[biggle2000]

Originally Posted by Ber

SMP is 90% of your weekly earnings for the first 6 weeks and then £135 a week for 33 weeks.

You would be very very lucky to get yoru normal yearly rate for maternity leave.

In any case "maternity" leave can now be split between the mother and the father so its up to the couple to work out whats best for them.

It's still money for no work, and is rarely split equally

[Ghost Misguided]

Originally Posted by Ænima

So you are basing it on time pretty much then? Many womens games go to 3 sets. It is prize money, it has nothing to do with number of sets. Both are the worlds best in their classes, it's ridiculous and sexist for women to be paid less and the fact you think people shouldn't even debate it frankly speaks volumes. Too bad Wimbledon themselves disagree with you eh? They're paying the money. I don't see what's it's got to do with you if they want to pay women fairly.

Why are you such a drama queen? It isn't ridiculous or sexist for the women to be paid less, because they have to win less sets than men.

It's not really a hard concept to grasp is it?

[jra]

Originally Posted by Ghost Misguided

Why are you such a drama queen? It isn't ridiculous or sexist for the women to be paid less, because they have to win less sets than men.

It's not really a hard concept to grasp is it?

Apparently, it is.

Drama queen. LMAO.

[Yippe-ki-yay]

So to sum this up, women want the exact same remuneration for approx half the amount of work. Nice job if you can get it. Shame ifs not very fair though. But I expect women would defend this position vehemently, because its in their advantage to.

[tysonstorm]

Originally Posted by Yippe-ki-yay

So to sum this up, women want the exact same remuneration for approx half the amount of work. Nice job if you can get it. Shame ifs not very fair though. But I expect women would defend this position vehemently, because its in their advantage to.

One of the arguments I heard from women regarding this was because "women are weaker than men". Talk about putting your gender down, not very "right-on" and feminist is it.

[Ænima]

Originally Posted by Ghost Misguided

Why are you such a drama queen? It isn't ridiculous or sexist for the women to be paid less, because they have to win less sets than men.

It's not really a hard concept to grasp is it?

Drama queen? Tut tut...

Ok, here's a concept for you... Let's say one year, the mens champion gets through all his matches in straight sets (3) and the womans champion gets through all hers in 3 sets too...

Would you still be able to justify your 'women should be paid less for playing less sets' argument then?! And let's face it, such a scenario is entirely possible.

We'd end up in the bizarre situation where-by people would be totting up how much a champion deserves their money based on how many sets they played and in fact not based on the far more important point which is that they are the best in their class at something! It would be looked at each year and become really tiresome.

Paying based on set number is ridiculous for this reason. It was bound to be changed eventually.

[jra]

Originally Posted by Yippe-ki-yay

So to sum this up, women want the exact same remuneration for approx half the amount of work. Nice job if you can get it. Shame ifs not very fair though. But I expect women would defend this position vehemently, because its in their advantage to.

I would expect them to make the usual song and dance about it, like they do about anything remotely sexist/misogynist/unequal that they perceive as anti-female these days.

[Yippe-ki-yay]

Originally Posted by tysonstorm

One of the arguments I heard from women regarding this was because "women are weaker than men". Talk about putting your gender down, not very "right-on" and feminist is it.

I suppose that's a mans fault too.

Mr God has a lot to answer for.

[jra]

Originally Posted by Yippe-ki-yay

I suppose that's a mans fault too.

Mr God has a lot to answer for.

God was a woman and black, don't you know.

[KidMoe]

Originally Posted by Yippe-ki-yay

So to sum this up, women want the exact same remuneration for approx half the amount of work. Nice job if you can get it. Shame ifs not very fair though. But I expect women would defend this position vehemently, because its in their advantage to.

It's been pointed out several times that many of the players have stated they would be happy playing 5 sets, and yet the tournaments - the people who dish out the prize money - have not changed things, largely because they would struggle to fit in at least 254 more sets of tennis into the schedule. There is no big conspiracy here.

So, it's not the case that the women want the same pay (even though it's not a salary, it's prize money so any arguments about equal number of points/time on court make no sense whatsover anyway) for potentially less time on court. It's the tournaments making up the rules, not the 'employees'.

[Yippe-ki-yay]

^^^

Pretty simple really. You want equality, then boycott the championships. I'm sure women would if it was the other way round. Or at least kick up a fuss. Why is it only time to demonstrate when your losing out.

[johnF1971]

Originally Posted by Ænima

So you are basing it on time pretty much then? Many womens games go to 3 sets. It is prize money, it has nothing to do with number of sets. Both are the worlds best in their classes, it's ridiculous and sexist for women to be paid less and the fact you think people shouldn't even debate it frankly speaks volumes. Too bad Wimbledon themselves disagree with you eh? They're paying the money. I don't see what's it's got to do with you if they want to pay women fairly.

