Anti-male discrimination: Australian Open tennis.

I hate to point this out...

They are athletes...they are all already so far out of the equal pay for equal work paradigm the rest of the points are moot.

Add in that prize money is based on sponsorship, not just a randomly drawn up figure, and it is easy to see why the pay would be the same.

If the sponsors feel that they are getting the same return on investment from both, they will offer the same money for both...

Complete side note...if we want equality, there should be ONE tournament, with one pot to win...all the boys and girls can compete for it.

i think Venus Williams said it best:

Wimbledon has sent me a message: I'm only a second-class champion
The time has come for it to do the right thing: pay men and women equal prize money
Venus Williams

HAVE YOU ever been let down by someone that you had long admired, respected and looked up to? Little in life is more disappointing, particularly when that person does something that goes against the very heart of what you believe is right and fair.

When I was a little girl, and Serena and I played matches together, we often pretended that we were in the final of a famous tournament. More often than not we imagined we were playing on the Centre Court at Wimbledon. Those two young sisters from Compton, California, were “Wimbledon champions” many times, years before our dreams of playing there became reality.

There is nothing like playing at Wimbledon; you can feel the footprints of the legends of the game — men and women — that have graced those courts. There isn’t a player who doesn’t dream of holding aloft the Wimbledon trophy. I have been fortunate to do so three times, including last year. That win was the highlight of my career to date, the culmination of so many years of work and determination, and at a time when most people didn’t consider me to be a contender.

So the decision of the All England Lawn Tennis Club yet again to treat women as lesser players than men — undeserving of the same amount of prize money — has a particular sting.

I’m disappointed not for myself but for all of my fellow women players who have struggled so hard to get here and who, just like the men, give their all on the courts of SW19. I’m disappointed for the great legends of the game, such as Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert, who have never stopped fighting for equality. And disappointed that the home of tennis is sending a message to women across the world that we are inferior.

With power and status comes responsibility. Well, Wimbledon has power and status. The time has come for it to do the right thing by paying men and women the same sums of prize money. The total prize pot for the men’s events is £5,197,440; for the women it is £4,446,490. The winner of the ladies’ singles receives £30,000 less than the men’s winner; the runner-up £15,000 less, and so on down to the first-round losers.

How can it be that Wimbledon finds itself on the wrong side of history? How can the words Wimbledon and inequality be allowed to coexist? I’ve spent my life overcoming challenges and those who said certain things couldn’t be achieved for this or that reason. My parents taught me that dreams can come true if you put in the effort. Maybe that’s why I feel so strongly that Wimbledon’s stance devalues the principle of meritocracy and diminishes the years of hard work that women on the tour have put into becoming professional tennis players.

I believe that athletes — especially female athletes in the world’s leading sport for women — should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message: 128 men and 128 women compete in the singles main draw at Wimbledon; the All England Club is saying that the accomplishments of the 128 women are worth less than those of the 128 men. It diminishes the stature and credibility of such a great event in the eyes of all women.

The funny thing is that Wimbledon treats men and women the same in so many other respects; winners receive the same trophy and honorary membership. And as you enter Centre Court, the two photographs of last year’s men’s and women’s champions are hung side by side, proudly and equally.

So why does Wimbledon choose to place a lesser value on my championship trophy than that of the 2005 men’s winner Roger Federer? The All England Club is familiar with my views on the subject; at Wimbledon last year, the day before the final, I presented my views to it and its French Open counterparts. Both clearly gave their response: they are firmly in the inequality for women camp.

Wimbledon has argued that women’s tennis is worth less for a variety of reasons; it says, for example, that because men play a best of five sets game they work harder for their prize money.

This argument just doesn’t make sense; first of all, women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments. Tim Phillips, the chairman of the All England Club, knows this and even acknowledged that women players are physically capable of this.

Secondly, tennis is unique in the world of professional sports. No other sport has men and women competing for a grand slam championship on the same stage, at the same time. So in the eyes of the general public the men’s and women’s games have the same value.

Third, athletes are also entertainers; we enjoy huge and equal celebrity and are paid for the value we deliver to broadcasters and spectators, not the amount of time we spend on the stage. And, for the record, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men’s. No extra charge.

