G’day Roarers. Considering we’re all about strong sports opinion, we thought it was about time we captured this in a weekly debate on the hot topics.
Each week, two writers will go head-to-head, and will only have 250 words to get their point across.
It will be up to you, in the comments section, to decide the winner. That winner will stay on and take on a new challenger and new topic. That challenger can come from anyone, including any commenters who want to throw their hat in the ring.
To get the ball rolling Roar editors Benjamin Conkey and Joe Frost will take sides on this week’s topic:
Women’s tennis has been in the news this week due to some rather sexist comments from Indian Wells tournament director Raymond Moore.
While we won’t be discussing Wells’ stance, Novak Djokovic did subsequently bring up the male versus female pay argument in tennis before apologising.
Therefore, this week we’re debating the topic that refuses to go away.
PROFESSIONAL MALE TENNIS PLAYERS SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN FEMALES
AGREE
Benjamin Conkey (Roar Editor): Before the feminists come at me, I believe in equality in all walks of life.
True equality exists when both male and females are paid the same for doing the same job.
How is it then that professional female tennis players can get the same prize money at Grand Slam events for doing the equivalent of part-time work?
It’s funny how we never hear Serena Williams or Victoria Azarenka talk about wanting to play five sets, and wanting that true equality. After all, why would you want to do more work for the same money? No one wants to do that. I don’t blame them, but then again we can’t blame male tennis players for voicing any level of annoyance that this situation exists.
In fact, I’d support the male players going on strike until their female counterparts are required to also play best of five sets.
It’s not like it’s never happened before. The old WTA Championship final used to be contested over five sets. For 14 years in fact. The last such occasion was 1998, when Martina Hingis beat Lindsay Davenport 7–5, 6–4, 4–6, 6–2.
Five sets of women’s tennis would be great to watch. As we’ve seen, the regular Men’s ATP Tour over the best-of-three sets produces different winners. Even Bernard Tomic has won three ATP titles. At Grand Slam level though, the fittest players over the longer journey stand out from the crowd.
Surely players on the WTA tour would be interested in knowing how they’d cope with the ultimate test, just like a runner stepping up from a half to a full marathon.
DISAGREE
Joe Frost (Roar Editor): Of the world’s ten best-paid female athletes in 2015, seven were tennis players. Rounding out the top ten was a driver, an ice skater, and a golfer.
And it’s worth noting Danica Patrick races men in motorsport, while now-retired skater Kim Yuna’s yearly earnings are boosted by her career as a pop star.
The fact is, of all female athletes, tennis players have the best chance of earning the big bucks. And that’s because women are shown the respect they deserve by the major tournaments.
Sure they may not play five-set matches, but if the length of the game is where you earn your coin, why do the Matildas struggle to even get business-class flights, let alone comparable pay to the Socceroos?
As for the argument only attractive women make good money, because they get the endorsement deals, watch the opening ceremony at the Rio Olympics and count the hundreds of gorgeous women marching. How many of them do you think you’ll see on a billboard in the following months?
The value of a person’s sweat, sacrifice and effort cannot ever truly be measured, but the best gauge we have is their financial reward. As it stands, tennis’ major tournaments are among the only sporting events in the world that say to women, “Your effort is worth the same as a man’s.”
Whether women’s sport would earn as much – and thus pay as much – as men’s sport if the prizepools were the same is no longer a chicken-and-egg debate. Tennis has settled it.
The question now is, why aren’t all women’s sports paid the same as men?
So what about it Roarers? Who wins your vote for best-made argument this week?
Let us know in the comments section below and they’ll be our carryover champ for next week. Also let us know if you want to take part, and we can make that happen.
Richard Esveld
Guest
I totally agree with Ben Conkey's argument, women can't claim for equality in one field (say: employment opportunities) but argue for difference in an other (tennis).
stripes
Guest
What does equal work refer to in the scheme of the sports industry?
stripes
Guest
The problem with purposefully evening the odds is it's using gender inequality to pay for gender inequality. You're just giving someone else a raw deal because someone else is getting a raw deal. I believe the answer should be to try eliminate it all together. That means sticking upnfor the affected party at any time. In the end pro tennis affects no-one except a handful of already handsomely paid people. Means nothing on the world scale except the for the interest this argument generates.
Mr Realist_81
Guest
There was a study conducted by a spanish university (maybe students?) I read a few years back that showed that men;'s tennis brought in close to 80% of the revenue in the sport. If I can find it I will send through a link
Lancey5times
Guest
Reduce the women's field to make it fit. They lack the depth anyway. Six matches to take home the trophy compared to seven in the mens. This equates to half the current field which might I add is about equal to the ability comparison
G
Guest
She'd be lucky to take a game off him considering Federer can barely win a set against him!
