Do female tennis players really deserve equal pay?

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by brandrea

The rate of pay is directly related to tv ratings no?

That’s what I think.

If women sports bring the same number of viewers (+ attendees), then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be paid the same. The truth, unfortunately, is that people generally do not care about women’s sports. There are some exceptions such as the LPGA, but it doesn’t have the same following as the PGA.

As mentioned earlier, if women supported each other, there probably would not be the same pay inequality that there is now.

[Ruud Van Driver]

I don't like tennis and have very little interest in the sport. However, it made my blood boil a few years back when the women were demanding equal prize money as the men at Wimbledon. The men play best of five sets and the women play best of three. Simple maths would dictate that the women earn 60% of what the men earn and, on a pro rated basis, the pay would be even.

Demanding it is one thing but actually receiving the same as the men, which they now do, is wrong on every level.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by APRolexguy

Does the US soccer teams get salaries to play? I think the England players make most of their money from their premier league teams. If the US men's team have the same set up then that would explain why they earn more overall.

the US national team pays them. Its separate from the professional league. In the UK obviously the big pay day is from the premier league. Im just trying to compare apples to apples in a national team vs national team scenario with revenue taken into account. The women earned way more revenue in 2015 when they won the world cup and over a four year period it was pretty close on revenue depending on what metric is used but they make 4X less.

The women are more famous than the men and earn more money from non soccer endorsements, but that isn't relevant either as its not payments received from their employer for national team work.

[Rock]

In "Political correctness gone mad" Australia, there is currently a big debate raging in the media (read Media beat-up) about a local co-anchor on a TV channel who spat her dummy because she was getting paid $1.1M and the guy was getting $2M.
All the feminists and bleeding hearts came out of the woodwork beating it up as a "Gender Pay-inequality" issue when in actual fact it is the same as if Tom Cruise and Angelina Jolie co-star in a movie and don't get paid the same. It's "Show-biz" for Pete's sake.
There has been a similar beat-up of the pay-issue regarding individual pay rates in Women's Cricket, which has a minimal following and would struggle to cover the wages of the Ticket-collector on the gate of the stadium.
In the Public Service, on the other hand, there has been equal pay for generations, as indeed there should be.

[amg55]

If they will only ban the painful grunts with each shot, equal pay it is.

[tamiya]

Equal pay from who..? We talking just prizemonies or total sponsor remuneration?

Prize money is up to each tournament's beancounters, it's a free market! They can put up whatever purse they want & if the ladies wish to boycott because money not enough it's their prerogative.

Sponsor packages between brandname & athelete, each do their own negotiation.

As for "gender equality"... eh what's this I hear about US Boy Scouts being made open to accept girls but Girl Guides/Scouts still don't allow male participants?!! (unless transgender... uh!?)

[bayerische]

Well there are in a way (if we talk about gender equality) inequality both ways.

Surely there's no contest of which gender has been the victim of more inequality.

However, if you want to become a police officer or a pilot in Finland, as a male you must have completed your mandatory military service in the Finnish defence forces. However this isn't mandatory for women becoming a police officer or pilot.

Double standards are everywhere.

[Star Ferry]

No they do not. Not only do they perform at a lower standard, they (as mentioned earlier) play 60% as much as the men.

The pay gap myth has been debunked by experts about as many times as flat-earth theory has. None of my statistics professors in college believed in it. I don't see how any ethical statistician could look at that data and conclude otherwise

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

the US national team pays them. Its separate from the professional league. In the UK obviously the big pay day is from the premier league. Im just trying to compare apples to apples in a national team vs national team scenario with revenue taken into account. The women earned way more revenue in 2015 when they won the world cup and over a four year period it was pretty close on revenue depending on what metric is used but they make 4X less.

The women are more famous than the men and earn more money from non soccer endorsements, but that isn't relevant either as its not payments received from their employer for national team work.

Could the revenue disparity be because the US Ladies team played so many more games than the men? I don't know the answer, but do know that the US ladies has the best team in the world and so will have played many, many games getting to the finals of near enough every tournament they play in. As an aside, it is good to see the US public getting behind their national ladies football (soccer) team, I wonder if the men were as successful if the game would take off more over there.

[dddrees]

Fair is fair but revenue should determine pay. Dana Kirkpatrick may very well not be as talented or may not have the team and car necessary to win. However I’ll bet she had at one tine if not still now the ability to bring in more revenue than other drivers based on her higher personality profile or celebrity. Heck sports are nothing but entertainment after all. It seems like for a while there the women’s soccer team were much more talented and popular than the men’s team. So they should have been paid more. Yeah,I think they suffered because they were women. Fair is fair. You should get paid more if you generate more revenue. However employers will pay you what they can get away with, not always what you are worth.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Could the revenue disparity be because the US Ladies team played so many more games than the men? I don't know the answer, but do know that the US ladies has the best team in the world and so will have played many, many games getting to the finals of near enough every tournament they play in. As an aside, it is good to see the US public getting behind their national ladies football (soccer) team, I wonder if the men were as successful if the game would take off more over there.

really it more about excuses men usually say as reasons why women are paid less and trying to somehow justify it. Its a systemic problem in general. This is just an example of a case in which there is really no argument they should be paid more, but they are not. So based on revenue generation and merit if they still make less then what hope is there for parity in situations when its not this obvious?