Let’s not forget that the US Open, for 33 years, and the Australian Open already award equal prize money. No male player has complained — why would they?

Wimbledon has justified treating women as second class because we do more for the tournament. The argument goes that the top women — who are more likely also to play doubles matches than their male peers — earn more than the top men if you count singles, doubles and mixed doubles prize money. So the more we support the tournament, the more unequally we should be treated! But doubles and mixed doubles are separate events from the singles competition. Is Wimbledon suggesting that, if the top women withdrew from the doubles events, that then we would deserve equal prize money in singles? And how then does the All England Club explain why the pot of women’s doubles prize money is nearly £130,000 smaller than the men’s doubles prize money?

Equality is too important a principle to give up on for the sake of less than 2 per cent of the profit that the All England Club will make at this year’s tournament. Profit that men and women will contribute to equally through sold-out sessions, TV ratings or attraction to sponsors. Of course, one can never distinguish the exact value brought by each sex in a combined men’s and women’s championship, so any attempt to place a lesser value on the women’s contribution is an exercise in pure subjectivity.

Let’s put it another way, the difference between men and women’s prize money in 2005 was £456,000 — less than was spent on ice cream and strawberries in the first week. So the refusal of the All England Club, which declared a profit of £25 million from last year’s tournament, to pay equal prize money can’t be about cash. It can only be trying to make a social and political point, one that is out of step with modern society.

I intend to keep doing everything I can until Billie Jean’s original dream of equality is made real. It’s a shame that the name of the greatest tournament in tennis, an event that should be a positive symbol for the sport, is tarnished.

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
I intend to keep doing everything I can until Billie Jean’s original dream of equality is made real. It’s a shame that the name of the greatest tournament in tennis, an event that should be a positive symbol for the sport, is tarnished.

Wouldn't this "dream of equality" ultimately lead to the elimination of any gender-based separation and thus lead to only one division where men and women truly compete "equally", on one playing field?

the Billmeister

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

I'd easily give the likes of Wozniacki, Serena and Venus Williams, and any other of these ''top'' female players, a decent match... And I'm sure that I'd easily beat these ''professional'' female players in a genuine match...

It's not my fault that I'm a half-decent tennis player, now is it ?!

...the only point to that braggerty avenue is that you are NOT doing anything about it (whining does not count) - hence my previous armchair racket slinger remark...

...since you lost the last challenge i offered, heres a chance to redeem yourself... i challenge you to do as you have bragged... of course, you'll have to supply undeniable proof that you have easily beaten notable female players...

...yes?... no?...

reply to post by korathin

The problem is that Tennis is a perfect example of what women and feminist's mean when they say "equal pay for equal work". What they really really mean is that they want "equal to or more pay for doing much,much less work".

Dude I don't know squat about tennis just so you know. But I don't see the discrimination, and I know of them females and there ways. And yes your right that when they say "equal" it does translate to them getting more for doing less or them just being treated differently and always getting a man to pay for there #, and to tell the truth they cant have both, nor would they deserve it in my opinion. But I just don't see the discrimination against males in this, and you cant really compare sports to regular jobs or other things.

But this is about tennis, and tennis is not a sport thats really about raw strength or other things were males would have an advantage, you hit a ball with a racket for god's sake. And even if it was some of them females would probably have the advantage there, because I saw on the TV one famous male tennis player, forgot his name though, and I also saw some female player named Venus or something. And let me tell you, that girl looked like she could bench press the famous male tennis player.

My point being they should let females play against male players in tennis, this is not a fight or an arm wrestling competition, I think if they practiced, the females stand a good chance of beating the male players. So what exactly is the problem? They want equality, well in this format of this sport, why not? Lets see who comes out on top if there was a competition were all would be allowed to play both male's and females.

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Besides aren't all the spectator sports athletes salaries based on scale by how much draw potential they have and popularity. The ladies might lose if they played against the males, but if they put buts in seats and sell tickets and whatever else tennis is about, then who really cares, maybe they got more females watching tennis now a days then in the past, so the female players are asking and deserving a raise.

Women's tennis is not a big crowd puller, though.

This is the point.

Men were always paid more than women in tennis, based on those factors that you mention.

