[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

isn't it funny that the women get criticized for grunting and making so much noise for how much effort they put in, and then they get critisized saying that they don't put in enuf effort to get paid equally, wtf.

The men have testosterone which makes them able to do more physically than women, that is a fact, that doesn't mean that women don't work as hard though! infact you could probably make the argument that they are actually working HARDER because of their physical limitations.


Serena has done just as much for the sport of tennis as rafa and roger imo. She deserves her prize money, especially after having the health scares that she had last year.

Anyone that doesn't think Serena is just as much of an elite athlete as Roger Federer has obviously never watched tennis.

And if i could go back in time and give BIllie Jean King and Martina Navratolova their fair share, i would.

Serena Williams is greater on her worst day than Andy Murray has ever been on his best day.

wow youre a disingenuous man hater....no woman tennis player would get a set off federer in 100 attempts

[the truth]

forcing everyone to pay women twice the hourly rate of men for less work of a lower quality, then we should therefore pay the disabled champion £1.2 million too? right? equality for all

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

forcing everyone to pay women twice the hourly rate of men for less work of a lower quality, then we should therefore pay the disabled champion £1.2 million too? right? equality for all

Don't be ridiculous, they don't work on an hourly rate. It's a prize fund for a winning a competition. As MTVN pointed out earlier, if they were working on an hourly rate, the better players would earn less per game because they beat other players quicker and don't have to spend as much time on court.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Don't be ridiculous, they don't work on an hourly rate. It's a prize fund for a winning a competition. As MTVN pointed out earlier, if they were working on an hourly rate, the better players would earn less per game because they beat other players quicker and don't have to spend as much time on court.

your ebeing ridiculous
the women players play less than half the time, 2 fewer sets at a much lower quality, its so much easier it allows many of the women to play mixed or double....in the case of the williams they won the doubles too, that meant another £1.2 million and still serena was on court less than federer and earnt twice as much. the women should play 5 set matches too....then we can discuss the prize mney, as it stands it discriminatory against the men

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by the truth

your ebeing ridiculous
the women players play less than half the time, 2 fewer sets at a much lower quality, its so much easier it allows many of the women to play mixed or double....in the case of the williams they won the doubles too, that meant another £1.2 million and still serena was on court less than federer and earnt twice as much. the women should play 5 set matches too....then we can discuss the prize mney, as it stands it discriminatory against the men

It's a competition with a prize, not a 9-5 hourly paid job. Since when do prize funds get decided by hours worked?

[skkc16]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's a competition with a prize, not a 9-5 hourly paid job. Since when do prize funds get decided by hours worked?

Exactly. There is no reason why men should get paid more. At the end of the day all players work hard to be where they are and also they have flights, accommodation and coaches to pay, this is most important for the lower ranked players.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's a competition with a prize, not a 9-5 hourly paid job. Since when do prize funds get decided by hours worked?

equal work = equal pay

its mean tot be based on quality and quantity of performance, the men do more in both categories and earn less money , in federers case £1.2 less money...its discrimination against men....the women should by law have to play 5 sets before even being considered for equal prize money...but as it stands they earn more for less quality and less quantity....the men players would be well in their rights to take this to a civil court

[joeysteele]

I take all points on board, the real answer to it, and to be fair most of the Women tennis players would agree too, is that both men and women have to play the best of 5 sets.

Tennis is unpredictable though,I recall Pete Sampras and other Mens matches being over well before some Womens matches.
Once they get to the 5th set for the Men and 3rd set for the women then both have to go on until someone wins no matter how long that takes or how many games have to be played.

The other side to the argument is that players,both Men and Women going to Wimbledon have to commit themselves for 2 weeks for the duration of the tournament,so in effect, are 'employed' for want of a better word, for the same equal time as each other,hence the equal prize money.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I take all points on board, the real answer to it, and to be fair most of the Women tennis players would agree too, is that both men and women have to play the best of 5 sets.

Tennis is unpredictable though,I recall Pete Sampras and other Mens matches being over well before some Womens matches.
Once they get to the 5th set for the Men and 3rd set for the women then both have to go on until someone wins no matter how long that takes or how many games have to be played.

The other side to the argument is that players,both Men and Women going to Wimbledon have to commit themselves for 2 weeks for the duration of the tournament,so in effect, are 'employed' for want of a better word, for the same equal time as each other,hence the equal prize money.

Exactly Joey.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I take all points on board, the real answer to it, and to be fair most of the Women tennis players would agree too, is that both men and women have to play the best of 5 sets. Tennis is unpredictable though,I recall Pete Sampras and other Mens matches being over well before some Womens matches. Once they get to the 5th set for the Men and 3rd set for the women then both have to go on until someone wins no matter how long that takes or how many games have to be played. The other side to the argument is that players,both Men and Women going to Wimbledon have to commit themselves for 2 weeks for the duration of the tournament,so in effect, are 'employed' for want of a better word, for the same equal time as each other,hence the equal prize money.

so if they deserve equal money , how do you explain serna williams earning twice as much as she got time for the doubles too?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by skkc16

Exactly. There is no reason why men should get paid more. At the end of the day all players work hard to be where they are and also they have flights, accommodation and coaches to pay, this is most important for the lower ranked players.

youre missing the point, the women are paid more than the men, as they play for half as long at a lower quality and the games are over so quickly it allows them time to enter and win the doubles too, hence twice the prize money of the men....by the way if youre rigid one size fits all logic applies here, why not exactly the same prize money for men and women in every competition in every sport in the world oh and disabled champions too? they work just as hard right?

ps men bring in 4 times the revenues for mens finals day estimated in corporate sales. just take a look at debenture seat values, mens finals bets seats £3000 , womens £750....

so equal prizes for men and women and disabled people in every sports contest in the world? right? just to have the same as wimbledon, the mens marathon can be twice as long, football twice as long , boxing twice as long and so on