Women’s Tennis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggieal

Totally agree! I would have been cheated paying top dollar for the woman’s final - 2 sets - 90 minutes - very few worth while rallies. Now compare that to the men’s final which was full of quality, top tennis and five hours in length.

Absolutely no comparison!

---

This is why I said in an earlier post about the Ladies playing the first to three sets like the men do .

It wasn't just a cheap shot to attack the Ladies .

In almost every walk of life to earn the bigger bucks you have to increase the value of your product or increase levels of production if we agree that sports today are businesses .

There no actual evidence that the Ladies game has any of these values attached to them that pushes up the market price .

If the women who worked along side us on the shop floor when I was a trade union rep only had to work 25 hours and the men 40 but still got the same pay for the same job then that wouldn't be accepted just on the basis of gender .

Unless they are willing to train harder , improve the product and play the first to three sets only then are they entitled to equal prize money .

Don't get me wrong there's wriggle room because Ons Jabeur no matter how much she trains or practices isn't ever beating Djokovic .

But the point is the equal prize money thing is based on gender equality and nobody dare suggest these ladies might like to improve their product or play for longer giving the people who provide the extra money they have to stump up some increased value for it .

In no walk of life in the workplace , business or even the market itself does this exist .

I understand the argument of disparities of pay in womens football. The pay is technically equal as they get paid a proportion of the support/viewers they bring in, same as the men.

But tennis is totally immeasurable. They are part of the overall package of Wimbledon.

This nonsense of improving the product is odd. There is a limit to what a women can do in sport and it's not nearly to that of a man. There is no measure for testing what is the top of a womens game vs the top of a mans game. It's not comparing apples with apples.

You can use the same logic in all walks of life. Women probably can't handle laboured jobs as well as men; you can't rob them of pay as a result. There's questions around effort, but we've had some eras of rubbish mens tennis too without consequence!

That said, I do think women should support women sport more. You probably get more women watching mens football than you do women watching womens football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggiematt

I understand the argument of disparities of pay in womens football. The pay is technically equal as they get paid a proportion of the support/viewers they bring in, same as the men.

But tennis is totally immeasurable. They are part of the overall package of Wimbledon.

This nonsense of improving the product is odd. There is a limit to what a women can do in sport and it's not nearly to that of a man. There is no measure for testing what is the top of a womens game vs the top of a mans game. It's not comparing apples with apples.

You can use the same logic in all walks of life. Women probably can't handle laboured jobs as well as men; you can't rob them of pay as a result. There's questions around effort, but we've had some eras of rubbish mens tennis too without consequence!

That said, I do think women should support women sport more. You probably get more women watching mens football than you do women watching womens football.

---

But there is a measure for testing what is the top of the women's game and top of the men's .

The tv viewing figures for the Ladies singles final and the Mens which forms part of the tennis market as tv viewing figures push up the price the tv companies would pay to broadcast it .

I can't believe for one minute Saturday's Ladies singles final was watched by as many viewers as the men's .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animallittle3

Just to give you my background so as not to come across as one of those old gits who still lives in the 70's .

I was a trade union rep for 25 years fighting for my members , worked with management for years to keep the company efficient and profitable with realism very much in play , trade unions are not some left wing militant anti capitalist organisations that the media would have you believe .

If I'm the union man elected to represent Ladies Professional Tennis Players and they tell me they want the same money as the men then I've to convince management I've a credible case .

As Mick as alluded to the Ladies don't bring in the same revenue streams as the men , the ticket prices , the sponsorship and advertising revenue won't be equal to the men's tournaments .

Secondly the Ladies game is an inferior product compared to the men and sporting products are valued by tv , sponsorship and advertising companies on excellence and quality , they aren't valued by blokes such as myself and Mick they are valued by the sporting market .

In such a situation I'd be telling my Lady Professional Tennis Players there's nothing I can do that can justify your demands .

The only card they have is to play the gender equality card and use it to shame not only myself but the actual sporting market or anybody else who opposes them with " Male Chauvinist Pig " ringing in our ears .

To be fair it works , it works very well for them .

Doesn't alter the fact that they aren't worth the same money as men because the market tells us that .

---

That’s a fair argument Animal. It’s nice to see someone put some meat on the bones to argue their side. I have to say your opinion makes it difficult to argue against. I have to be a little careful as I would not wish to upset any of the female employees I work with as they are a brilliant bunch and every bit as good as their male counterparts.

However, women’s sport is growing, take the Euro Final last year, Wembley was packed, a full house. We as a nation do not appreciate women’s sport enough perhaps. (I am as guilty as the next I’ll admit) To say it is boring and mundane is a little harsh.

A couple of years ago people were praising Emma Radacanu on her ability after winning the US Open. They had followed her progress and were saying how athletic and mature she was. So there was an interest there, sadly it hasn’t worked out for her and is unlikely to now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggiematt

I understand the argument of disparities of pay in womens football. The pay is technically equal as they get paid a proportion of the support/viewers they bring in, same as the men.

But tennis is totally immeasurable. They are part of the overall package of Wimbledon.

This nonsense of improving the product is odd. There is a limit to what a women can do in sport and it's not nearly to that of a man. There is no measure for testing what is the top of a womens game vs the top of a mans game. It's not comparing apples with apples.

You can use the same logic in all walks of life. Women probably can't handle laboured jobs as well as men; you can't rob them of pay as a result. There's questions around effort, but we've had some eras of rubbish mens tennis too without consequence!

That said, I do think women should support women sport more. You probably get more women watching mens football than you do women watching womens football.

---

The above point by Baggiematt is valid, where he states that all the men’s and women’s games are part of the package. All the Grandslams are, even some of the lesser competitions are now open to male and female competitors. Eastbourne, as mentioned previously, is for both male and female players. The whole thing is a mixed up competition, doubles, mixed doubles etc. imagine if there were no women at any of the Grandslams, they would be over in a few days or there would only be a few hours of tennis per day.

I think the female game does bring much to tennis. Without it the whole game would suffer. In my opinion of course.
There might be no right or wrong answer.