I agree with you that the number of sets played is irrelevant.

But I will ask you this. Wimbledon also has separate competitions for juniors, veterans and wheelchair athletes (of both sexes). The prize money they receive is miniscule compared to that received by the main men and womens singles champions. These tennis players are all the world's best in their classes. Do you think it is ridiculous, ageist and discriminating against the disabled to award these players less prize money? If not why?

[Ghost Misguided]

Originally Posted by Ænima

Drama queen? Tut tut...

Ok, here's a concept for you... Let's say one year, the mens champion gets through all his matches in straight sets (3) and the womans champion gets through all hers in 3 sets too...

Would you still be able to justify your 'women should be paid less for playing less sets' argument then?! And let's face it, such a scenario is entirely possible.

We'd end up in the bizarre situation where-by people would be totting up how much a champion deserves their money based on how many sets they played and in fact not based on the far more important point which is that they are the best in their class at something! It would be looked at each year and become really tiresome.

Paying based on set number is ridiculous for this reason. It was bound to be changed eventually.

My argument is women should be paid less because they have to win less sets than men, not the part in bold.

[Ænima]

Originally Posted by johnF1971

I agree with you that the number of sets played is irrelevant.

But I will ask you this. Wimbledon also has separate competitions for juniors, veterans and wheelchair athletes (of both sexes). The prize money they receive is miniscule compared to that received by the main men and womens singles champions. These tennis players are all the world's best in their classes. Do you think it is ridiculous, ageist and discriminating against the disabled to award these players less prize money? If not why?

I suppose it is, but then the pot is probably so high because of the amount of money the mens and womens singles bring to the game. The more niche areas don't bring much money to the game so the money to pay them isn't there. I presume it was decided the men and womens games bring enough money to the game that they can both be paid large and equal amounts. If this wasn't the case, they would have to pay less. Just capitalism in action.

[Ænima]

Originally Posted by Ghost Misguided

My argument is women should be paid less because they have to win less sets than men, not the part in bold.

So it's a concept rather than a reality? It fails to answer my above example. So women would be paid less because they "usually" have to win less sets, even when there are times both sexes play 3 sets to win?!! I'm sorry but I can't see you idea working. It just wouldn't be fair for all the times both play 3 sets to win. I've explained this already: you can't have a system like that otherwise people would complain every time a man got through in straight sets and a woman also played 3. People would start adding up number of sets played and it'd get ridiculous.

[johnF1971]

Originally Posted by Ænima

I suppose it is, but then the pot is probably so high because of the amount of money the mens and womens singles bring to the game. The more niche areas don't bring much money to the game so the money to pay them isn't there. I presume it was decided the men and womens games bring enough money to the game that they can both be paid large and equal amounts. If this wasn't the case, they would have to pay less. Just capitalism in action.

Imagine you were lucky enough to have 2 tickets for the Wimbledon finals. One for the men's final on Sunday and one for the women's final on Saturday. Lets assume that Murray isn't involved and there's no British interest to make it all equal.

If you put them both on eBay, which one do you honestly think would sell for the most money?

If you honestly believe they would sell for the same amount, then fair enough, men and women should both receive the same.

But personally I would be prepared to bet my life savings that the men's finals ticket would go for more.

[CLL Dodge]

Originally Posted by johnF1971

I agree with you that the number of sets played is irrelevant.

But I will ask you this. Wimbledon also has separate competitions for juniors, veterans and wheelchair athletes (of both sexes). The prize money they receive is miniscule compared to that received by the main men and womens singles champions. These tennis players are all the world's best in their classes. Do you think it is ridiculous, ageist and discriminating against the disabled to award these players less prize money? If not why?

They're not Championship events.

In the seniors and wheelchair events there is equal prize money for men and women.

Juniors are amateurs. They get no prize money.

[warszawa]

Originally Posted by johnF1971

Imagine you were lucky enough to have 2 tickets for the Wimbledon finals. One for the men's final on Sunday and one for the women's final on Saturday. Lets assume that Murray isn't involved and there's no British interest to make it all equal.

If you put them both on eBay, which one do you honestly think would sell for the most money?

If you honestly believe they would sell for the same amount, then fair enough, men and women should both receive the same.

But personally I would be prepared to bet my life savings that the men's finals ticket would go for more.

True. The men's game is simply a bigger draw, and thus can command a higher prize.

[Ænima]

Originally Posted by johnF1971

Imagine you were lucky enough to have 2 tickets for the Wimbledon finals. One for the men's final on Sunday and one for the women's final on Saturday. Lets assume that Murray isn't involved and there's no British interest to make it all equal.

