Wimbeldon tournament continues to pay men more than women.

[Captain Hilts]

This is ironic when you think how the women's television ratings have been higher than those for the men. The stronger raquets have turned the men's game into two guys taking turns ace-ing each other for five hours. No one in their right mind wants to watch that.

Wimbeldon is the last major tournament that has these sex-based pay discrepancies. Don't watch it!

Iconic events like this 'normalize' sexism.

[jojo54]

1. If it's this week........

I'll be watching the NFL draft and the NHL playoffs

[peacebaby3]

2. I agree except they need to change the womens' matches from 3 sets to 5

so they equal the men as far as what is asked of them. It might take a little while for the women to get used to playing that long but it would be completely fair and I am sure those women athletes are strong enough to handle two more sets.

[Captain Hilts]

3. I think they need to completely change the scoring of the game.

The women's matches can take 90 minutes or an hour, the men's can take five.

Neither is good.

The women most surely can handle five sets, but who wants to watch either sex play tennis for that long?

[peacebaby3]

6. LOL. I actually like watching it for that long. It usually lasts about as

long as a football game which can take 4 or 5 hours with all the breaks,etc.

I enjoy watching the men more because I'm a very shallow female who just wants to watch them run around in shorts and change shirts on the sideline. Pat Rafter was my fantasy man until he retired.

I really like the women also. I so miss the days of Martina Navratilova and Chris Everett (Lloyd). I also really miss Steffi Graf. I've never really liked many of the women since Steffi retired. Don't get me started on Anna Kournikova who has never even won a tournament!

I just think they need to make everything equal...pay and time on the court.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Football games take three and a half hours.

Perhaps 3.5. And people HATE it. It's why Monday Night Football's ratings have tanked.

The time it takes to play a hockey game has been cut down to about 2.5 from three.

Three hours is a real limit whether it's a sport or a college lecture or whatever.

[peacebaby3]

8. I actually watched a SEC championship game a couple of years ago that

was on for nearly 5 hours so I know it happens in college football especially since overtime has been added. I can't say about professional football because I don't watch it.

[0007]

13. The last minute of both football & basketball can take a good

twenty five minutes or longer with all the time-outs. This pisses me off as it is nothing but commercials one after another. It is a real turn off.

[tabasco]

25. Wow, ain't that the truth!

Even watching the game in person, the breaks for the commercials is tiresome.

All the players just standing around for a couple minutes doing nothing.

Really breaks up the momentum and excitement.

[stopbush]

15. I don't watch football at all. You could say that I "hate"

one minute of it, let alone 3.5 hours.

Should football games last 30 seconds?

I don't understand why everything needs to be shortened to be enjoyable. Next we'll be suggesting
that that week-long cruise be shortened to 3 days...

[tishaLA]

19. "who wants to watch either sex play tennis for that long?"

Try watching a replay of the Borg-McEnroe final from 1980. Or many classics from the French Open. Those are matches you want to last forever, not just for a few hours.

[Captain Hilts]

20. I watched the McEnroe Borg finals and LOVED them!

But the game was different then. Wooden racquets for both of them.

Now, the men take turns ace-ing each other. The percentage of points won by aces has increased dramatically because of the larger raquets.

[tishaLA]

27. You haven't seen Federer play Nadal recently, have you?

Or Federer and almost anyone.

For one thing, the grass courts at Wimbledon and Queen's Club play very fast: the US had its Davis Cup matches against Argentina on grass in La Jolla and, while it was fast, it wasn't as zippy as Wimbledon is. Aces happen in extraordinary numbers on grass courts with both men and women. If I looked back over the records, in fact, I'm sure I'd see only a nominal increase in the number of aces since the mid 90s when wide body racquets and all the new technology fully blossomed in the game.

Borg and McEnroe hit lots of aces in that 1980 match--and all their matches! Remember, Borg was stringing his Donnay at ~80 lbs tension to he could get extreme pop off the strings.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Yes, the percentage of aces has gone up. I loved it when Borg's

racquet would collapse on him. I also paid to see Roscoe Tanner, who supposedly had the hardest serve. His arm was a blur.

