Equal pay at Wimbledon

[DrBear]

With the announcement recently that Wimbledon will give the men and women equal prize money instead of giving the women less as it has done, I have a question.

One argument was that the women play shorter matches, three sets instead of five.

But does Wimbledon charge the same for tickets for men's and women's matches? If they charge less for women, they had an excuse, IMHO.

[HatManTC]

either way if the tickets are less or not. women should be given the same pay as the men at an event like this.

(ends pr guy speech.)

[slapshot]

Women should not be paid the same, unless they perform under identical circumstances. Women play best of 3. Men play best of 5. Men have to play more to earn the same pay as women?

If the tournament was best of 3 for both genders, then pay should be equal. Many tournaments for men are best of 3. But not the Majors, and I think the pay should reflect that the two are not equal.

[DEAD!]

Women should not be paid the same, unless they perform under identical circumstances. Women play best of 3. Men play best of 5. Men have to play more to earn the same pay as women?

If the tournament was best of 3 for both genders, then pay should be equal. Many tournaments for men are best of 3. But not the Majors, and I think the pay should reflect that the two are not equal.

I used to think that way, but I neglected a key element, the entertainment value. After all tennis players are not paid to do shift work at Wendy's. Who do fans demand to see is also a key component to any tournament. For example, in golf, a tournament is more valuable with Tiger in it than without Tiger.

For the record, the women's final last year was longer than the men's, which comes as no surprise since Federer just kills on grass (insert joke here)

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I think that the three sets versus five sets argument is valid, but with that in mind, you can eventually make the argument that the winner should be paid proportionate to the amount of sets played. If women get paid less than men, only based on sets, what happens when Federer burns Roddick in three sets 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 in 20 minutes, but Lindsay Davenport wins 7-6, 6-7, 7-6 over Venus Williams (or whatever)? Then that argument doesn't work as well.

I think you need to look at the bottom line, really. Which makes more money for NBC and Wimbledon? I would imagine that the women's side does. I don't think we'll see the women paid MORE than the men, even if they're actually more valuable. I think the two sexes getting paid equally, while perhaps not perfect, is definitely fair.

[DrBear]

My question was revenue based - if they charge, say, 100 pounds for the men's final and 75 for the women's final, then the men bring in more revenue and you have an argument. If they charge the same, they're bringing in the same amount of revenue, and should be paid equally.

[ROCHitman]

It's about time Wimbledon did this.

The other 3 major tournaments have had equal pay for a few years now.

[OnWis97]

I don't think that 5 sets vs. 3 means a lot. WNBA players probably play a third of the minutes of NBA players, but do they get a third of the money? No. Not even a tenth. Why? Because the NBA brings in WAY more revenue. So the question is this: Between tickets and TV, does the Women's tennis bring is as much as mens? The gap is probably closing...

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I don't think that 5 sets vs. 3 means a lot. WNBA players probably play a third of the minutes of NBA players, but do they get a third of the money? No. Not even a tenth. Why? Because the NBA brings in WAY more revenue. So the question is this: Between tickets and TV, does the Women's tennis bring is as much as mens? The gap is probably closing...

Closing which way? Is there a way too look up what Wimbledon charges NBC for the men's versus women's tournament? I bet that due to the late 90's boom on the ladies' side versus the decline in interest on the men's, the women's tournament charges more. But that's all conjecture.

And to DrBear: Ticket sales are important but incomplete source of revenues. TV contracts, licensing deals, in-stadium advertising, concessions, blah, blah, blah all make money for Wimbledon.

[HatManTC]

isnt women's tennis more popular than men's tennis?

[Guest]

I don't know. In the United States, the women's game is more popular because it's being dominated by Americans and/or cute girls. I think these things sort of wax and wane over the years. There's not much for us to get excited about when Roger Federer wins everything. We're far from the McEnroe/Connors days.

Lindsay Davenport wins 7-6, 6-7, 7-6

Just to be a difficult little tennis wonk, Davenport would have to win the final set 8-6 (or 9-7, or some other x to x-2) at Wimbledon because they don't play final-set tiebreaks there. US Open does, which is dumb. I like the two-game margin in the 5th (or in the case 3rd) set. Remember Krajicek/Philippoussis from 2001?

[dfwabel]

With the announcement recently that Wimbledon will give the men and women equal prize money instead of giving the women less as it has done, I have a question.

One argument was that the women play shorter matches, three sets instead of five.

But does Wimbledon charge the same for tickets for men's and women's matches? If they charge less for women, they had an excuse, IMHO.

Women play less sets. since a match is untimed, we cannot speculate on its length.

As far as tickets, one buys a ticket for a day, with another charge for Centre Court and Courts 1-2. your gorund pass allows you to see every match but those on the three larger courts.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Lindsay Davenport wins 7-6, 6-7, 7-6

Just to be a difficult little tennis wonk, Davenport would have to win the final set 8-6 (or 9-7, or some other x to x-2) at Wimbledon because they don't play final-set tiebreaks there. US Open does, which is dumb. I like the two-game margin in the 5th (or in the case 3rd) set. Remember Krajicek/Philippoussis from 2001?

I don't, but I'll take your word for it. I was expecting someone to say Davenport ain't winning no more Wimbledons, but I much more appreciate the lesson in scoring.

And you could have used a Williams/Davenport score as an example. Your post made me think a bit more about it and, sure enough, the line of the 2005 Ladies' Final was Venus over Davenport 4-6, 7-6(4), 9-7. As I recall, it was an awesome match.

[DrBear]

And to DrBear: Ticket sales are important but incomplete source of revenues. TV contracts, licensing deals, in-stadium advertising, concessions, blah, blah, blah all make money for Wimbledon.

All true, but those revenue sources are pretty much gender neutral - NBC pays to show whatever it wants, it doesn't pay separately for men's and women's TV rights. Ditto licensing, ads and concessions. So ticket sales are the only thing that could be different.