Liam O'Neill
Guest
If the number of sets is irrelevant, why not reduce the men's game to three
Liam O'Neill
Guest
I agree with the women, equal pay for equal work.
pat malone
Guest
mens match is up against the NFL and the womens is not
pat malone
Guest
wel thats how all sports are done. sponsors and spectators effectively pay them
pat malone
Guest
no they get paid for performance not training and how much revenue they generate
handles
Guest
Sorry, but that is 100% incorrect. Nobody is rewarded for the training they do, they are rewarded for the content they provide. I train like crazy for golf, and that doesn't mean sh1t. If people are not prepared to pay to see it, live or on TV, then iit isn't wotrth a cracker. Revenue that pays players comes from sponsors, with product to sell, TV and media, with product to sell, and ticket sales. The only reason that equal prize money is sustainable is cross subsidization. Women provide less content to fewer fans. Tournaments could not stand on their own legs without the ticket sales and sponsorship men's tennis generates.
sheek
Roar Guru
Women get such a raw deal in life when it comes to monetary equality, that I think it's great the female tennis players are paid 'above odds'. Evens things up a bit in an usually unfair world. The biggest mistake people make is comparing apples with oranges. I watch men for their power & women for their grace. Apples & oranges, they are both tasty fruit in different ways. As the French say, "vive la difference".
Dan Wighton
Roar Guru
Gotta say I agree with Joe here, not to say Conks doesn't have some good points. The main reasoning for me is that tennis tournaments, unlike in other sports which feature both genders, are under the same banner. It is the Australian Open 2016, or the French Open 2016. There is a men's champ and a women's champ. In cricket there is the NBA and the WNBA, or the men's Ashes and the women's Ashes, which are totally different formats and happen at totally different times, with different sponsorship and attendance. [The Danica Patrick example is an exception to the rule, just showing how great her achievements truly are]. The total money made for each tournament is for the tournament as a whole. There will be years where people are more interested in Novak versus Roger, but there will also be years were people are keen to see Sharapova versus Serena. In Australia, there'd be more TV ratings and ticket demand to see Sam Stosur go all the way to the final than to see Novak destroy everyone in his wake. Therefore, it makes sense to split the prize money down the middle. For other sports, like the ones mentioned, the money paid to athletes of either gender is generally respective of their drawing power, which is fair. Ronda Rousey says she is the highest paid athlete in the MMA. That might be an exaggeration considering Conor McGregor says the same, but these sports have different calendars and differing events. The recent Rousey fight had arguably a bigger drawing power than most recent MMA fights, purely due to her presence.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
I'm not on a crusade for men's tennis Chris. I certainly don't support the 5 sets v 3 sets argument, if women only played one set and that's what got people excited and brought the $ in then so be it. My guess is that there is more of an audience for faster serves, harder hitting, but tennis is probably one sport where the disparity re the spectacle isn't massive, hence the relatively high prize money for women. In other sports, for better or worse, there is a bigger disparity in perceived quality, e.g. football, cricket, basketball. I understand that that's largely subjective, but that's just how most people see it. Hence the pay disparity is larger.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
OK. Your modelling analogy is a little awkward but I get your point. Now show me the evidence that the market prefers men's tennis. The commercial argument is the logical one but I can't actually find any definitive stats.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
The equality argument contends that getting on court and playing an equal amount of sets, constitutes doing the same thing, men or women. The Matildas play 90 mins so they are doing the same thing as the Socceroos playing 90 mins. Everyone does the same thus should be paid the same. A female model and a male model do the same thing, wear clothes and pose for a camera. The difference is that in tennis and football males get paid more. In modelling females (mostly) get paid more. Why? Because to say they all do the same thing is too simplistic and is wrong. They patently don't all do the same thing, there is a premium for skill, performance, beauty and any number of other variables, and the market recognises this.
Chris Vincent
Roar Pro
Tell me again how qualifying for a professional tennis tournament is comparable to a random person pulling on a bikini.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
I'm not sure Joe knew what he was arguing for. That 7 of the world's 10 highest paid female athletes are tennis players would suggest that those 7 are probably grossly overpaid given tennis isn't anywhere near that dominant in the popularity stakes. In the end athletes should get paid in accordance with what income they generate. Doesn't matter who they are or whether they are male or female.
marcel
Guest
+1000 Sir Alfie