Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2004 8:54:02 GMT 1
Quick debate about prize money differences between men and women, what do pople think?
After working at the championships last year I got to see a lot of tennis and although I'm not a huge fan of the sport it was obvious to see the men's game lasts a lot longer, is much more powerful and is far, far more entertaining. So IMO the prize money difference is very fair.
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Apr 28, 2004 9:36:27 GMT 1
The simple answer to this is extend the ladies to 5 sets and it would be a lot fairer. Apart from anything else....... Just seeeing Anna Koutnicova (Excuse Spelling) for a bit longer would make it worth while
|
|
|
Post by vodkaVic on Apr 28, 2004 11:29:08 GMT 1
Just plain old supply and demancd I'm afraid - the men's game is far more marketable, and does and should therefore attract more money. In the same way that girl models earn far more than male models for example.
Having said that, I heard on the radio that the figures for this year were something like £600,000 for the mens singles winner and £560,000 for the womens singles winner.
Hardly a big deal is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2004 11:48:23 GMT 1
I can never understand this arguement, it comes out every single year. If they want equal pay then they should play 5 sets. People want to sit down and watch a 2 or 3 hour marathon, not something thats over and done with within the hour i'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 28, 2004 12:01:55 GMT 1
If they gave them more money they could afford longer skirts!!! Just say NO! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2004 13:58:25 GMT 1
Agree with the supply and demand theory but not the number of sets- I thought a couple of years ago that the womens game had the potential to become more popular than the mens, which was becoming too dominated by the serve. But unfortunately, the womens game is still dominated by a handful of players, which limits the excitement of their matches until the later stages. On the other hand, the top 50 men's players are all capable of producing high quality matches. So do you play tennis Phil as I can see a ASFC v. B&A Vets tennis challenge coming on- after the cricket of course
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2004 14:26:03 GMT 1
that'd be quality. we could have a little tennis comp And phill how'd you get work for wimbledon?
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on Apr 28, 2004 14:29:54 GMT 1
Agreed with Rob anything to kill the summer - Problem ith Tennis is you would need a hell of a lot of courts to let all that would be intrested in it play on one day - you would be better off taking the names of evey one who would be intrested and then setting up a knocout phase - drawing players together and then letting them play and deside the winner and then the last 4-8 play the fianl games on one day (final day)
Thats how the tennis comp gets worked out here at work as its up to the two players to sort out where and when it can be played so its more flexable. All you do it set the rules so both party know
Any whatever im up for it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2004 14:32:44 GMT 1
And I think long shorts are in with tennis players gp
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2004 14:35:15 GMT 1
Priceys right we could all pay £5 or something to enter, then draw it out of a hat. Draw up deadlines when matches have to be played by etc.... Now I just need to go and find that bloomin raquet....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2004 14:47:04 GMT 1
that'd be quality. we could have a little tennis comp And phill how'd you get work for wimbledon? I worked for securicor as a court proection officer which basically meant I was dressed in a suit, had a clip on microphone and ear piece and pretended to look like I was preventing anyone getting to the players or officials. Basically I got to watch tennis for two weeks. I think the job applications for this has closed now, but it's always a good idea for next year Rob
|
|
|
Post by rob on Apr 28, 2004 14:50:10 GMT 1
cheers Phill
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Apr 28, 2004 15:39:49 GMT 1
I agree...if the girls played five set games then they deserve the same prize money...but they don't so they shouln't. Why should they get the same amount of money for doing less work? ;D
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on Apr 28, 2004 16:13:43 GMT 1
In terms of sponsorship money brought into the game, is there a difference between male and female? If not, then there shouldn't be any differences in prize money. And isn't Wimbledon one of the few touneys that still plays a max of 5 sets for the men - most nowadays are 3 because of the demands of TV.
If men and women bring in equal amounts of money to the game, they should get equal payouts.
|
|