Tennis

[tigertim]

Yes the prize money is exactly the same.

Despite the TV ratings difference each year between the finals, the cost of the tickets to the final and the overall financial to the tourment with advertising revenue for example.

I suppose people who think its fair would favour a working week for their colleagues who do the same job for the same pay 9am to 3pm for female workers and 9am to 5pm for male workers.

So what is the reasoning behind the women playing 3 sets?

To the best of my knowledge women play 20 overs of T20 cricket, 50 overs of 1 day cricket, 4 quarters of AFL, 90 mins of soccer ( not sure about golf?)

 

[Tigers of Old]

I am no real lover of tennis but that match was extraordinary.

Yep. That was pure joy to watch. A great battle between 2 legends and true gentlemen of the sport.
Roger winning another slam title at 35 yrs old, after 6 months out of the game, against the guy who's had the wood on him in the past, was a fairy tale finish for the Aus Open.
Bravo Fed!

Is that true, the winner of the women's gets the same money as the winner of the men's?

All for equal prize money but in grand slam tennis either men should play only 3 sets or women should play 5.

 

[TigerForce]

I'd rather the women played 5 sets because 3 is way too short.

 

[jb03]

No problem with the women getting the same despite shorter matches.

I am sure Usain Bolt gets more than the marathon runners.

 

[easy_tiger]

extraordinary mens final. Two champs with nerves of steel. Rogers were just slightly steelier.

These blokes are amazing. In the Semi's, Warinka and Dimitrov served double faults at about 4 all in the 5th under enormous pressure. Roger and Rapha serve Aces in those moments.

 

[tigertim]

No problem with the women getting the same despite shorter matches.

I am sure Usain Bolt gets more than the marathon runners.

Yes, but Usain is running the 100m sprint AS are his competitors AND as are the women.

I would guess an athletics comparison would be the women run 75m.

 

[lukeanddad]

A tennis match for the ages. It will be fascinating to see whether this was a blip for the Joker and Murray. Whatever the reason, it is so much more enjoyable watching two genuinely likable, decent blokes. (You can have Andy, no time for anyone who turns on his support team when it gets tough)

And best of 3 for women is a relic from the 1960s. Women run marathons (and of course 10k/5k at international level) and compete strongly in Ironman events. Bizarre that they have to somehow be molly coddled in tennis Grand Slams.

 

[22nd Man]

A tennis match for the ages. It will be fascinating to see whether this was a blip for the Joker and Murray. Whatever the reason, it is so much more enjoyable watching two genuinely likable, decent blokes. (You can have Andy, no time for anyone who turns on his support team when it gets tough)

And best of 3 for women is a relic from the 1960s. Women run marathons (and of course 10k/5k at international level) and compete strongly in Ironman events. Bizarre that they have to somehow be molly coddled in tennis Grand Slams.

Amazingly women did not run 400m until 64 Olympics, 800m in 60, 1500 in 72. So these things take time.
Given doubles has been cut to best of 3 for men there must be room in the schedule for 5 sets women's matches.

 

[skybeau]

Yes the prize money is exactly the same.

Despite the TV ratings difference each year between the finals, the cost of the tickets to the final and the overall financial to the tourment with advertising revenue for example.

I suppose people who think its fair would favour a working week for their colleagues who do the same job for the same pay 9am to 3pm for female workers and 9am to 5pm for male workers.

It's not comparable to employment, for the reason which you highlight yourself: it's prize money. It's a reward, it's not their salary. It's not based on contracts or working conditions.

What they are saying is that the Aus Open Grand Slam Champions are weighted the same regardless of gender. You wouldn't disagree with that, surely? I'm not a huge fan of Serena Williams but that doesn't mean I think she's any less a worthy winner than Roger Federer and should be rewarded less.

 

[tigertim]

What they are saying is that the Aus Open Grand Slam Champions are weighted the same regardless of gender. You wouldn't disagree with that, surely? I'm not a huge fan of Serena Williams but that doesn't mean I think she's any less a worthy winner than Roger Federer and should be rewarded less.