It was only clamouring from the women tennis players and support from feminazis that got them ''achieving'' equal pay.


A female tennis player becomes popular only if she's good-looking, or if she attracts attention because of her sexuality.

Female tennis players do not get bums on seats because of their style of play, which is feeble, monotonus, and 95% based on power ( which doesn't make interesting viewing ).

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Bobby Riggs said something similar to what you are saying, and we all know how that turned out.

55-year-old Bobby Riggs, whose last Grand Slam win came 33 years ! before he took on 29-year-old Billie-Jean King, women's world number 1, and reigning champion of three out of the four Grand Slams.


Why don't we talk about Karsten Braasch ? The chain-smoking nobody, ranked 450 in the world, who comfortably beat Venus Williams in 2000 ?


Because that would only prove my point ?

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Since you are not playing in the Open, why do you care who gets how much money?

Great argument (!)

Since I wasn't working on the slave plantations, then why I should I care about how much money they got ?

Come on man. This is just stupid in 2011. I mean in 1970 it made sense and that's why we had the battle of the sexes...
en.wikipedia.org...(tennis)




And guess what? The female actually won the first one.


So yeah...I guess the best female player in the world can and has beat the best male player in the world from time to time.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
So if you are a half-decent tennis player. why are you not playing professionally? Why don't you get in touch with the Williams sisters' agents and challenge either of them to a match? Or since you are so good, why not challenge them to a 2-on-1 match?

Because I'm a half-decent amateur male player.

I'm pretty sure I would beat Wozniacki, as I would just keep on pummelling her forehand, and not play to her backhand, as so many of the other female players continually do.

Serena and Venus would beat me in a 2-on-1 match, but I'd probably beat either of them in a game of singles.


I'm pretty sure their agents would not take on the challenge !

Surprisingly enough, top female tennis players are very reluctant to take on men...


I'm not saying that I'm a great tennis player, just a half-decent amateur. If I was that good, then I would have turned pro.

Originally posted by Reptius
So yeah...I guess the best female player in the world can and has beat the best male player in the world from time to time.

The best female player in the world has never beaten the best male player in the world.

Are you serious ?


Bobby Riggs was 55 in 1973, and hadn't won a major tournament in 33 years !


Please learn the facts before spouting such nonsense.

Originally posted by Movhisattva
I'm quite sure the ITF makes more money on female tennis, since -at least around here- it's far more popular than male tennis. Having two female topplayers (Henin and Clijsters) in our country might explain of course..

Of course that's the reason.

Belgium is hardly a sporting powerhouse, so to have two players who have reached the top in one sport is something that will make headlines in a country like Belgium.

I'm sure the same would've have happened if it had been Malisse or one of the Rochus' hitting the top.

Originally posted by Movhisattva
Equal price money seems just fair to me.

How ?

What about ''equal work for equal pay'' ?

Nice to see the contributions from korathin, starless and bible black, DarthPhobos and jexmo, who not only understand the sport, but the relevant issues that I'm bringing up in this thread.

Good work, chaps !

Rather than the ''I want, I want, I want'' mantra that is coming from those others on this thread who don't have a grasp of the subject matter at hand, and really shouldn't be commenting on something that they know next to nothing about.

Originally posted by peck420
Add in that prize money is based on sponsorship, not just a randomly drawn up figure, and it is easy to see why the pay would be the same.

If the sponsors feel that they are getting the same return on investment from both, they will offer the same money for both...

Yes, and this is why the men were always paid more.

The men are a much bigger draw card, because they play better tennis, and they earn more in sponsorship endorsements.

Women tennis players are only draw cards if they are good-looking, a la Sharapova, Kournikova, Kirilenko et al.


To put it bluntly, if the women's final is played out between two munters, then nobody is interested.

Originally posted by peck420
Complete side note...if we want equality, there should be ONE tournament, with one pot to win...all the boys and girls can compete for it.

I agree 100%.

This is my position, as well.

i say we just put them in bikinis and the difference will be earned. should increase the amount of viewers.

ADDED: sorry, i didnt know you took your games so serious.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the only point to that braggerty avenue is that you are NOT doing anything about it (whining does not count) - hence my previous armchair racket slinger remark...

