British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as men

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
I agree with him completely. When women players play 5 sets like the men, then they can have the same pay.



Murray: Female players shouldn't get same as men
25th June 2006




Murray sparks controversy

He has captivated the nation with his mop of curly hair, frequent stroppy outbursts and natural feistiness on the court. But after his latest diatribe, it looks likely that Scottish tennis star Andy Murray might lose more than a few female fans.

Speaking on the eve of the Wimbledon championships, the fiery teenager said women players do not deserve to be paid as much as men. The 19-year-old said games were easier for women because they typically spent half as much time on court as men.

He claimed most tennis spectators turned up to see men play and were generally only interested in female stars such as Maria Sharapova and Justine Henin-Hardenne.

Live Wimbledon coverage on our special section

Murray’s outspoken comments will add fuel to the row over the disparity between prize money for players - the winner of this year’s men’s singles tournament will pick up £655,000, compared with £625,000 for the ladies’ champion.

He said: "I don't think it's fair that the women get paid the same as the guys, because if you look at it, the guys have the potential to play a five-and-a-half-hour match. A lot of the women can win the first three or four rounds having dropped no more than four games. That doesn't really happen in the men's [tournament]. There are a lot of tough matches out there."

He added: "[The prize money] is something that everyone has argued about. I think the majority of people who come to watch during the first week at Wimbledon will be coming to watch one of the male matches.

"Obviously, when the big names like Sharapova and Henin and those sort of players come out, people will turn up to watch them, but I just think there's more interest at the start of the tournament [in the men] than there is for the women."

Last week Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, wrote to the All England Club last week saying she was "deeply concerned" about the prize money issue at Wimbledon, claiming that it tarnished the championship's international image.

Earlier this year the Dunblane star was at the centre of another sexist skirmish when he said he and his opponent had "played like women".

Jo Durie, the former Wimbledon player and BBC tennis commentator, accused Murray of making "silly comments". She said: "I don't agree with his remarks at all. What he has said is very sexist. Nowadays there are fewer easy matches for women and when I look at the men's draw, I can see games where the players will spend hardly any time on court at all."

Andrew Walker, spokesman for the WTA, the women's professional tour, said Murray’s views were out of line with what most of the public think. But Suzie Mair, a Scot who played at Wimbledon in 1984 and now covers tennis for STV, agreed with Murray.

"It is fair enough that the men get paid more than female players," she said. "Unless women play tournaments with five sets, I don't see how they can demand to be paid the same, so I think Andy is right on this one."

And Mat Hulbert, the coach development manager with Tennis Scotland, said: "These remarks are the hallmark of a young guy with big expectations on his shoulders. There is a lot of pressure on him because Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski are getting older and the public expects him to do well."

Murray has suffered a recent run of early tournament exits and split from his coach Mark Petchley in April. But it emerged yesterday that his main backer, Royal Bank of Scotland, has signed him up for another two years.

dailymail.co.uk
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Re: British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as me

The women get paid £625,000 for playing just 3 sets.

Whereas the men get paid £655, 000 for playing 5 sets.

That works out at around £208,333 per set for the women, but only £131,000 per set for the men, so the women players have no right to be wanting to be paid the same as the men.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Re: British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as me

Wimbledon is the only major tennis tournament in the world to pay women less than men. But it is RIGHT to do so, whatever feelings you may have for "equality."

Daily Mail

Pit, pat, grunt! Why women's tennis just isn't worth equal pay.

by Sarah Sands

6th July 2006



Say the tennis fairy were to offer you tickets to Wimbledon. You have a choice between the women's final and the men's final. I would hazard a guess that you would go for the men's final. There is such a thing as being second best - and women's tennis is a good example of it.

When I read that Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell had written to the Lawn Tennis Association expressing "deep concern" that women champions receive £625,000 for playing three sets, while men are played a relatively close £655,000 for five-set matches, I shrugged that the Labour minister must be short of things to do.

But last week, a Prime Minister with the Middle East in crisis, his domestic reforms under threat and his job on the line, also came out for equal pay for women tennis players. Either Tessa Jowell has an extraordinary hold over Tony Blair or he is overwhelmed by political correctness.

