Novak thinks that the ATP should fight for more prize money than the women

[Federberg]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/21/novak-djokovic-indian-wells-equal-prize-money-tennis

Not sure if this was the smartest move by Novak. But at least he characterised the debate in the right way. This is not about hours spent, physicality or number of sets, this is about entertainment. He seems to be saying that if one tour is regularly pulling in better viewing numbers than the other, then that tour should get more money. I have no problem with that. Thoughts?

 

[britbox]

I agree with him. It should be based on commercial viability and that alone. I wouldn't care less if the WTA players received more money if it was more successful commercially, but I suspect it isn't, at least not at the moment.

 

[Federberg]

I agree with him. It should be based on commercial viability and that alone. I wouldn't care less if the WTA players received more money if it was more successful commercially, but I suspect it isn't, at least not at the moment.

yes agreed. I do recall a time, before Roger became a force in the early noughties when there were many times where the WTA matches were more interesting to watch than the men's, if the women were being paid more than the men it would have been perfectly justified.

 

[mrzz]

Djokovic is plain right, and have addressed the discussion in the right way.

 

[EdbergsGhost]

The press is going after him for his comments. Many of the headlines are sensationalism, and what he really said is buried somewhere at the bottom of the article.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nov...ceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=novak+djokovic&tbm=nws

Novak Djokovic questions equal prize money after official sparks sexism row with 'go down on your knees' remark...

 

[Federberg]

Yup. Typical sensationalist nonsense from the British media. I watched a hysterical female journalist lambasting him for his comments, which if you actually study it weren't sexist at all. I wish they would just stick with the facts

 

[Moxie]

This all got started by comments made by Raymond Moore, CEO of Indian Wells, which he subsequently apologized for, and they were seriously sexist: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/20/raymond-moore-indian-wells-wta-sexist-remarks I've had this debate with some of you here before. Britbox is using my argument, which is the prize money is for being commercially viable. There may be more marquee names on the men's side at the moment, but this also changes. So you'd have to keep prorating the purses every few years. The Williams sisters have been a big draw virtually all of their careers. Hate to mention Sharapova, but she's a big star. There are stars on both sides. And when the big 4 are gone, you could find the WTA carrying the ATP a bit, depending on stars who come up.

 

[Denis]

As a spectator, I never cared much for the wta tour or women's tennis. In fact, since at Slams I generally only get to see the big show courts I find women's tennis a bit annoying. I'd rather watch a second tier men's match than Williams blasting some random wta player off the court.

That being said, putting this stuff in practice is impossible. These are hugely subjective factors that vary over the years. Equal pay is just easier and to be honest more fair.

The Wta is a big mess though. Nobody understands their tournament system. The atp has a good thing going on with the masters and the smaller events. It's much more recognizable.

 

[Moxie]

Good post, Denis, and I appreciate that you say equal pay is more fair. And you're honest about what you don't like about the WTA. I do think women's tennis is a bit of a mess right now, and it has been for a while. It has a lot of "Dimitrov's." Players full of potential, then regression, good play, then regression. Chris Evert was rather caustic about that while commentating the other day. She says there are too many players that act like they don't want to be there, and making a living as a tennis player...well, there are worse jobs, eh? But who's to say when the next great WTA rivalry will come up?

As to preferring a 2nd tier men's match: yes, but we're committed tennis fans. We know the players and the stakes. For the big events, particularly, the co-ed ones, the tournament and the TV people are relying on the casual viewers/ticket buyers, too, and they watch/attend because of stars. In the year before Martina retired, I was at the USO and people jammed into Court 11 to watch Martina play a doubles match. Because they love women's doubles? No, because Martina was playing, and she's a legend. I know she was one reason people came out to the USO in her last couple of years. If you sell tickets, you deserve your share of the pot. Some women do. Plenty of men don't. If you have a mixed event, as you say, the only fair way to parse it is to pay equal money.

I'm rather shocked that Djokovic chose to wade into the controversy, especially as Raymond Moore was already walking his comments back. Nadal did something similar when Spain chose a woman to coach their DC team a couple of years ago. She was replacing Moyà, who is Rafa's good friend, but still...keeping your mouth shut is always an option.

 

[Ricardo]

would it make me a sexist by saying that better players deserve more? WTA players are far worse than second tier ATP players, i don't care about gender equality, it's the tennis..... if you want to give worse players equal pay because they are 'women' then it's sexism in itself.

Meanwhile i can't find any data showing WTA carried ATP, its an unfounded argument. Djoker is right telling the truth but he is so 'wrong' by not being politically correct... its a bloody social disease these days, we don't need to please the feminists who actually never achieved things of importance, they always just 'talk'.

 

[Moxie]

would it make me a sexist by saying that better players deserve more? WTA players are far worse than second tier ATP players, i don't care about gender equality, it's the tennis..... if you want to give worse players equal pay because they are 'women' then it's sexism in itself.

Meanwhile i can't find any data showing WTA carried ATP, its an unfounded argument. Djoker is right telling the truth but he is so 'wrong' by not being politically correct... its a bloody social disease these days, we don't need to please the feminists who actually never achieved things of importance, they always just 'talk'.

Not sexist, just impractical. Or ignoring a certain reality about endorsements. You can't pay the individual players more. But their sponsors do. You can't say that some women aren't a draw for the public, and ignore that some men lose in swift and embarrassing matches. Or that they aren't that interesting as players. Just look at the finals yesterday: even a tepid Serena made a great push late in the match. The men's was a tiresome blow-out. Which was the better show? As to your above that I bolded...that's a fairly broad statement. Do you really mean that there's never a feminist, or a woman, that's actually "achieved" anything of importance. Seriously?

