What if one player is much better than the other and the game finishes 6-0 6-0 in a ladies game should they then get even less cause they didn't play three sets. 3 sets against 5 sets is a poor argument for the difference in prize money.
I suspect you do. But don't want to admit it. Of course she wouldn't. She would never win another tournament. And she is the most likely to be able to beat a man.
A county FA official has been suspended for four months after telling a female referee "a woman's place is in the kitchen and not on a football field".Northumberland County FA vice president John Cummings made the comments to referee development officer Lucy May at a referee workshop event in March.May, 24, asked Cummings about the possibility of officiating in the North East Sunday League.Cummings told her she "wouldn't be able to handle it".He added: "It's nothing against you personally but all the time I'm alive, a woman will never referee in my league." http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29810908 Can't believe these dinosaur s are in positions of influence!
What if a mens game finishes 6-0 6-0 6-0 cos one player is better than the other. Should they get paid less cos they don't play the 5 sets?
Anyway time to come clean now, it wasn't the difference in prize money that surprised me, of course if there are less spectators and less sponsors the prize fund will be less. If the FA sell the FA cup to over 120 countries and its one of the most watched games in the world, why don't they pay the winners more ?
You don't understand what an analogy is, then? The stripper analogy is apt because just as me, a hairy arsed man, is not going to get the same amount of money as a sexy female in the same trade, because she is no doubt better and in higher demand, that's exactly the same scenario as male vs female sport. And Williams wouldn't stand a bloody chance against the top 150 male players, so don't be ridiculous. Female tennis players have verged towards the power-game in the modern era, partly because of Venus and Serena. Notice the type of nearly all recent major winners. That power is not as powerful as the men's, and then the men have subtle ground-strokes on top of that. Williams wouldn't win a single match. For a woman to compete with a male athlete in genuinely sporty sports (as opposed to snooker, darts etc, where they should be precisely equal opportunity wise), she will have to develop better technical skills to compensate for having worse overall fitness. It's not beyond the realms of possibility for a lady to do that, but Serena Williams would be awful in the men's game. Therefore, why should somebody who is worse at the sport, be entitled to the same rate of pay? When a man wins a title, it is usually a title to the order of the best person on Earth. When a woman wins a title, she's the best WOMAN on Earth.
Women play a set less in tennis so I can understand why they get paid less than the men. I don't know why they play a set less, seems a bit of an outdated tradition
Why don't we just give everyone the same money and a medal for taking part; after all, that is all that matters, isn't it? Let's face it, sports can attract way too much reward at the top level and the rewards are often massively disproportionate between men and women; it's not too difficult to draw a comparison between the efforts required (5 or 3 sets, for instance), as effort against ability to apply it should determine a part of the thinking - demand to watch it should determine the rest. I wonder if women's beach volleyball would do better if not coupled (sorry) with the men's game in promotion terms. Women are attractive to watch, but the technical quality of their sport often isn't; it's just better than it was. Not sure there should be parity (and don't believe any but the deluded are asking for it across the board) but totally agree some of the variances are insulting. Perhaps the way to go is for each sport to have it's gender agent and that agent to have total responsibility for raising prize money from commercial sponsorship to fund player and coaches income needs and prize money. Individual player sponsorship could have a ceiling and any central (government, etc.) monies should only be used for administration and development costs. There you are, that was easy, as the well balanced, gender fair commercial world of sponsorship would jump at the chance, wouldn't they?
If the women want the same amount of pay in tennis,they should have to lift their level of skill and play the same amount of games in the finals as men. As it is, the men have to do more work for the same pay. One way to get around it is just have the opens with men and women playing each other and let's see how far they get. My guess is they wouldn't make the top 64
I actually do understand what an analogy is. I think you do too but your example wasn't one. If you (as a male) book a female stripper and a male turns up it is nothing to like an analogy about equal pay in sport. When you pay to watch a mixed gender tournament like Wimbledon or say track and field then you pay and go know there will be male and females there. If you perhaps paid to watch England men play football and they didn't play and they sent the women out instead then that would be a better analogy for your stripper one. You're all getting hung up about one female in one sport at one tournament having the guts to challenge the not equal prize money. If the mens final was won in 3 sets would you demand they receive less prize money? Your last point about when a man wins it's because he is the best human and when a woman wins its just because she is the best woman is frankly laughable. See Beryl Burton and her time trial record that she set as just one example. "When she was at the peak of her powers, Burton regularly beat the men. In 1967, she overtook Mike McNamara in an Otley CC 12-hour time trial on her way to setting a women’s record of 277.25 miles. McNamara’s distance of 276.52 miles in the same event was itself a new men’s record. Cycling folklore has it that as she passed McNamara she offered him a stick of liquorice as “the poor dear seemed to be struggling a bit”. So she set a women's record for the 12-hour time-trial which exceeded the men's record for two years.
Charlie, would you know how much Beryl got compared to her male counterparts? Didn't she turn down a lucrative contract?
This is the point I was about to make. Sport depends on the audience you get, so blame it on the media/audience if you think it is wrong. Incidentally female tennis players have managed to get around their sport not being watched as much by playing their tournament at the same event as the men in grand slams. So they end up getting vastly overpaid for their inferior competition, they must be laughing at the swindle they have done.