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

really it more about excuses men usually say as reasons why women are paid less and trying to somehow justify it. Its a systemic problem in general. This is just an example of a case in which there is really no argument they should be paid more, but they are not. So based on revenue generation and merit if they still make less then what hope is there for parity in situations when its not this obvious?

Predomently and historically women in the US just get paid less than men. In fact it’s my understanding this worked against men during the last recession or housing bubble crisis. For the first time in US history more men were laid off for this very reason.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Predomently and historically women in the US just get paid less than men. In fact it’s my understanding this worked against men during the last recession or housing bubble crisis. For the first time in US history more men were laid off for this very reason.

well men have more blue collar jobs. Assembly line, manufacturing, construction etc. So its not just because they get paid more that they got laid off. Some of the fields predominately represented by men were hit harder in the recession. More construction workers lost their jobs than teachers did.

Apples to Apples in the same job, women make less.

[locutus49]

In England, do women play Cricket? I can't understand the rules of the game or the scoring, but it looks like a game an athletic woman could play.

[wongwong5]

I think that they should but unfortunately, they also don't generate the same revenue as Men

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by locutus49

In England, do women play Cricket? I can't understand the rules of the game or the scoring, but it looks like a game an athletic woman could play.

Yes, they do, there are quite a few international teams. The boundaries are slightly smaller. (The fields are smaller). We have a very good Ladies team.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

well men have more blue collar jobs. Assembly line, manufacturing, construction etc. So its not just because they get paid more that they got laid off. Some of the fields predominately represented by men were hit harder in the recession. More construction workers lost their jobs than teachers did.

Apples to Apples in the same job, women make less.

Still, if I remember correctly the statistics showed in those occupations where both men and women were employed more men were layed off due to their higher salaries. It just made economic sense to do so.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

really it more about excuses men usually say as reasons why women are paid less and trying to somehow justify it. Its a systemic problem in general. This is just an example of a case in which there is really no argument they should be paid more, but they are not. So based on revenue generation and merit if they still make less then what hope is there for parity in situations when its not this obvious?

Yes, that is a fair point.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Not trying to resurrect the Billy Jean King/Bobby Riggs challenge but if a woman can beat a man at the same game, then equal pay is justified. The same goes for the corporate world and other professions.

When the competition is limited to gender and age factors, then equal pay becomes questionable to a certain extent.

Danica Patrick can hold her own against other male drivers so in her case, equal pay is justified. As far as tennis and golf, an open competition would soon prove that most women could not compete successfully against male competitors.

These are two key points that generate a lot of consideration.
First, a woman's pay should not be dependent on whether or not she can beat a man at the same sport per se. This would mean that the salary is solely based on physical ability.
A woman will thus never compete with a man at track and field, football or basketball. In this context, I would say salaries are directly related to public interest, i.e. ratings and sponsors.....

In Danica's case as is the case with any field of work that requires more brain than brawn, then salaries can level out and pay can directly correlate to performance.
That's why Steph Curry and Lebron James make more than their peers. Performance.
A female president should make the same as a male president, a female lawyer or executive should be the same. This is based on performance and dynamic mental ability, intelligence and experience. All this being equal, so should pay.


Everyone wants to make the argument that it's solely physical...well if a woman's basketball team can beat a man's basketball team then they rate the same. This will never happen....in a profession clearly based on physical performance.
Salary in a physically dependent field will then have to come down to ratings and sponsors, period.
Only taking ticket sales as a measure. If Serena's match sells out the stadium just as Roger's does and the tickets cost the same, pay should be equal. Then add ratings, sponsors, marketing....all this being equal, pay should also.

Not whether Serena can beat Roger in a one on one game, that's ridiculous. How many people would tune in to watch a Danica Patrick race vs a Filipo Thompson race.

Who's Filipo(my next door neighbor), exactly, not one ticket would sell. Plus Danica would lap him twice over in a Camry even if he were in a Ferrari.



This all gets reeeeeally hairy when you talk life and death. For example, woman in the military...who would you want on your right and left.
Sure, there are woman than can out perform men in many skills...but what happens when you have to drag somebody out of harms way, or carry giant packs of gear. There are woman that can outperform men, sure, but it isn't the general fair gender based standard.

[Andrewlennywatches]

Originally Posted by BristolCavendish

Not trying to resurrect the Billy Jean King/Bobby Riggs challenge but if a woman can beat a man at the same game, then equal pay is justified. The same goes for the corporate world and other professions.

When the competition is limited to gender and age factors, then equal pay becomes questionable to a certain extent.

Danica Patrick can hold her own against other male drivers so in her case, equal pay is justified. As far as tennis and golf, an open competition would soon prove that most women could not compete successfully against male competitors.