Federer's great. Who said he isn't? Not I.

But, as they've pointed out on PTI , people just aren't watching tennis like they used to. Joe and Mary Shit don't know the male players as they do the women players, yet the men are being paid more at Wimbledon. That just doesn't make sense to me.

If women playing 5 sets would even things out, then have them play five sets.

[WinkyDink]

36. Precisely. Equal pay for equal WORK. (Or play, whatever.)

[truebrit71]

4. As soon as women play 5 sets, then they can get equal pay.

Having said that, the women's game is much more exciting to watch, fewer 800 mile-per-hour aces, and plenty more rallies with skilful shot placement. Plus they are much, MUCH easier on the eyes than the fellas... :evilgrin:

[stopbush]

9. I agree. And I don't know a true tennis fan who complains about the

length of a tennis match. Tennis has a clock. It's not like baseball where a lot of the time during a game
can be attributed to checking runners at first.

I'll never understand people who can't seem to enjoy something that lasts over 3 hours. Opera fans
regularly attend Wagner operas that run 5-6 hours. There's an old joke about the American who travels to Germany
and attends a Wagner opera with a German friend. At the end, the German asks the American what he thought
of the opera. "Well," says the Yank, "it was kinda long, don't you think?" "Yes," replies his German friend, "but
in Germany, we love music."

Those of us who love tennis also love a long, gruelling match.

Then, there's cricket...

On edit: I disagree with the general thoughts expressed here about the men's game. There's still plenty of finesse
coming from the top players. I would - however - like to see a return to less-powerful racquets, but I think that
would impact the women's game more than the men's.

[rockymountaindem]

12. Same here

Besides, tennis offers plenty of opportunities to change the channel during changeovers, or to grab a snack or whatever. In addition, there have been times when I thought things were all but over, changed the channel in the 3rd set, then come back around while surfing an hour later to find, say, a killer 4th set tiebreak or a really good 5th set. I think tennis makes a lot of ad revenue at that point, to which I can testify personally.

Besides, it's not until the 4th and 5th sets when you see what the players are really made of. I'd rather watch a 5 hour barn-burner than a 90 minute blowout.

If, however, women get paid less at smaller tourneys where both sexes play three sets, that's definately unfair.

[tishaLA]

23. I agree about the men's game

You only have to look at Roger Federer, perhaps the greatest player ever to hold a racquet (even Laver says so!) to see that the men's game is more than booming aces. Sure some players take this route, on both the men's and the women's side (and they are usually Americans), but many top players have great variety and finesse.

[truebrit71]

30. Hey!!! I LOVE cricket...Any game that incorporates a lunch AND a tea break

..is fine by me...!!!

[donsu]

5. kicking for equal pay for women

nt

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Doesn't The Women's Final Outrate The Men's

It might not have when Mac and Borg, and that gang was still around, but i think the women's game gets higher ratings. So, if i'm right, this is the definition of unfairness. The greater revenue generator, gets less back in return?
The Professor

[LostinVA]

28. Yes, and it has for quite a while now

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. In which country?

Here's the first viewing figures I've found - for the UK, from 1999 and 2000, and we had no-one involved in either final (of course) in any recent year, so there's no bias due to that.

At the same time, the BBC reported that 12.5m people, the largest Men's Final audience in the UK for nearly a decade, watched Pete Sampras' record breaking victory over Pat Rafter. The total was nearly four million up on the 1999 figure of 8.1 million for the Sampras v Agassi final and the largest since the 1992 final (Agassi v Ivanisevic) which peaked at 13.8 million viewers.

The Ladies' Final between Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport also attracted the highest UK audience of the last five years at more than 7.6m viewers (6.3m in 1999). At lunchtime on the third Monday (10 July), the Williams' sisters victory in the Ladies' Doubles was watched by 4.2m viewers, while the lunchtime news was switched to BBC 2.

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/pressreleases/2000/2000_millions_court_17_7_2000.html

So in both 1999 and 2000, the British viewing figures were higher for the men.

One thing to note - if anyone gets the 2005 figures, they may not be very useful, since Live 8 was on at the same time as the womens' final.

[bloom]

11. "Iconic events like this 'normalize' sexism."

