h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Morning all,

I heard on BBC radio this morning that T.J wants the Wimbledon Ladies to get as much prize money as the men this year.

Does this mean that they are going to play 5 set matches too?

Or is it another example of backdoor equality?

Novo

Morning Novo,

There was a debate about this on Radio 4 yesterday evening and John Lloyd made the point that it is market forces that dictate the difference in prize money. Tickets for the mens games sell for a lot more than the ladies.

The actual difference isn't that large and, as he said, the Ladies winners are going to be rich anyway.

The alternative argument was put by a member of the House of Lords who is the chairwomen of the parliamentary tennis club. She pointed out that all the other major championships paid the same prize money and that the All England club attracted adverse comment every year because of what she thought was an anochronistic and probably misogynistic policy.

Off the top of my head, it does seeem odd on the one hand that the current differences in prize money are sufficiently small that it seems odd that they aren't just made equal.
That said, they're also sufficiently close that I can't see a girl thinking of taking up tennis thinking "The women's prize is 6% less than the men's - hardly worth playing for".

In addition to the possible differences in gate receipts and media rights, there is also the argument that with the women's matches being shorter, the top women players are more likely to play in doubles matches as well. Since the top 10 women apparently earned more than the top 10 men last year at Wimbledon, it'd be difficult for *them* to claim they were impoverished. If their argument was that they played more tennis overall, that could possibly be an argument for paying by the set, which they probably wouldn't like.

There doesn't seem to be one obvious answer that's naturally right, the way there might be if games were of equal length. People will tend to argue from whatever position gives them the most money (or publicity), claiming fairness is on their side.

>>"She pointed out that all the other major championships paid the same prize money and that the All England club attracted adverse comment every year."
It's only very recently that some other championships have started giving equal prize money.

Hi Novo,

Do you work for the Daily Mail? The topics you introduce are so often on their favoured theme of: 'they' are foisting something bad on 'us', which is unfair and unreasonable, and we aren't going to stand for it! Day after week after month, these stories labour to instill and nurture discontent, alienation, social division and hatred. We really ought to stop helping them do it, don't you think?

Stress is a killer, we know that. I wonder if this type of rabble-rousing actually shortens lives? I suspect it does, even if you need statistics to recognise it.

Iraq, Palestine, Burma and other countries are suffering military occupation. Innocent people are being hurt and killed. If you want to get wound up about something, how about something that *really* matters?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't think getting wound up about something, important or not, really changes anything. So why not get to complain a little bit about trivialities? (Well, I guess your posting rather answers this one )

Anyway, to stay somewhat on topic: indeed, men and women tennis players could all be paid on the same level - of course I mean the lower one

Morning PC

Clearly you don't read my posts, or if you do then you don't absorb much detail.I have posted on your subjects many times. No I don't work for the Daily Mail, I don't even read the rag ---- as I have said many times.

I tried to introduce a "light Hearted " note today,

We have had enough debate on this board on Iraq, Ethnic differences, Immigrants etc to last for a bloody lifetime. Some I confess to starting myself because I genuinely ( as a Telegraph reader ) felt annoyed by.

Some I started "tongue in cheek" to get a debate going , but your post begins to confirm a feeling that it is time to quit The Forum altogether

Novo

No! The Forum will go down the drain if sensible contributors drop out.

P-C, if the subject matter doesn't appeal to you, stay out of it. Start your own threads for topics you want to discuss.

I already apologised to Novo on another thread, but it really belongs here: I was mistaken; I have apologised, and Novo has accepted.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think it should be put to a vote. The members of the world-wide body of professional female tennis players should be asked whether they could prefer playing the same # of matches/sets as the men and receiving equal prize money, or if they would rather be payed proportional to the total (including doubles) number of matches/sets played.

Seems that either outcome is "fair" and by asking them, they decide what they think is fair. Also, maybe by proposing these options, they'll come back with an alternative that they consider fair.

Morning Teasswill

ad thankyou.

Novo

*waves to novo*

Of course, if the prize money/payment was related to number of sets, or time on court, there could be some strategic play taking place to maximise earnings. The 6-0, 6-0 match over in less than an hour would net () less than the hard fought 7-5, 5-7, 7-5, 5-7, 6-3.

When the likes of Tim Henman, John Lloyd, and Greg Rudeski have become multi-millionaires, without ever winning anything meaningful, I'd suggest that the pay is out of all proportion to their value to society anyway.

As a way of making tennis interesting perhaps they could play two games at a time on the same court, and make it a full contact sport.

Even more obscene are the high salaries paid to those dithering old farts at the top of the Lawn tennis association who have proved themselves utterly inacapable of setting up a decent system for the proper coaching and training of young British players, despite millions being poured in over the years. The last British male Wimbledon champion was Fred Perry, I think in the 1930s and female, Virginia wade in 1977. Pathetic!

Morning Fanny & McKay, (agree with you both) et al

Before you reach for your keyboard P C , this is a 'smiley'question. It relates to a previous post by Teasswil ( waves to Teasswill ), and the sports commentary today, relating to the opening of Wimbly.

Can anyone think of a reason why the male players should not request 3 set matches if the ladies insist on equal winnings ( next year a possibility?).

What other job / sport would it be considered 'fair' for people doing only 60% of the same work, to get the same pay?

Novo