Do female tennis players deserve the same prize money as male tennis players?

[Metaphor]

So the answer you have given above is incomplete at best and/or a weak rationalization for the re-institution of sexist practices in pay for what I can see to be no other reason than to re-institute sexist practices.

Inequality of outcome does not make a practice sexist.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me, make clearer your point. For example, are you claiming that men should be paid more because they play more sets, or are you saying that equality of work, in the traditional sense of the word, does not apply to something so subjective as the value of performance top performers in the sport of tennis?

Whichever way you define it, it is clear that women's tennis produces less value.

Based on match length, women do not play as long as men, isolated cases aside. Men play best out of five sets, women play best out of three. Women produce less product and less value in terms of running time (a longer match means more eyeballs seeing more commercials.)

Based on viewer popularity, women's tennis is a less valuable product. The total number of eyeballs watching men's tennis dwarfs the eyeballs watching women's tennis. This situation might be turning around but it is not near parity.

Based on objective physical prowess, women's tennis is nearly a parody of men's tennis. If male and female players had objectively equal physical prowess, there'd be no need to force parity: there'd be a single ranked #1 player. But women cannot match the strength, speed and endurance of men. If they could, they wouldn't need a separate league of their own.

If Williams had to face Djokovic, she would be schooled more humiliatingly than the schoolings Williams herself has dished out to lesser female players.

So, tell me, on what basis do you think women's tennis deserves parity pay with men's tennis, and how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Metaphor]

[/thread]


That seems like a very appropriate way to settle this debate, doesn't it? She should challenge him to an "eat your words" match and see who gets more of the prize money (hint: loser gets zero).

So your answer is to have professional tennis implode and cease to be a money making venture for everyone (including men) by engaging a stunt to prove that men are just better dammit!?

WOW!

If women had to compete with men in tennis, professional tennis would not 'implode'. Oy vey.

 

[Metaphor]

Why not? It is just a game. I note that even people who do not play tennis seem to know the names of the female champs.

Not, why not? You can't just assume male and female elite athletes should be paid the same and expect people to accept the assertion without question.

So far, the only reason people appear to have come up with is that it would hurt the feelings of women to be paid less for their lesser performance. Apparently, it does not hurt the feelings of the #100 ranked man to be paid less than Serena Williams, even though whoever he is, he'd hand Serena's ass to her in straight sets.

 

[Tigers!]

Well, if you play and if you appreciate the game as you say, then you know that what a game is worth is determined by more than the number of sets played or how many minutes spent on the court.

That is true but those measures are subjective (read non-measureable) and thus are very rubbery. You are, if IIRC, a firm believer in equal pay for equal work.
So why are you complaining about possible differences between pay for tennis players? You have acknowledged, by your use of the words "a game is worth is determined by more than the number of sets played or how many minutes spent on the court", that the women do not work as hard as men. Why then are you complaining?

You quote subjective qualities when it suits you to say that women should get equal pay, yet if I were to use those same qualities to say men should get more you get upset.
You can't have it both ways. You either allow subjective qualities for both men & women or you allow for neither and base calculations on remuneration solely upon measurable quantities.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me, make clearer your point. For example, are you claiming that men should be paid more because they play more sets, or are you saying that equality of work, in the traditional sense of the word, does not apply to something so subjective as the value of performance top performers in the sport of tennis?

Or do you mean something else that you have yet to mention?

Equal pay for equal work. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Malintent]

Inequality of outcome does not make a practice sexist.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me, make clearer your point. For example, are you claiming that men should be paid more because they play more sets, or are you saying that equality of work, in the traditional sense of the word, does not apply to something so subjective as the value of performance top performers in the sport of tennis?

Whichever way you define it, it is clear that women's tennis produces less value.

Based on match length, women do not play as long as men, isolated cases aside. Men play best out of five sets, women play best out of three. Women produce less product and less value in terms of running time (a longer match means more eyeballs seeing more commercials.)

Based on viewer popularity, women's tennis is a less valuable product. The total number of eyeballs watching men's tennis dwarfs the eyeballs watching women's tennis. This situation might be turning around but it is not near parity.

Based on objective physical prowess, women's tennis is nearly a parody of men's tennis. If male and female players had objectively equal physical prowess, there'd be no need to force parity: there'd be a single ranked #1 player. But women cannot match the strength, speed and endurance of men. If they could, they wouldn't need a separate league of their own.

