Of course, assuming an equal ability. I still say equal pay in tennis is nonsense. Djokovic was spot on in saying they have stats now which can fairly measure out prize money, be it based on TV viewers, ticket sales or whatever.
The incredible thing to me is that what Djokovic said made perfect sense but in this weird, politically correct world in which we live he had to retract it and apologise. Listening to Williams droning on about how Djokovic would not treat a son and daughter differently based on their gender was vacuous beyond belief. IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GENDER. It's to do with what PEOPLE can and cannot do. If Serena can take on the men and beat them then she gets the dosh. In fact, that is the solution! Do away with men and women's tennis / football. Just have the one sport. They'll soon get fed up after being eliminated in the early rounds all the time! Rant over. Sorry.
RTID ............... You have some points there but I guess I'm coming from the thought process that if we treat everyone as equal ( in pay for any particular 'job' ) ....... the public will determine where it goes from there. I think in this today times, by eliminating the glass ceiling, we get rid of any stigma of any wrongdoing. Anyway, just my thoughts, cheers.
There's something a bit more specific in tennis, in that the men play best-of-five in slams, and the women only best-of-three. A far greater number of the women's matches - especially in the early stages of the tournaments - are very one-sided, because the gulf between the top 10 and the rest is far more marked than it is in the men's games. As a result, a woman can easily win a slam by playing only a half of the points that a man would, and around a half of the time on court. Technically, as pay vs effort, that means women are already paid a far better rate than men. As an example, the 2015 Wimbledon championships (which were won, ironically enough, by Djokovic and Williams): Djokovic needed to play 247 games, winning 147 of them. Williams needed to play 147 games, winning just 92. Both won £1.89 million. Djokovic was therefore paid £7,651.82 for each game played, or £12,857.14 for each game he won. Williams was paid £12,857.14 for each game she played, or £20,543.48 for each game she won. Discuss....
Couldn't care less about the tennis, lost interest in it years ago after the Borg/ McEnroe era. It's a bit grubby watching multi millionaires like Djokovic trying to get their greasy little hands on yet more dosh, whatever the merits of the argument and his (rather boring) brilliance as an athlete. Surely this should be in the hands of the sponsors who pay the over inflated prize money anyway. Perhaps the prize and appearance money should be equal in the early rounds of tournaments to encourage youngsters who have invested most of their lives to get good at the game, but finalist prizes could be based on perceived commercial and spectator value. I do think the US ladies soccer team have a very good case for getting paid the same as the men for representing their country though. As do the England ladies. Different for playing for clubs where the economics of the sport dictates what is affordable. Unless you play for QPR men's team of course, where economics based on voodoo rules applies.
As your (semi) token women here, for my penneth... We, men and women, should all be treated equally...but that does actually mean that women tennis should at least (potentially) play the same number of sets as men to earn the same money. So at the present moment women players should earn 3/5th what men do. After that market driven factors should be implimented....How much are people prepared to pay to watch England Football Ladies play and how much England men. As the sport becomes more popular/successful prices change...That is the way the market is....It is much more expensive now to watch England Ladies play....I saw them play at Hendon or Edgware or somewhere like that for about £1.50 many years ago....small non-league ground...very poor standard of play...not much fun at all. Now they play on a world stage, and at a relatively good level of ability too. I do not want anything given to me, just because I am a woman but I do want to have an equal chance to earn what I get
Agree. Measure it on the public's interest and thus commercial success. In tennis, the men would get paid more than the women, and in US soccer, the women would get paid more than the men. That seems fair to me.
I doubt they get particularly great crowds or generate great revenue otherwise their wages would reflect that. We might be the best nation in the country at bowls but that doesn't mean the Lionel Messi of bowls gets his wage.
The US women's team draws huge crowds when they play in the states. Last year they had a crowd of over 44,000 for a friendly held in Pittsburgh. The World Cup final in 1999 drew a crowd of 90,000.
Fair enough. If they generate the same revenue as the men they should get the same match fees and stuff. Supply and demand will always dictate salaries.
I think they attract larger crowds than the men and therefore probably more in revenue. Women's football in the states is huge.
Equal pay for equal jobs is not gender specific, therefore, unless they compete at an equal level their argument is flawed...
Probably cheaper entry to games I'd guess. If their gates, sponsorship etc. warrant equal or bigger money, give it to them. I suspect it doesn't.
It is about the nation treating them as (at least) equals to their male counterparts at the national team level. The fact that they got paid less than the men after winning the World Cup is hard to understand. The issue of parity has been brewing here since last Summer when they refused to play an exhibition match on an inferior pitch as part of their "Victory Tour". The statement issued included language that the men would not be forced to play on it, so we won't. Since the women are uber-successful and pack stadiums for every match, they want an equal piece of the pie. I can't say I blame them. They are projected to generate $8M more revenue than the men in 2017.
