Wimbledon joint prize money

Wimbledon announced today that the men and womens singles champions will receive the same prize money for the first time pleasing equality groups no end. Personally Im against it. If women played 5 sets then fine BUT they dont and I think the previous state of affairs was fair and didnt need to be changed.

i read and rated a few of your reviews!
ciaos fav member

your turn!

I hope to get enough to buy harry potter and the deathly hallows!!!

how did my post get here i was supposed to be posting in dooyoo!!!?????????????

Have not seen the full announcement, is it only the champion who gets the same money like in the French open or does it apply to all of the rounds like the American and Aussie opens.

To be honest the difference in prize money is only £30k based on last year, given that Federer won £635k the % gap was small it is more symbolic than financial.

I'm not convinced over this whole 5 set 3 set argument, if you take the same concept it is like saying in athletics the sprinters should be paid less than the 10,000 metre runners.

The real decider over pay should be about the marketability of the game which is normally based on how competitive / entertaining the games are and what brings in the revenue, I think the French have it right (not often I say that) in that the finals are equally attractive however there is more strength in depth in the mens game making the early rounds far more entertaining hence the first round loser in the mens gets more than in the womens as to be honest most of the early rounds in the womens tennis are a bit one sided.

I think it's time men and women played equal sets, however I think men's should be reduced to 3 simply because 1) it's not as long - I always find the women more entertaining while the mens usually drag. 2) TV point of view it seems whenever there is coverage of tennis on TV it always over runs, having less sets reduces the chance of that this might also be more appealing to TV schedulers as it means less programs being bumped off. Either way they should be paid equally and do equal sets after all they all put the same dedication into the sport whether male or female.

The argument that men play more sets is bogus - in a lot of tournaments they don't and as someone wisely pointed out above, I don't see the winner of the marathon taking home a bigger prize than the 100 metres.

It's about entertainment first and foremost. Many of the women would happily do 5 sets if it meant equal money and any arguments that the 'girls are too delicate' don't wash. Don't tell me the likes of Amelie Mauresmo and the Williams sisters are going to faint from heat exhaustion and need a lie-down after 3 sets.

Mens 5 set tennis has been getting more and more tedious.

[quote="koshkha"] Many of the women would happily do 5 sets if it meant equal money and any arguments that the 'girls are too delicate' don't wash. [quote]

Yep and when the ruling was made for women only being suitable to do three sets because they fainted - tennis attire back then for women was probably corsets that covered them from next to feet.

thebluehippo wrote:

Yep and when the ruling was made for women only being suitable to do three sets because they fainted - tennis attire back then for women was probably corsets that covered them from next to feet.

I would be in favour of bringing this back for some of the players.

Its rare a ladies match last 90 minutes even the final.

Why cant they play 5 sets ?

The 5 set matches in mens can be a true test of tennis (stamina and skill).

Women "can" play five sets...

It's just we are always more efficient than men


I don't think the three set/five set argument holds much water really. It isnt about time on court after all. They are not hourly paid workers, plus men do not get a reduction in prize money for winning in straight sets rather than a five set marathon...and the same logic would have to apply.

I think the 5 vs 3 set thing is important. The men work a lot harder than the women to achieve champion status.

In athletics sprinting and long distance races are two completely different events so that comparison doesnt hold.

WormThatTurned wrote:

I think the 5 vs 3 set thing is important. The men work a lot harder than the women to achieve champion status.

In athletics sprinting and long distance races are two completely different events so that comparison doesnt hold.

How do you measure how hard they work??

the comparison between sprinting, and long distance was made to suggest that one is no less important than the other.

But in effect they are different sports with different emphasis's whereas womens and mens Tennis are the same event - Tennis.

I measure 'harder' by sets. Men can play upto 35 sets through the tournament (7 by 5)
Women 21 sets (7 by 3).

The solution is simple. Women play 5 sets. Hey presto end of argument lol.

I believe Martina Navratilova suggested that a long time ago...when attitudes about women's pay in general were very different to today...but the menfolk of world tennis obviously didnt like it. (or perhaps she offered to beat them at their own game, I cannot recall.. )

So can I ask, if you dont think women should be paid the same as men, do you think they should be paid 3/5th of the male prize, like piece workers?

What happens if a man wins the championship in straight sets? Should he only get 3/5th of the prize as he has only played 3/5 of the time?

WormThatTurned wrote:

I think the 5 vs 3 set thing is important. The men work a lot harder than the women to achieve champion status.

Pardon my french but that's bollox - most of these guys do nothing but stand around serving aces one after another. It's like watching paint dry. Hit it hard, pocket the cash

Arguably tennis is one of the few sports where the women outdraw the men, for the entertainment women bring to the game you could argue they should be paid more.
I see what your getting at as more sets = more TV time = more ad revenue - however as said above men's tennis seems to be just smashing volleys back at each other do people actually sit down to watch that? I don't - I usually channel surf and keep checking what the score is.

Using your logic you could argue that a premiership footballer shouldn't be paid as much as a championship footballer if all they do is train in reserves and come on as a sub every so often, while the championship player is a regular in the first team.

Not sure I agree that the women are a bigger draw, certainly in the early rounds of the slams womens tennis is very poor and predictable with often quite one sided matches, the mens is a lot less serve and volley these days, even at Wimbledon they slowed up the courts last year.

I find the mens interesting and the womens boring until the semi finals but each to their own.