I support equal pay for men and women when they are doing the same job and share the same ability.

I admire Anne Robinson's withering impatience for women who dare not ask their bosses for money in case they are disliked for it. What would be disastrous for women is to clamour for equal pay for unequal results. It makes men feel resentful and put upon - and it makes women objects of symathy rather than respect.

The feminisation of our society has become a silent revolution. The whole education system is biased towards women, with its emphasis on sitting still and industry rather than flights of excellence. Television is awash with women. Retail is run mostly for women by women.

But sport is different.

I have a daughter who is a nimble little footballer and I remember watching her, with consternation, as she was frozen out of a club game. Finally, a boy hissed an explanation in her ear: "Boys don't pass to girls."

I'm afraid he had a point. I find it tiresome the media's attempt to make us interested in women's cricket, rugby and football. I love watching women's gymnastics because of its sublime feats and grace. But women's cricket, rugby, football, and, yes, tennis are unquestionably second best.

I turn at random to yesterday's media coverage of Wimbledon. There was much discussion of whether Mario Ancic could beat Roger Federer in the Quarter Final. But what did the papers print about the match between Maria Sharapove and Elena Dementieva? Detailed discussion about the sheer brilliance of the play?

No, just endless jokes about Sharapova grunting and a streaker interrupting play.

But you could blame sexist, boorish, male newspaper executives. Well, you could. However, it is not as simple as that. The coverage of female tennis is frivolous because there isn't that much to write about the female game. Pit, pat, grunt, pit, pat, nice shot, pit, pat, has she shaved under her armpits?

Tessa Jowell claims: "Women's tennis has made great strides, becoming highly competitive and extremely entertaining." I would say "small steps" rather than "great strides", but it is true that the game has become professionalised. Everyone recognises the commercial worth of female tennis players. It is just that most of the money is made off the court. Anna Kournikova is a magnificent example of how a little talent and a shapely figure can make you a fortune.

On her website, Anna informs us that she has joined a magazine as a fitness columnist, that she is appearing on the front of another magazine in a swimsuit and, oh, by the way, she is playing in, like, a tournament.

You could argue that this is just what happens when you're pert and blonde. Serious players, such as Venus Williams, who is backing Tessa Jowell's campaign, concentrate on their tennis rather than what they wear or - in Kournikova's case - do not wear.

So, who is this figure on the Venus Williams official website wearing tight leather and leaning provocatively towards the camera? What has the link to Venus Williams ring tones and wallpaper got to do with serves and volleys?

On the other hand, what do you see on Roger Federer's website? A photograph of him playing tennis. The rest of the site is a nerdish list of figures. No wallpaper ranges. No modelling for glamour magazines. Just tennis.

Off-court, Federer is almost impossibly dull. On court, genius flows through his veins. Last year's Final, in which Federer somehow drained the strength from his opponent, Andy Roddick, was like watching the gods duel.

Meanwhile, Venus Williams beat Lindsay Davenport 4-7, 7-6, 9-7 in what turned out to be the longest ever women's final. Perhaps Williams wished to prove that even if her game was not as good as a man's, it could be almost as long. God help us if the solution to the pay dispute is for women to play more sets. We will all die of boredom.

Wimbledon should not be brow-beaten into paying men and women the same purely because it is the last remaining championship to pay women less. If uniformity was the aim, then it might as well stop playing on grass.

The reason that the men's Final is played after the women's is because it really IS the Final. It is the zenith of tennis. Women play tennis well, but men play it better. And it is Orwellian to try to distort this truth.

dailymail.co.uk
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
RE: British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as me

Who cares? They aren't really getting paid to play tennis anyway. They are getting paid to entertain. But I agree the whole 'pay equity' thing has been taken to ludicrous lengths.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
RE: British tennis star:

While Sarah Sands does bring out a number of significant issues, she failed to note that for several years it was the WTA that had the higher TV ratings. This brought in huge amounts of revenue into the world of tennis. The modeling that she criticized also brought in a great many sponsors into the tours and allowed for more TV coverage as well.

