
I think it was last year or so at a tournament, when it was raining and this guy was sooo upset that he could not get into the gym for his daily workout.
Talk about commitment. I cycle on mornings but lately, I find myself smiling when it is raining :-)
Micro Mock Engineer // February 1, 2009 at 1:05 PM
David… I don’t really follow the NFL, but the last time I went wid your pick I lost my money…
Go Steelers!
:-)
Micro Mock Engineer // February 1, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Tech… how yuh like dat 100 yard intercept and return touchdown?
Micro Mock Engineer // February 2, 2009 at 12:17 AM
David/Tech… I felt your pain when Holmes made that second catch.
:-)
David // February 2, 2009 at 12:20 AM
We are on the losing end but it was an exciting game.
@Anotherview
We enjoy all sports, no need to split hairs.
David // February 2, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Pain MME? Was torture. ouch!
Technician // February 2, 2009 at 12:44 AM
AAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHH !!
Technician // February 2, 2009 at 12:48 AM
3 quarters…..no Fitzgerald, 91 yards on unnecessary penalties, miss tackles galore….and to think they beat my Eagles.
Well, my consolation games will help me get over this washoff…..NZ beat Australia, Liverpool beat Chelsea, Nadal beat Federer…..3 out of 4 aint bad for a weekend of sports :-)
Technician // February 2, 2009 at 12:51 AM
@ MME
That catch………..that catch…… I gine have nightmares about that ballerina, toe nail firmly planted in the end zone catch for a while.
Anonymous // February 2, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Nightmares Tech? Join the Ravens :-)
Here is the Holmes catch (with 42 seconds on the clock) that got Steelers into the Super Bowl…
http://www.steelersdepot.com/blog/2008/12/animated-gif-picture-of-santonio-holmes-catch/
Technician // February 2, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Thanks Anon……………..like I really needed to see it ……..again!! ;-)
David // July 4, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Looks like we have chickens this year – MME et al
We will stick with Serena this year, brute over grace :-)
gifford // August 6, 2009 at 6:46 PM
here’s the deal for me…Yes, women should be paid equally with this caveat…proportionately for services rendered and market value. here are the elements of that caveat:
1. they rarely play for the same length of time. occasionally men play for only 3 sets but more often than not it’s 4-5…so on a simple “per hour” of entertainment offered…to give women the same amount of prize money is to give women a HIGHER rate of pay per hour than men for the same average time spent on the court…
2. one should figure in the amount of draw for women vs. the amount of draw for men. This is simple business math, again compare the neutrality of numbers in both cases…you can examine the amount of tickets sold to women’s events vs. the amount of tickets sold to men’s events. On average this would give you a proportion of draw that you could then apply to the events where BOTH women and men are playing…the majors…that should determine the proportionate amount of purse.
3. assignment of courts…well, this is a bit trickier because my sense of fairness to apply a simple one to one ratio of putting one women’s match on the prime court for each men’s match on the prime court SHOULD be the way to do it, HOWEVER, this only holds true if the people playing those matches are providing the entertainment/excitement value that warrants putting them there in the first place…I recently went to the LA Tennis event at the Home Depot Center and watching the #1 Safina play against Hantuchova, was as dull as it gets…and this from the “leader” of the women’s tennis field right now….I agree that watching Serena (mostly) and Venus (often) will produce some exciting matches and they clearly warrant the 1-1 methodology, however, much of the top ten women’s tennis players are not as exciting to watch as the top ten men’s and once again, if one is simply comparing body to body it’s a much different equation than to decide this equitably on the “which is the more exciting draw” component of business, which provides the very fees that each sex is trying to earn by winning. I can honestly say that if the main stadiums were featuring an equal number of women’s games as men’s I probably wouldn’t pay for a seat there…which affects the economy…simply because the calibre of women’s tennis right now, is far below the calibre of men’s..it was different in the days of Steffi, Martina (both Navratilova and Hingis) Henin and a few others…there was excitment there because it wasn’t just a slugfest which seems to be the case with most of the women today…power vs. power. Playing a complete game seems to be mostly a thing of the past for the women’s field right now… It’s what my wife and I both miss wherever it shows up in either men’s or women’ and right now, it’s pound the ball over and very few seem to know how to craft a point like Hingis or Hardenne did…no working the ball side to side, shallow and deep, moving your opponent like a chess piece…just seeing who can hit the ball harder for longer…boring, whether men or women…
4. lastl but not least is sponsorhip dollars…this is pure economics and sponsors spend their money for the amount of visibility they’re going to receive…men’s tournaments get more money just because men’s tournaments draw more attention. When the two draws are equal then that would change because business isn’t stupid…until then…that’s how it is and if one wants big fees, one has to accomodate how the market generates those fees….this is not just a tennis disparity, it’s a celebrity disparity…you can take the recent Tiger Woods at the Buick open as an example…the week before when he didn’t make the cut, the ratings for the next two days dropped…which means ad value dropped, which means ad dollars didn’t generate as much as they might have had he continued to play…At the Buick, he stayed in and later won…it gave the advertisers the ratings they wanted…I can’ guarantee you…a #1 player Safina/Zvonerava finals match at the open wouldn’t generate squat for viewership relative to one for Serena/Venus…or for even a #1 Federer against ANY of the rest of the field…Federer generates revenue, Safina generates virtually nothing…so is it fair that she ride the coattails of Federer at the Open to an “equal” payday when she doesn’t bring the same value? I don’t think so…
David // August 6, 2009 at 6:54 PM
@gifford
Talking about Safina, is she the one who has not won a grand slam but is currently ranked #1?
Is this a fair system and if it was one of the Williams sisters would the world be rebelling more against the system?
It does not seem fair. It is like Tiger not being number 1 instead for a Villegas.