I agree with you

[APRolexguy]

very interesting points from a number of you guys. Is there really any ad for a job saying 40 k if you are a man, 30k if you are a woman? I mean that would be straight up illegal right?. In my previous job, the majority of the managers were females, even had a female CEO. I would to see the pay gap across various industries.

I read somewhere that women are less likely to negotiate for a pay rise, they are more likely to settle for the first offer.

[Demosthene]

The original questions incorrect as it assumes equality is something that has to be earned rather than is inherent.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by crc45

Professional sports are not games, they are businesses with a product to sell. If people are willing to pay more money for your product then you have the enjoyment of putting more money in your pocket.

this

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Demosthene

The original questions incorrect as it assumes equality is something that has to be earned rather than is inherent.

In the context of the workplace, it most certainly does need to be earned!

That's not an unfair assumption, it's reality.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

This all gets reeeeeally hairy when you talk life and death. For example, woman in the military...who would you want on your right and left.
Sure, there are woman than can out perform men in many skills...but what happens when you have to drag somebody out of harms way, or carry giant packs of gear. There are woman that can outperform men, sure, but it isn't the general fair gender based standard.

I’ve been reading this thread with interest, as I think it’s an important topic.

Just wanted to speak to this military issue, which has been a recent change in the US. I think the real reason behind it was that careers between men and women in the armed forces were so different, despite the rank structure that was equal between everyone. A female could be a four star general the same as her male counterpart, but the difference is that he likely came up through the ranks working in a combat role, whereas she came up the ranks working in logistics or some other support role because those were the only positions open to her. They make the same pay, but she would never be selected or even eligible for many of the important/premier leadership positions. For example, to command an Army division, you have to have come up through the combat ranks. Senior female officers and NCOs were always regulated to the side jobs because of that background requirement.

So opening up all combat jobs to women was the way that they are planning on allowing women to compete for those premier positions as they come up through the ranks. I have mixed feelings about this. There are some very talented female soldiers/sailors/marines that deserve to pursue their military careers in whatever fashion that they wish, but I fear what they’ll have to go through to get there. Combat, unlike what you see glorified on tv and movies, is a dirty, bloody, and soul searing business. It’s a shame that we ask our young men to go and do it, and it may sound sexist of me to say, but I wish that we could spare our young women from it. This is definitely a case where people should be careful of what they wish for, because they just may get it...

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

This all gets reeeeeally hairy when you talk life and death. For example, woman in the military...who would you want on your right and left.
Sure, there are woman than can out perform men in many skills...but what happens when you have to drag somebody out of harms way, or carry giant packs of gear. There are woman that can outperform men, sure, but it isn't the general fair gender based standard.

The answer to that is is simple. I want the most competent capable person possible. Notice that I never mentioned sex, race, religion, or even sexual preference.

I’ve met both men and yes even women who are both more than capable of meeting that criteria. When the U.S. Military decided to allow women to serve in combat positions they stated they would simply have to come up with criteria and tests based on physical and mental capabilities. Exactly how it should have been from the get go.

As an old retired soldier the only problem I ever had with females in the military were when incidents of fraternization occurred. It never had anything to do with capabilities or abilities to do one’s job. At least not anymore than it had to do with anybody else to include men. Simply stated as a leader if I had someone who proved themself unable or unwilling to do their job I simply got rid of them.

[locutus49]

DITTO. Retired Army here.

Originally Posted by dddrees

The answer to that is is simple. I want the most competent capable person possible. Notice that I never mentioned sex, race, religion, or even sexual preference.

I’ve met both men and yes even women who are both more than capable of meeting that criteria. When the U.S. Military decided to allow women to serve in combat positions they stated they would simply have to come up with criteria and tests based on physical and mental capabilities. Exactly how it should have been from the get go.

As an old retired soldier the only problem I ever had with females in the military were when incidents of fraternization occurred. It never had anything to do with capabilities or abilities to do one’s job. At least not anymore than it had to do with anybody else to include men. Simply stated as a leader if I had someone who proved themself unable or unwilling to do their job I simply got rid of them.

[THC]

Back to the specific tennis question OP asked....Depends what you mean by “getting paid” ...Anna Kornakova hardly ever won, but doubled down on her exposure into her brand and did quite well in endorsements.. that is where the real money is

[Demosthene]

Originally Posted by Tony64

In the context of the workplace, it most certainly does need to be earned!

That's not an unfair assumption, it's reality.

Within this context the workplace is segregated based on gender and pay is determined by sex rather than ability.

[hambone1983]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Predomently and historically women in the US just get paid less than men. In fact it’s my understanding this worked against men during the last recession or housing bubble crisis. For the first time in US history more men were laid off for this very reason.

this is just false. Women do not make less money than men in apples to apples comparisons. They make less money than men on average because they choose to. In the US 2/3s of doctors are men, 2/3s of lawyers are men, 89% of engineers are men, 76% in STEM professions overall are men, 92% of software engineers are men, and on and on.

Women make less because nurses make less than doctors, paralegals make less than attorneys and teachers make less than engineers.