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.
A Travesty
Page 2 of 2
posted on 7/7/13
Bestie
Men don't want to spend time with there children
posted on 7/7/13
OnlyOneFerguson
That would at least be fair.
posted on 7/7/13
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.
posted on 15/7/13
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.
Page 2 of 2