 

[Ricardo]

Not sexist, just impractical. Or ignoring a certain reality about endorsements. You can't pay the individual players more. But their sponsors do. You can't say that some women aren't a draw for the public, and ignore that some men lose in swift and embarrassing matches. Or that they aren't that interesting as players. Just look at the finals yesterday: even a tepid Serena made a great push late in the match. The men's was a tiresome blow-out. Which was the better show? As to your above that I bolded...that's a fairly broad statement. Do you really mean that there's never a feminist, or a woman, that's actually "achieved" anything of importance. Seriously?

Men achieved more, much more while feminists talked more, wouldn't you agree?

By and large, people prefer matches of higher level. It's human nature, you are not basing all your argument on the 'stars' (the few WTA players who draw more people than some unknown ATP players) who are exceptions? the ATP players are more successful commercially for the vast majority of time (or you don't know that?), so making it equal pay 'all the time' and across the board would be inequality in itself.

Men invented the sport, professionalized and commercialised it and are simply better players, agree? or is it not ok to mention it given the current social expectations (oh everyone is equal, bla bla bla)? we don't all need to sing the same song, one should be entitled to his/her opinion when its based on facts.

 

[Ricardo]

in any case i say kudos to Novak for not following the herd, then again champs don't become champs because he is just 'conventional'.....

 

[Moxie]

Men achieved more, much more while feminists talked more, wouldn't you agree?

By and large, people prefer matches of higher level. It's human nature, you are not basing all your argument on the 'stars' (the few WTA players who draw more people than some unknown ATP players) who are exceptions? the ATP players are more successful commercially for the vast majority of time (or you don't know that?), so making it equal pay 'all the time' and across the board would be inequality in itself.

Men invented the sport, professionalized and commercialised it and are simply better players, agree? or is it not ok to mention it given the current social expectations (oh everyone is equal, bla bla bla)? we don't all need to sing the same song, one should be entitled to his/her opinion when its based on facts.

Why don't we leave off the word "feminist" and substitute "women," as that is what you're saying. That men have achieved more...what?...in history? While they control the narrative? Sure. Women haven't actually done badly, since we have been treated as "property" across much of history, and convenient bargaining tools for advantageous marriages. Since we haven't even been always the ones educated, including now. Given the handicapping, we've done ok.

Men invented tennis, playing to their strengths, as they have with most sports. There are sports where women excel over men, but they are not the most popular. You say people prefer matches at a higher level, and I gave you an example of one in which the women's was more compelling, which you ignored.

If your measure is what the commercial world thinks they're worth, here is a list of the top 10 earners in tennis: http://www.abcnewspoint.com/top-10-richest-tennis-players-in-the-world/ 5 men, 5 women.

 

[Mastoor]

It's probably the only big sport in which you have non sense like this. There's no chance women can be paid as much as men in football (any, worldwide, american, rugby or aussie rules) or basketball.

Reason is simple : male athletes attract more spectators, therefore more money. Perhaps in tennis the difference is not as bis as in basketball or any football, but still many more people watch ATP than WTA.

Another reason is that difference in TV time is important in tennis especially in slams and men play much longer matches than women, that means more time for commercials which means more money earned.

 

[Moxie]

Male athletes attract more spectators in the other sports that you mention. Women barely play them, though basketball is gaining traction. But for the very reason you say that only tennis draws this kind of controversy is one of the reasons that women deserve equal pay. As women, we only see ourselves as dominating stars in so many sports, and tennis is the top among them. (Figure skating, basketball, golf and running are our other best ones.) You should not forget that women are by and large the consumers in, at least, the US. Therefore, we are a desired demographic for advertising. If we can see ourselves in a sport, we can be advertised to. This is worth money. Don't kid yourselves that it's all about who hits the biggest forehand. Eyes on the advertising is what the money is about.

 

[Moxie]

in any case i say kudos to Novak for not following the herd, then again champs don't become champs because he is just 'conventional'.....

There was no "herd." He didn't have to say anything. The whole thing just popped up yesterday. It was his choice to chime in. I suspect he knows who he's appealing to. He already has a bit of a shirt-ripping he-man reputation. Well-calculated, probably. It seems to be working with some of you guys.

 

[mrzz]

This is a non-argument. Play the men and the women's tournaments side by side, and count the tickets. Air them on different networks and see who gets the highest sponsors.

This is professional sport. Nobody deserves nothing.

 

[Moxie]

This is a non-argument. Play the men and the women's tournaments side by side, and count the tickets. Air them on different networks and see who gets the highest sponsors.

This is professional sport. Nobody deserves nothing.

It seems those who invest their money have counted up the beans, and the sponsorships. And who puts bottoms in the seats. And they have decided to give women an equal share. There are plenty of co-ed tournaments, and it's impossible to tell exactly who sells what tickets. What you are proposing, I think, is just petulant. I've given you plenty of reasons why female tennis players sell tickets and get women to watch sports, which is valuable to the people who care about the money. I know a lot of you guys don't love the women's game, and I'm not a huge fan of it at the moment, but I can't help if it shrivels you all, somewhat, that the women still bring in a lot of the bacon. As I said before, it doesn't have everything to do with how hard you hit a serve.

 

[Moxie]

Raymond Moore has resigned as CEO of IW over controversy sparked by his remarks. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...teps-down-amid-outrage-over-tennis-sexism-row