Equal Prize Money
 

It was reported on the wireless this morning that starting from this year in the ladies Wimbledon tournament the ladies will get the same prize money as the men.

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/pressreleases/prizemoney.html

I’ll go along with that if applies to the mixed doubles.

I’ll also go along with that if the ladies also play the best of five sets like the men do.

The news report did not specify if that would be the case nor does the web site so I assume that the ladies will continue to play the best of three sets and get the same prize money as the men who will be obliged to pay best of five sets.

A clear breach of the equal opportunities act.[/FONT]

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

I AGREE they should play five sets,,, anyway some of them are built like brick watsits these days ....

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

I think this is wrong. I'm all for equality, but until women start playing five sets, or men three, then, and only then should the prize money be made equal.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

I dont think the women should get paid the same unless they play 5 sets, mens and womens tennis is the not the same.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

definately should not be equal pay,unless they play 5 sets, dont think that womens tennis (is differant) holds water, Play Same=Pay Same.;)

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

If they get paid the same ,then they should play the men too .. can you imagine some of the small panting ladies, playing the big fast serving men

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

It was discussed on Century FM this morning, 72% agreed that they should play 5 sets if they want the same prize money

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Interesting suggestion but I don’t think that you would get very far with that it. I know they play mixed doubles but that’s not quite the same as men playing women in singles. Then again the Williams sisters were big hitters.

Nah! I think that it would be unfair to pitch a woman against a man in a sport were strength is a factor. There will always be exceptions but in general women are not as strong as men.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

I dont think women should play against men either but same amount of sets yes.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Or the alternative which is men playing only three sets - which I'm pretty sure is the case in some tournaments. I think the prize money should then be reduced pro-rata for both men and women because as someone said, they then have more time to enter the different competitions i.e. mixed doubles or doubles, as well.

I'm all for equality but they can't just increase the women's prize money without doing anything else as that just tips the inequality balance the other way.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

There are always exceptions, as I'm sure Martina Navratilova would agree.

Then there was the 'Battle of the Sexes' in 1973, when Mrs Billie Jean King whupped and defeated Bobby Riggs, a former Wimbledon champion, 6-4 6-3 6-3, in what would have been a five set match if Riggs had been more of a challenge.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

yeh but how old was Riggs then.;)

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

He was 55, and she was 29.

Still didn't stop him from mouthing off, and saying no woman could beat him.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Yeah thought that myself.Same pay, play the same game.:)

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

He knew his age when he offered the challenge, that no woman could ever beat him.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

[quote=garinda;387308]There are always exceptions, as I'm sure Martina Navratilova would agree.

quote]
I have always had a sneaking suspition she is realy a bloke :unsure8: :cool:

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

For Riggs, who was an exceptionally talented player in his prime (but had dropped from the limelight later), it was partly a publicity stunt, partly a chance to make some money. Let's not forget that this was done when the women's liberation movement was in full flower, so it got a huge amount of attention from the press. Clever folks who thought it up, in any case!

And let's not forget that Bobby also first challenged Margaret Court, then the top woman tennis player in the world, and beat her!

Here's a link if you are interested in reading more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Riggs

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Another thought - apparently, TV audiences for the women's finals have been larger than those for the men in most recent tennis Grand Slam events - and their audience is growing faster, too. Small wonder then, that the women are asking for, and getting, equal treatment.

In sports, players don't get paid for playing longer matches. You get paid for winning, and the entertainment that it provides to the audience, as measured by audience size.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

Actually someone (I’ve forgotten the name and can’t be bothered to switch on the TV and search for it) on either Ceefax or Teletext chucked a new point into the debate.

Gate receipts!

The claim is that if the spectators pay the same to watch a men’s match as they do for a ladies match then the lady players should have the same rewards.

Interesting point!

If that is the case then the spectators are getting ripped off. But! Hey! Since when has that been a new phenominum?

Having just had a peek at http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/pressreleases/prizemoney.html it reveals that this levelling off of prize money has been gathering pace for a number of years. To quote the site:

Quote:

“Over the years, we have progressively increased the ladies’ prize money, so that last year Amélie Mauresmo, the Ladies’ Champion, received £625,000 – 95% of the money received by Roger Federer, the Men’s Champion.”

What a sneaky lot!!! The playing field has been being levelled amidst no publicity.

So far on Ceefax or Teletext every letter has been against equal prize money.

Re: Equal Prize Money
 

In the UK a TV company buys the rights to televise a sport for a fixed fee, although I accept that some deals might include TV audiences. However audience viewing figures are always a guesstimate based on a few monitors so I can’t see a TV company agreeing to pay more if the sport attracts more than the expected viewers or less if fewer people view. I doubt if it is any different in the states. But then what do I now?

The only people who gain from large audiences are the advertisers and the TV company.

The players at Wimbledon get paid for being in a match and the winner of a match gets more. The entertainment value doesn’t come into the prize money equation.