If Williams had to face Djokovic, she would be schooled more humiliatingly than the schoolings Williams herself has dished out to lesser female players.

So, tell me, on what basis do you think women's tennis deserves parity pay with men's tennis, and how did you come to that conclusion?

Athena has rejected all metrics presented for determining what fair prize money amounts should be. so if it is 'random' and based on nothing, then how can it be sexist? if prize money appropriateness sis unmeasurable, than how can you possibly measure it as unfair?

What, pray tell, is YOUR suggestion as to how to calculate an appropriate winning prize? And "anything that is equal between men and women" is a non-starter, because men and women do not play this sport together. It is two separate sports called Men's Tennis, and the other is called Women's Tennis. Saying they should be equal on no grounds whatsoever is unfair.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

[/thread]


That seems like a very appropriate way to settle this debate, doesn't it? She should challenge him to an "eat your words" match and see who gets more of the prize money (hint: loser gets zero).

So your answer is to have professional tennis implode and cease to be a money making venture for everyone (including men) by engaging a stunt to prove that men are just better dammit!?

WOW!

Somehow I have the impression that an angry grudge match between Djokovic and Williams would actually generate a significant amount of revenue for the sport; hardly an implosion as such.

On the other hand, if she's making the case that women should get equal pay, she is essentially implying that women are equal as athletes and effectively competing in the same league. If that turned out NOT to be the case, if the best female tennis player is no match for the best male tennis player, she doesn't really have an argument.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Inequality of outcome does not make a practice sexist.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me, make clearer your point. For example, are you claiming that men should be paid more because they play more sets, or are you saying that equality of work, in the traditional sense of the word, does not apply to something so subjective as the value of performance top performers in the sport of tennis?

Whichever way you define it, it is clear that women's tennis produces less value.

No.

Based on match length, women do not play as long as men, isolated cases aside. Men play best out of five sets, women play best out of three. Women produce less product and less value in terms of running time (a longer match means more eyeballs seeing more commercials.)

Based on viewer popularity, women's tennis is a less valuable product. The total number of eyeballs watching men's tennis dwarfs the eyeballs watching women's tennis. This situation might be turning around but it is not near parity.

Based on objective physical prowess, women's tennis is nearly a parody of men's tennis. If male and female players had objectively equal physical prowess, there'd be no need to force parity: there'd be a single ranked #1 player. But women cannot match the strength, speed and endurance of men. If they could, they wouldn't need a separate league of their own.

If Williams had to face Djokovic, she would be schooled more humiliatingly than the schoolings Williams herself has dished out to lesser female players.

So, tell me, on what basis do you think women's tennis deserves parity pay with men's tennis, and how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Malintent did say you reject all metrics.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yep, there is no object measure of equal value between the matches. It's not even equal in men's tennis in that not every single tennis tournament pays the same prize money as the next tournament. Do the players complain that each tournament isn't the same prize?

 

[Metaphor]

No.

So, you have no measure of value that you are willing to defend and yet you've rejected all measures of value discussed.

And even with no measure of value, you still imagine women's tennis ought to be at pay parity with men's tennis.

But of course, you do have a measure of value inasmuch as you think Serena Williams deserves more than whoever the hell is ranked #100 in the women's game. You agree that better players deserve more prize money. The winner of the Australian Open deserves more than the people eliminated in the first round.

And based on that measure, Serena Williams deserves far less than whoever is ranked #100 on the men's circuit, because that person would beat her by an embarrassing margin.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Inequality of outcome does not make a practice sexist.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me, make clearer your point. For example, are you claiming that men should be paid more because they play more sets, or are you saying that equality of work, in the traditional sense of the word, does not apply to something so subjective as the value of performance top performers in the sport of tennis?

Whichever way you define it, it is clear that women's tennis produces less value.

Based on match length, women do not play as long as men, isolated cases aside. Men play best out of five sets, women play best out of three. Women produce less product and less value in terms of running time (a longer match means more eyeballs seeing more commercials.)

Based on viewer popularity, women's tennis is a less valuable product. The total number of eyeballs watching men's tennis dwarfs the eyeballs watching women's tennis. This situation might be turning around but it is not near parity.

Based on objective physical prowess, women's tennis is nearly a parody of men's tennis. If male and female players had objectively equal physical prowess, there'd be no need to force parity: there'd be a single ranked #1 player. But women cannot match the strength, speed and endurance of men. If they could, they wouldn't need a separate league of their own.

