I can not see any qualitative factors which justify equal prize money for both men's and women's tennis generally and especially in the majors.
The rational for equality in pay in the general workplace is equal pay for equal work. I whole heartedly agree with that principle. Women should be given equal pay and status assuming they are producing equal outcome on behalf of their employer.
In my humble opinion, women's tennis does not qualify for equal pay status. As a "product" it is far inferior to the men's "product". As a job, they don't do the same work as men do. Women only play 2 out of 3 in the majors versus 3 out of 5 for men, the average on court time is signifcantly less than men, their average attendance is less than for men, their average viewer-ship is less than for men's, their average ticket price is less than for men's, etc., etc.
Being a woman doesn't entitle them to equal pay. Only equal work does and in this instance, I don't feel they make the grade.
Full Version: The Unpopular Position On Women's Tennis
QUOTE (RealMensTennis @ Sep 4 2007, 01:26 PM) 
I can not see any qualitative factors which justify equal prize money for both men's and women's tennis generally and especially in the majors.
The rational for equality in pay in the general workplace is equal pay for equal work. I whole heartedly agree with that principle. Women should be given equal pay and status assuming they are producing equal outcome on behalf of their employer.
In my humble opinion, women's tennis does not qualify for equal pay status. As a "product" it is far inferior to the men's "product". As a job, they don't do the same work as men do. Women only play 2 out of 3 in the majors versus 3 out of 5 for men, the average on court time is signifcantly less than men, their average attendance is less than for men, their average viewer-ship is less than for men's, their average ticket price is less than for men's, etc., etc.
Being a woman doesn't entitle them to equal pay. Only equal work does and in this instance, I don't feel they make the grade.
The rational for equality in pay in the general workplace is equal pay for equal work. I whole heartedly agree with that principle. Women should be given equal pay and status assuming they are producing equal outcome on behalf of their employer.
In my humble opinion, women's tennis does not qualify for equal pay status. As a "product" it is far inferior to the men's "product". As a job, they don't do the same work as men do. Women only play 2 out of 3 in the majors versus 3 out of 5 for men, the average on court time is signifcantly less than men, their average attendance is less than for men, their average viewer-ship is less than for men's, their average ticket price is less than for men's, etc., etc.
Being a woman doesn't entitle them to equal pay. Only equal work does and in this instance, I don't feel they make the grade.
I agree with the 3 set vs. 5 set argument, but I disagree with the rest of your post. First, I doubt women's tennis brings in fewer viewers; women's tennis is extremely popular. I'd like to see some hard facts supporting your claim. However, even if you were correct about this, I don't know that it would justify less pay. It's akin to your boss arguing that, despite the fact that you work as hard as Johnny and produce the same volume and quality of product as he, you are going to be paid less because Johnny is more popular around the office.
Regarding lower ticket prices -- this is tied in to shorter matches, which again, is the real problem with equal pay. Once women start playing best 3 out of 5 sets, the ticket prices will match men's games.
But all of this is moot until women start playing 3/5 sets instead of 2/3. I completely agree that equal pay should mean an equal number of sets.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.