In several Grand Slams I have seen early round matches where two women played in a larger arena with a huge crowd of people, while a men's match in the same round was played in a small venue with at least half of the seats empty. Up to about last year it is the women who have been the main focus of media coverage, especially because of the Williams sisters. This has generated far more TV and media attention and therefore far more revenue into the sport. True, the women make millions more money in commercial endorsements than do the men. But that is a decision made by the sponsors, not by the sport.

I still say that the best solution is to make the men's final 2 of 3. That would easily settle the argument.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
RE: British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as me

Sony Ericsson signed an endorsement contract valued at $ 86 million with the WTA with cutie Maria Sharapova getting $ 6 million out of it. I know of no similar deal between the ATP and any one male player in it.

Martina Navratilova makes over $ 1 million and she is no longer active. Sania Mirza makes millions in endorsements and she's only rated # 40 in the WTA. In fact, only a couple of cricket players make more endorsement money in India. Outside of the very top male players, few ATP players make this kind of money.

Why? Again, because the sponsors make money on TV revenues and sales of tennis related products. And these are more generated by the female rather than male players. In fact, I believe that this past year was the first time in many a year that the TV ratings for a men's final surpassed the women's final in the US Open.

Remember a few years ago when the Williams sisters played a USO match on prime time TV? The place was sold out as it was during the men's event. But in addition the TV audience was FAR larger than the men's game and it was shown live on prime time. Costs for commercials during that time span are higher than day time hours. This means that the WTA players generated a far larger amount of revenue than did the ATP players. And yet, the winner did not get a larger payout than did the male winner. If payouts should be based on the amount of money generated by the tennis profession, it is likely that the WTA players may have to be paid more.


I spoke to a co-worker today and she said that she enjoyed the women's finale at Wimby though she missed the very end of the match due to her duties as a grandma. Strangely, she was not even aware that the men's finale was played on the next day. I have had numerous conversations about tennis during the past few years. Except for maybe 2 or 3 discussions of the men's matches, every conversation has dealt with the women's game. It seems that to most tennis fans, there is only one brand of real tennis -- that is, the brand played by the WTA. I'm not saying that this is the way it should be. Only that this is the way most peope think.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Re: British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as me

What happened to the discussion? Why no rebuttal or refutation?

It is clear that the women produce far more money to the sport of pro tennis via sales of merchandise than do the men. Multiples of millions more per year.

Suppose you and I worked for a company in sales - I work 60 hours a week but garner $10,000 in sales -- you work 40 hours but garner $1 million in sales --- should we be paid the same even though you produce more revenue?

For many years the men worked longer hours on the tennis court because they agreed to do so. The women work fewer hours with the knowledge and consent of the men but produce multiples of millions more in revenues while getting paid less. And unlike the men the women have not consented to getting paid less.

Is this fair?????
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as me

Blackleaf said:
The women get paid £625,000 for playing just 3 sets.

Whereas the men get paid £655, 000 for playing 5 sets.

That works out at around £208,333 per set for the women, but only £131,000 per set for the men, so the women players have no right to be wanting to be paid the same as the men.

If they got paid the same as men they would make less.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Re: British tennis star: women shouldn't have same pay as me

If they got paid the same as men they would {still} make less.



Absolutely.

In pro tennis it is the advertisers who generate the revenues that ultimately are paid out via prize monies. And it's the WTA that produces that stream of revenue.

Consider the ads in which Andre Agassi appears - while his face is the most recognized men's tennis face in the world, note how in each of those commercials he appears with his wife Steffi Graf. Why does he appear with a former women's tennis pro who retired ten years ago? Because, ultimately, it she who is doing the selling of the product. This means that a woman who retired ten years ago has more marketability than a man who is a current day legend! A retired female player is of greater marketing value than the greatest male legend today. This is utterly incredible!!!

Just imagine how much more money the WTA has produced in the past decade than has the ATP. That gulf may be in the hundreds of millions. If salaries were paid based on the amount of revenue produced the WTA would have made millions more for its players. Thus, contrary to what is so commonly believed the unfair pay gap that has favored ATP players over WTA players is the worse example of pay discrimination in sports history.