If Williams had to face Djokovic, she would be schooled more humiliatingly than the schoolings Williams herself has dished out to lesser female players.

So, tell me, on what basis do you think women's tennis deserves parity pay with men's tennis, and how did you come to that conclusion?

Clearly you don't understand the concept of value. If people are willing to pay those prices to watch women's tennis then women will be paid a lot. Women who pay bowls are not paid much i anything because hardly anyone watches it.
The consumer is the one who decides on value by what they wish to pay to watch a match. Otherwise the only people who will profit are the people arranging the matches and also raking in the TV rights.
Equality of opportunity is not whether women can grow a penis

- - - Updated - - -

Inequality of outcome does not make a practice sexist.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me, make clearer your point. For example, are you claiming that men should be paid more because they play more sets, or are you saying that equality of work, in the traditional sense of the word, does not apply to something so subjective as the value of performance top performers in the sport of tennis?

Whichever way you define it, it is clear that women's tennis produces less value.

Based on match length, women do not play as long as men, isolated cases aside. Men play best out of five sets, women play best out of three. Women produce less product and less value in terms of running time (a longer match means more eyeballs seeing more commercials.)

Based on viewer popularity, women's tennis is a less valuable product. The total number of eyeballs watching men's tennis dwarfs the eyeballs watching women's tennis. This situation might be turning around but it is not near parity.

Based on objective physical prowess, women's tennis is nearly a parody of men's tennis. If male and female players had objectively equal physical prowess, there'd be no need to force parity: there'd be a single ranked #1 player. But women cannot match the strength, speed and endurance of men. If they could, they wouldn't need a separate league of their own.

If Williams had to face Djokovic, she would be schooled more humiliatingly than the schoolings Williams herself has dished out to lesser female players.

So, tell me, on what basis do you think women's tennis deserves parity pay with men's tennis, and how did you come to that conclusion?

Clearly you don't understand the concept of value. If people are willing to pay those prices to watch women's tennis then women will be paid a lot. Women who pay bowls are not paid much i anything because hardly anyone watches it.
The consumer is the one who decides on value by what they wish to pay to watch a match. Otherwise the only people who will profit are the people arranging the matches and also raking in the TV rights.
Equality of opportunity is not whether women can grow a penis

 

[dismal]

No.

So, you have no measure of value that you are willing to defend and yet you've rejected all measures of value discussed.

And even with no measure of value, you still imagine women's tennis ought to be at pay parity with men's tennis.

But of course, you do have a measure of value inasmuch as you think Serena Williams deserves more than whoever the hell is ranked #100 in the women's game. You agree that better players deserve more prize money. The winner of the Australian Open deserves more than the people eliminated in the first round.

And based on that measure, Serena Williams deserves far less than whoever is ranked #100 on the men's circuit, because that person would beat her by an embarrassing margin.

I'll side with Athena to a limited degree. There are no objective metrics that determine value. Some competitions set out to determine who the best player or team is but that only has value to the extent people are willing to pay to watch it or broadcast it.

There is no inherent value in being the best at something or winning a competition. There are lots of competitions that determine the best in the world at something that pay nothing or less.

No one imagines that Rhonda Rousey is the best fighter in the world, or these days even the best woman fighter in the world, but if she can command more pay-per-view dollars than anyone she can be better paid than anyone.

On the other hand, once you accept that what people value is subjective and what an professional athlete can make is based on the willingness of an audience to pay to see them and their ability to capture it, the idea that men and women should be paid equally is a complete non sequitur.

 

[Malintent]

No. I said that Athena seems to be rejecting all metrics other than 'what is the sex of the participant' to determine 'fairness' of prize money.

My preferred metric was revenue of the broadcast (and arena turnout) of the event. Further, I suggested that IF that were the 'correct' metric for determining what prize money should be, then women are granted FAR greater prize money than men, due to men's tennis matches drawing a far greater crowd, and therefore revenue.

So as for an illustrative example only (I have no idea what prizes actually are nor what revenue actually is):

a Men's tennis tournament brings in 10 million dollars in Ad revenue, rebroadcast rights, commercial sales, stadium ticket sales, etc..
that tournament issues $100,000 in prizes.

a Women's tennis tournament brings in 3 million dollars in the same type of revenue.
that tournament issues $70,000 in prizes.

