A Travesty

Men get two weeks, women a year now I think.

I can see them having two weeks extra for the birth and recovery at the most, but 50 weeks more, please.

Like I said, I'm a big supporter of equality.


No can justify how women tennis players get the same amount though.

Playing Devil's advocate here but; it's not a competition of men vs women and it's not a competition based on the winner being the person who plays the longest. The competition is there and the rules are there. The winner of the men's tournament gets so much money and the winner of the women's compeition gets so much money. The duration of the match is irrelevant.

Maybe they should pay less to Murray today for winning in three than ifmhe had played 5 sets.

I'd feel there was a point if it was a male vs female match and the female got a set head start or something but it's not the case. They are two different tournaments and it just so happens that the winners get the same money.

Men get two weeks, women a year now I think.

I can see them having two weeks extra for the birth and recovery at the most, but 50 weeks more, please.

---------------

Presume you've never had children. Can't begrudge a mother time off work to look after an infant really. I'm impressed when any of them go back to work at all after the process, in all honesty.

Presume you've never had children. Can't begrudge a mother time off work to look after an infant really. I'm impressed when any of them go back to work at all after the process, in all honesty.
----
Not just a mother but the mother of this guy's kid no less. But this guy is misinformed. You can transfer your parental leave rights between the parents so the dad can take the time off and the mother can return to work after two weeks recovery.

That would be a valid point if the women 's game brought in the same amount of money as the men' s, it doesn't, it is not as popular and does not get the same viewing figures.

The money that the men bring in props up the women's prize money.

The women's tour does not get that much revenue when they are in tournaments just by themselves.

The money should be split based on income generated from the previous year. If men generated more ticket sales, income etc it should be calculated they get so amount. Same goes with women. This is fair. The distribution of wealth needs to be based on who brings in the most. Additionally, the tennis body of said tournament should listen to their female wta and let them play 5 sets. Maybe then the fitness and ability of the tennis game will be improved.

Bestie

Men don't want to spend time with there children

OnlyOneFerguson

That would at least be fair.

If memory serves me correctly wheh Djokovic played nadal in 2011 they spent longer on court in that one match than the womens winner kvitova did in the entire tournament. Equal pay is a joke in tennis. Women should get half what the men get.

Why do the women tennis players get the same money as the men at the slams.?

Because the WTA has the commercial clout to get it. Put it another way, Wimbledon would have lost far more in revenue from the women boycotting the tournament than they lost by agreeing to equalise the prize money. If Mens doubles or wheelchair players had the same clout as the WTA they would have equal prize money too.

Can you imagine if a man and a woman worked for the same company but the woman had to work 3 times as long, sell much more product, and be much better at the job to get the same pay. Surely we would all say this was wrong.

Neither the men nor the women are PAID anything at Wimbledon. They compete for prizes for winning rounds. It would be absurd of John Isner to think that he was somehow being treated unfairly for getting the same first round prize for winning 70 – 68 in the fifth set as another man got for winning two easy sets before his opponent retired. The prize is for the win not for the amount of time, effort, sets etc so equal pay legislation/theory is irrelevant here.

The men's game is more popular and brings in the most money and it's not even close. The women's game is riding on the men's.

No it isn’t. You are aware that apart from the slams, the WTA has its own totally independent tour and that it is very successful?

From the WTA site:
The WTA is the global leader in women's professional sport with more than 2,500 players representing 92 nations competing for more than $100 million in prize money at the WTA's 54 events and four Grand Slams in 33 countries. Over 5.4 million people attended women's tennis events in 2012 with hundreds of millions more watching on television and digital channels around the world.

http://www.wtatennis.com/scontent/article/2951989/title/about-the-wta#sthash.LpcZlVOt.dpuf

You do know that Sony Ericsson provides $88 million in sponsorship of the WTA Tour?

Did you know that at the joint event in Miami this year, the women’s champion got a bigger prize than the man?

ATP Winner: Andy Murray $719,160
WTA Winner: Serena Williams $724,000

Now if you are a top woman and can get prize money more or less the same as the top men all year around, why would you come to Wimbledon and agree to play for much less?

Popularity? You do know that 116 million people in China alone watched Li Na become French Open champion. Find me a men’s match that has received anything close to those ratings.

You might not care but Wimbledon surely does care about the sales of TV rights and corporate sponsors do care about being able to gain access to emerging markets in Asia and the Middle East where women’s tennis is much more popular than men’s. This makes the WTA a powerful player in the international sports sector.

I also guarantee you that if Laura Robson makes the Wimbledon final next year, the UK TV ratings will be higher for her match than the men's final if Murray is not in it.

You might not like women’s tennis but there are plenty of people who do and more than enough of them to make the WTA tour very strong and successful and give it the corporate clout to get what it wants in business.