No, she's not any less worthy and shouldn't be rewarded less. But surely, regardless of gender, they should be doing the same amount of "work"?

 

[Rosy]

No, she's not any less worthy and shouldn't be rewarded less. But surely, regardless of gender, they should be doing the same amount of "work"?

I used to go to the Aussie open each middle weekend and all the finals for years. I wouldn't go if I had free tickets now. I particularly don't enjoy many of the women's games. 5 sets instead of 3 sounds like torture.

 

[easy_tiger]

I used to go to the Aussie open each middle weekend and all the finals for years. I wouldn't go if I had free tickets now. I particularly don't enjoy many of the women's games. 5 sets instead of 3 sounds like torture.

really rosy? I went for the first time ever last Monday and had one of the most enjoyable sporting days ever. pretty sure ill go back next year. Got 10 hours tennis for $70 which seemed like great value. I was really impressed by the venues and thought the staff were all super enthusiastic and efficient. A real carnival atmosphere.

last week i saw The Bryan twins (USA, 19? doubles grand slams). Not normally a fan of doubles, but live with these guys was very entertaining.

Im still yet to see any event that comes close to Tigers V Carlton/Ess/Coll at The G though.

 

[Tigers of Old]

really rosy? I went for the first time ever last Monday and had one of the most enjoyable sporting days ever. pretty sure ill go back next year. Got 10 hours tennis for $70 which seemed like great value. I was really impressed by the venues and thought the staff were all super enthusiastic and efficient. A real carnival atmosphere.

last week i saw The Bryan twins (USA, 19? doubles grand slams). Not normally a fan of doubles, but live with these guys was very entertaining.

Im still yet to see any event that comes close to Tigers V Carlton/Ess/Coll at The G though.

Agree. Aus Open is a carnival. One that Melbourne can be very proud of.

 

[skybeau]

No, she's not any less worthy and shouldn't be rewarded less. But surely, regardless of gender, they should be doing the same amount of "work"?

It's prize money, reward for winning 7 consecutive games of tennis. The amount of "work" is irrelevant.

For example, I think it was Almagro who played for 20 minutes in the first round then withdrew, gets the same amount of prize money as Horacio Zeballos, who went down 22-20 in the fifth set to Karlovic. The prize money is not effort based, it's achievement based.

It's kinda like saying that a person who wins Tatts from buying one ticket should get less money than the person who wins after buying two tickets, because the second person did more "work". It's irrelevant how many tickets you buy, if you win, you get the full prize.

 

[tigertim]

It's prize money, reward for winning 7 consecutive games of tennis. The amount of "work" is irrelevant.

For example, I think it was Almagro who played for 20 minutes in the first round then withdrew, gets the same amount of prize money as Horacio Zeballos, who went down 22-20 in the fifth set to Karlovic. The prize money is not effort based, it's achievement based.

It's kinda like saying that a person who wins Tatts from buying one ticket should get less money than the person who wins after buying two tickets, because the second person did more "work". It's irrelevant how many tickets you buy, if you win, you get the full prize.

Sorry but that's a terrible analogy. Winning Tatts is a game of chance. Winning a tennis grand slam isn't.

My original question still stands, why do the women only play 3? I genuinely don't know.

 

[poppa x]

Back in the day when women fought for equal pay the slogan was "equal pay for equal work".
Case closed?

 

[MB78]

Back in the day when women fought for equal pay the slogan was "equal pay for equal work".
Case closed?

Exactly. Not too hard to understand.

 

[skybeau]

Back in the day when women fought for equal pay the slogan was "equal pay for equal work".
Case closed?

It's not pay, it's prize money. Is that really so hard to understand?

 

[tigertim]

It's not pay, it's prize money. Is that really so hard to understand?

The prize money allocated to one gender is for participating in 3/5th of the output of the other gender.

Is that so hard to aknowledge?

 

[Rosy]

The prize money allocated to one gender is for participating in 3/5th of the output of the other gender.

Is that so hard to aknowledge?

Maybe so but they both had sold out stadiums so generated similar income.