Some people may say that this is not fair because women are being awarded $30,000 less thanmen
However, the reality (in this example) is that:
Men are being awarded 1% of the revenue as a prize
Women are being awarded 2.3% of the revenue as a prize.

This was just illustrative of how math works with respect to "equal" not being the same as "equitable".

Is this approach valid or not? If valid, then what are the actual numbers (actual revenue and actual prizes)?

 

[coloradoatheist]

No. I said that Athena seems to be rejecting all metrics other than 'what is the sex of the participant' to determine 'fairness' of prize money.

My preferred metric was revenue of the broadcast (and arena turnout) of the event. Further, I suggested that IF that were the 'correct' metric for determining what prize money should be, then women are granted FAR greater prize money than men, due to men's tennis matches drawing a far greater crowd, and therefore revenue.

So as for an illustrative example only (I have no idea what prizes actually are nor what revenue actually is):

a Men's tennis tournament brings in 10 million dollars in Ad revenue, rebroadcast rights, commercial sales, stadium ticket sales, etc..
that tournament issues $100,000 in prizes.

a Women's tennis tournament brings in 3 million dollars in the same type of revenue.
that tournament issues $70,000 in prizes.

Some people may say that this is not fair because women are being awarded $30,000 less thanmen
However, the reality (in this example) is that:
Men are being awarded 1% of the revenue as a prize
Women are being awarded 2.3% of the revenue as a prize.

This was just illustrative of how math works with respect to "equal" not being the same as "equitable".

Is this approach valid or not? If valid, then what are the actual numbers (actual revenue and actual prizes)?

For many tournaments you wouldn't be able to split it out because the two events are interchanged. Some time slots are strictly women and some men, but for most days its mixed. It's up to the tournament organizers to determine the value for the payment of players to draw the talent they want.

 

[dismal]

My preferred metric was revenue of the broadcast (and arena turnout) of the event.

But it's not just the revenue created it's also at least in part the perception of how important you are to the creation of that revenue.

I can play a Kentucky-Duke basketball game without any one particular guy, I just need Kentucky and Duke laundry. But I can't have a Rhonda Rousey fight without Rhonda Rousey.

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of value.

Clearly you don't understand how to read. I in fact made it clear that if women's tennis generated more revenue than men's tennis it makes sense that women should get paid more.

If people are willing to pay those prices to watch women's tennis then women will be paid a lot. Women who pay bowls are not paid much i anything because hardly anyone watches it.
The consumer is the one who decides on value by what they wish to pay to watch a match. Otherwise the only people who will profit are the people arranging the matches and also raking in the TV rights.
Equality of opportunity is not whether women can grow a penis

I don't know what the percentage of tennis revenue comes from stadium ticket holders versus tv rights, but I never said people should not be free to pay as much as they like to watch a tennis match.

 

[Metaphor]

So, you have no measure of value that you are willing to defend and yet you've rejected all measures of value discussed.

And even with no measure of value, you still imagine women's tennis ought to be at pay parity with men's tennis.

But of course, you do have a measure of value inasmuch as you think Serena Williams deserves more than whoever the hell is ranked #100 in the women's game. You agree that better players deserve more prize money. The winner of the Australian Open deserves more than the people eliminated in the first round.

And based on that measure, Serena Williams deserves far less than whoever is ranked #100 on the men's circuit, because that person would beat her by an embarrassing margin.

I'll side with Athena to a limited degree. There are no objective metrics that determine value. Some competitions set out to determine who the best player or team is but that only has value to the extent people are willing to pay to watch it or broadcast it.

There is no inherent value in being the best at something or winning a competition. There are lots of competitions that determine the best in the world at something that pay nothing or less.

No one imagines that Rhonda Rousey is the best fighter in the world, or these days even the best woman fighter in the world, but if she can command more pay-per-view dollars than anyone she can be better paid than anyone.

On the other hand, once you accept that what people value is subjective and what an professional athlete can make is based on the willingness of an audience to pay to see them and their ability to capture it, the idea that men and women should be paid equally is a complete non sequitur.

But I already said that value is subjective and that it is clear that people do not value women's tennis as much as men's tennis. However, measuring the value (in terms of revenue generated) is much less subjective.

I don't value tennis at all and were it to rely on my patronage, every tennis player would bring in $0 in prize money.

So I agree that since it's about the value you can generate as a result of your branding, there's no reason in the world to think that male tennis players must be valued the same as female tennis players.