If you put them both on eBay, which one do you honestly think would sell for the most money?

If you honestly believe they would sell for the same amount, then fair enough, men and women should both receive the same.

But personally I would be prepared to bet my life savings that the men's finals ticket would go for more.

A fair point, even though for me personally, it depends on who is playing/ matched up as to my level of interest.

Both tickets would be worth a lot though. Perhaps they decided it on an equality/ money ratio- yeah the mens game brings in a bit more money, but the womens game still brings in enough as to give both equal prize money but it does not in other niches.

[jmclaugh]

Meanwhile the total prize money up for grabs for the teams at the last World Cups were $420m for the men and $6m for the women.

[johnF1971]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

They're not Championship events.

In the seniors and wheelchair events there is equal prize money for men and women.

Juniors are amateurs. They get no prize money.

I think you've missed my point. There may be equal prize money for men and women within the wheelchair and senior events but it is nowhere near the prize money awarded to the winners of the able-bodied, open-aged events.

If as some people have argued, women should receive equal prize money becasue they are the world's best "in their class" then why shouldn't the same apply to wheelchair and senior athletes?

In principle the womens class is the same thing as the seniors or the wheelchair one. An event restricted to people of a certain sex, age, or disability to allow them fair competition, because people within that class are not physically able to compete with the very best in the world (i.e. able-bodied men, aged 18-35).

The answer why different events pay different prize money is all to do with public interest that each event generates, and most people would agree that while the womens event generates a lot more interest than the wheelchair or seniors, its still not quite as much as the men, therefore they do not "deserve" the same prize money, despiite what Venus and Billie-Jean might think.

[CLL Dodge]

Originally Posted by johnF1971

I think you've missed my point. There may be equal prize money for men and women within the wheelchair and senior events but it is nowhere near the prize money awarded to the winners of the able-bodied, open-aged events.

If as some people have argued, women should receive equal prize money becasue they are the world's best "in their class" then why shouldn't the same apply to wheelchair and senior athletes?

In principle the womens class is the same thing as the seniors or the wheelchair one. An event restricted to people of a certain sex, age, or disability to allow them fair competition, because people within that class are not physically able to compete with the very best in the world (i.e. able-bodied men, aged 18-35).

The answer why different events pay different prize money is all to do with public interest that each event generates, and most people would agree that while the womens event generates a lot more interest than the wheelchair or seniors, its still not quite as much as the men, therefore they do not "deserve" the same prize money, despiite what Venus and Billie-Jean might think.

And you missed my point about Championship events, of which there are only 5. The issue should rather be whether the 3 doubles events should get equal prize money to the singles events. Doubles doesn't at any regular tour event where the singles/doubles split is a set percentage.

It's up to the International Wheelchair Tennis Association (which is a part of the ITF) to push for Championship status. The Seniors events at Wimbledon are just invitational, not part of any seniors circuit, so like the juniors not relevant to this discussion.

[Si_Crewe]

Just to clarify all this stuff about prize money being related to the number of sets played.....

What do they get the money for?
Taking part or winning?

Cos it seems, to me, that (most of) the money is a prize.
For winning.
It doesn't matter if you win in 2 sets, 3 sets, 5 sets or because the opponent fell over and broke their ass-bone after 2 minutes of play.
You won.
You deserve the prize.

The time spent playing should have no bearing on the size of the prize money.
The only thing that should dictate the size of the prize-money is the scale of the achievement.

[Ghost Misguided]

Originally Posted by Ænima

So it's a concept rather than a reality? It fails to answer my above example. So women would be paid less because they "usually" have to win less sets, even when there are times both sexes play 3 sets to win?!! I'm sorry but I can't see you idea working. It just wouldn't be fair for all the times both play 3 sets to win. I've explained this already: you can't have a system like that otherwise people would complain every time a man got through in straight sets and a woman also played 3. People would start adding up number of sets played and it'd get ridiculous.

Theres is so many flaws in that post I don't know where to begin. You seem to create a massive argument out of nothing, trying to argue against an argument I haven't made which makes me forgot what we were arguing about in the first place.

I'm out.

[Skyclad]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

Just to clarify all this stuff about prize money being related to the number of sets played.....

What do they get the money for?
Taking part or winning?

Cos it seems, to me, that (most of) the money is a prize.
For winning.
It doesn't matter if you win in 2 sets, 3 sets, 5 sets or because the opponent fell over and broke their ass-bone after 2 minutes of play.
You won.
You deserve the prize.

The time spent playing should have no bearing on the size of the prize money.
The only thing that should dictate the size of the prize-money is the scale of the achievement.

I agree.

And the fact is that winning the women's championship is a lesser achievement.

Unless you think the woman's champion could beat the Men's runner up.