There is nothing I can do about it, considering that I'm not good enough to get in to the top 1,500 in the men's game, yet would dispatch the likes of Wozniacki, Zvonareva and the Williams' in style.

The problem is that the top women players rely on power, if someone can switch it up, and offer a varied game, utilising slice and spin, then these players all look extremely ordinary.

Sadly, they only do well because they are up against other players who play exactly the same game.

''The best of a bad bunch'', so to speak.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...since you lost the last challenge i offered, heres a chance to redeem yourself... i challenge you to do as you have bragged... of course, you'll have to supply undeniable proof that you have easily beaten notable female players...

...yes?... no?...

I do not remember you offering me a challenge, and if you had, then I highly doubt that I would have lost it to you.


Please come back to the real world, and explain to me how an amateur British male player would have been able to get a match against a professional female player ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There is nothing I can do about it, considering that I'm not good enough

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff760266e788.gif[/atsimg]
...its okay, sweetie...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I do not remember you offering me a challenge, and if you had, then I highly doubt that I would have lost it to you.

...you dont remember our bet that YOU LOST about the rape laws in the uk?... do you remember sending me a private email admitting that you were wrong?... no?... then you should see a doctor ASAP about early onset alzheimers...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Please come back to the real world, and explain to me how an amateur British male player would have been able to get a match against a professional female player ?

...you're the one who needs the explanation, dear, since you're the one with the big brag...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb4038031260.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Only on the internet will you find so many cries that straight white males are being oppressed at every turn. Good lord.

No. Your post is ridiculous. There's a men's open and a women's open. The winner of these events gain $2.2 million in prize money. If a woman playing by the rules of the women's opens wins $2.2 million, then this in no way disadvantages the man. You might as well be complaining that nascar winners make the same money, when all they do is make left turns.

Your problem is that women are not being penalized for being women. And that's stupid.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Only on the internet will you find so many cries that straight white males are being oppressed at every turn. Good lord.

Nowhere was sexuality or race brought up. Someone's sexuality or race is irrelevant to their tennis ability.

Please take your agenda somewhere else.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
No. Your post is ridiculous.

My post is fine; it's some of the replies that leave a lot to be desired.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There's a men's open and a women's open. The winner of these events gain $2.2 million in prize money. If a woman playing by the rules of the women's opens wins $2.2 million, then this in no way disadvantages the man.

Of course it is; they've got a prize-pot of $4.4m. By overpaying the women, they are taking off money that the men should deservedly be earning.

This is how it used to work, before they decided to pay equal pay for unequal work.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You might as well be complaining that nascar winners make the same money, when all they do is make left turns.

That analogy has no bearing whatsoever on this topic.

In fact, NASCAR racing is a sport where people are awarded money on their ability, not their gender. Danica Patrick is as good as a lot of the men, so she earns her prize-money fairly.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Your problem is that women are not being penalized for being women. And that's stupid.

What's stupid is your straw-man argument.

Nowhere did I say that women should be penalised; I have no objection to the organisers paying out a total of $2.2 in the women's section, if they want to, just so long as the men are awarded more money for the extra quality, quantity and pulling-power of their tennis.

Equal work for equal pay.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...you dont remember our bet that YOU LOST about the rape laws in the uk?... do you remember sending me a private email admitting that you were wrong?... no?... then you should see a doctor ASAP about early onset alzheimers...

I don't believe we had a ''bet''.

I mistakenly interpreted the wording of the law, and upon further reflection, realised that you were correct.

I then sent you a PM acknowledging my mistake, soon after I found out that I was wrong.

I fail to see what your problem is, apart from a feeble need to claim some kind of ''victory'' over me, which - although I obviously take it as a compliment - can only stem from deep-seated feelings of insecurity and inferiority on your part.

Your problem, not mine.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...you're the one who needs the explanation, dear, since you're the one with the big brag...

There is no ''explaining'' needed from me, as it's you who has got the wrong end of the stick.

You have to realise the difference between ''could'' and ''have''.

Example:

''I could beat the ''top'' female tennis players'' does not logically lead to your bizarre request for ''undeniable proof'' that I have beaten the ''top'' female players.

Watch and learn.