Posted: Mar 02, 2014 12:34 pm
by Thommo
Fallible wrote: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.


I don't agree with your assessment of the regularity with which men and women compete in the doubles, it's somehwat common for top women to do well in the doubles, it's incredibly rare for the top men to do it (or even enter in normal prize money tournaments - admittedly the olympics is perhaps a special case). I also don't agree with the difference between best of 3 and best of 5 set matches being small, it's a well identified phenomenon that player's performance often dips after a tough 5 setter, last year Djokovic was markedly more sluggish in the final, for example.

The last line I agree with. There is no good reason women should not play 5 sets as well, this would be the equitable solution - same work, same pay.

Fallible wrote: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.


My comments pointing out that better looking women earn substantially more in sponsorship than the not so good looking ones in a number of high profile cases? I think they do. What's your explanation for Sharapova getting better sponsorship deals than Serena Williams? She's had a far less successful career and is lower in the world rankings. What about Anna Kournikova's famous success with sponsors?

I don't think these are non-factors.

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


Boxers are separated by weight so they don't kill or seriously injure one another. Athletes aren't. The reasons for weight division in combat sports and martial arts is distinct from the reason for gender division in athletics. TMB was making a false comparison.