Posted: Mar 02, 2014 11:53 am
by Fallible
Thommo wrote:
Fallible wrote:I knew you were going to bring up the tennis thing. There have been complaints that the women in certain tournaments receive the same prize money as men, despite them playing less sets (this was not always the case, it was changed recently). What is ignored here is that it's the same amount of effort for them to reach the very highest level as it is for men. Having put in the same effort, it makes sense that they should be rewarded the same. That said, I see no reason why women should not play the same number of sets as men - the fact that they do not seems to be based on the idea that women can endure less. Yet they are able to for example run marathons of the same distance as men.


I more or less agree with you about everything but the tennis, the women earn more for less effort, indeed the lesser stress of women's singles frequently enables top players to enter the doubles in the same tournament (often mixed doubles) and earn a second prize purse.


I don't know what you mean by ''earn more''. Men also appear in the doubles in the same tournament. Andy Murray won a silver medal in the Olympics with Laura Robson, as well as winning the gold in the singles event. He also takes part in the Wimbledon doubles competition, but he's crap at it so tends not to get very far. Perhaps you can put that down to the singles taking more out of him, but Federer got to the quarter finals in 2000 in the doubles, so I'm not sure. My opinion is that once you reach a certain level (freakishly fit), it doesn't make much difference whether you play 2 sets or 3, 3 sets or 5. Both men and women have played matches that have gone on for hours. For me, there's no reason why women shouldn't do 5 sets like the men.

Not to mention sponsorship, which interestingly ties well back into the overall topic - players like Sharapova or Kournikova can earn substantially more in off court fees due to their appearances than say someone like Marian Bartoli (who is an excellent player and quite likeable when interviewed). Indeed Bartoli had to receive an apology for dickish commentary during the last Wimbledon.


Andy Murray, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Boris Becker, Roger Federer, Raphael Nadal...these people have all taken part in advertising campaigns and endorsements. Are women earning substantially more than them? Federed gets $10 million a year from Nike alone. It's reckoned he got $71 million between 2012 and 2013. Maria Sharapova, the most highly paid women's tennis player in terms of endorsements is second to him, and it's not a close second, she earns less than half what he does. The next two highest earners are men - Djokovic and Nadal. Then it's Serena Williams, with $6.5 million beteween her and 4th place. The top 10 is split right down the middle between men and women. Federer is top dog for a reason, and it's not just because he's an excellent tennis player. He's also extremely good looking and gives off an air of sophistication. As for dickish commentary - I've seen a fair few remarks about Andy Murray's pasty and glum appearance. Stepping outside of tennis for a moment, Peter Beardsley, anyone? I don't think your comments stack up.


Incidentally I'm not quite sure why weight categories in boxing are being compared to separation of men and women in athletics. The reasons are patently not the same ones, if they were there would also be weight categories in (for example) sprinting - there aren't.


I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?