Yes. And some people will rationalize it one way or another.


If people boycott - they should tell them why.

[stopbush]

14. No rationalization at all.

Women play a best-of-three match. Men play best-of-five. You're saying that women should be paid the same as
men for doing 60% of the "work" as a man. How is that equal? Or is this an inequality that you approve of? Or
is it a stamina issue where we're conceding that women can't play 5-setters over the course of a tourney? If
that's the rationale, then I agree that the prize money should be the same for men & women.

There's one solution to even the playing field - make the men's & women's matches the same length, either
best of three or best of five. Of course, you'd lose the dynamic of the 5-setter (how many times has a player been up
two sets to zip only to lose in a 5-setter? The match would have been over were it a 3-setter), but the overall play
would move along, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, you will never see the women's game go to a 5-setter for a simple reason: scheduling. If
all women's matches were best-of-5 sets then the major tournaments would drag on for ever.

Of course, the majors could dump the tie-breaker and go back to the old way: you must win a set by two games,
but that will never happen either.

BTW - I won't be boycotting.

[Captain Hilts]

16. If they played seven set matches we would see comebacks, etc.

Or nine set matches. NASCAR could change their races to 700 miles. What's the logic? Is it a game of skill or endurance?

I played competitive tennis and don't like the way it is scored at all. No other sport makes you sit and watch for five hours.

And the more powerful equipment has made both - especially the men's games - less interesting to watch. I used to love it. It was like watching boxing.

Women get the higher television ratings, yet they get paid less. Isn't most of the money generated from television and commericials?

Why is Wimbeldon the ONLY major that has the pay discrepancy?

[stopbush]

17. Is it a game of skill or endurance?

Both.

"No other sport makes you sit and watch for five hours. "

Cricket...a baseball double header. Nobody is forcing you to sit, BTW.

"Women get the higher television ratings, yet they get paid less. Isn't most of the money generated from television and commericials?"

I think the majors go with titled sponsorship on the titles, ie: corporate sponsorship (The Lexus Men's Title, etc), so the general ad
revenues may not figure into it.

"Why is Wimbeldon the ONLY major that has the pay discrepancy?"

Because Wimbeldon has always been slow to change.

[yvr girl]

33. Women make the same as the men in the other Grand Slams

and you still have the 3 set 5 set differential.

[AngryAmish]

18. Whoever gets the higher ratings should get paid more.

I watch women's tennis but not men's. The game holds my attention more for some reason...

[LostinVA]

29. Me too -- the same for women's basketball, and often women's soccer

The last, according to who's playing. I LOVE women's b-ball so much better... it's nice to watch a TEAM play, not just a bunch of separate "stars" shooting three-pointers.

[tabasco]

21. You're right about the racket and men's tennis.

Men's tennis has become less interesting. I wish they would go back to smaller rackets.

But once the horse is out of the barn, it's hard to get him back in.

A change to the smaller rackets would mean all competitve players would have to change. Not a likely move.

[entanglement]

22. I agree, women's tennis is WAY more fun to watch

and they definitely deserve the same amount of money if not more. OTOH, there are far more pressing pay inequity problems to fix (76c to the dollar and all that)

[meganmonkey]

24. Tennis is literally the only sport

I regularly watch. I LOVE it.

NHL Playoffs and Cup, maybe sometimes if I remember, I'll watch.

But all other sports bore the crap outta me.

I'm watching Wimbledon, and I am glad some folks pointed out the 3-set vs 5-set thing, because that makes me feel better about it :P

[lukasahero]

26. Today is "Equal Pay Day", 4/25

http://www.pay-equity.org/day.html

"Each year, the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) organizes the national observance of Equal Pay Day to raise awareness about unfair pay for women and people of color in America. Equal Pay Day is observed in April to indicate how far into each year a woman must work to earn as much as a man earned in the previous year. Because women on average earn less, they must work longer for the same pay. For women of color, the wage gap is greater."

Just seemed like a good thread to throw this in.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. If they're serving aces, it doesn't last 5 hours

It's when they get into long points that it takes time.

Do you have the stats for the women's game getting more viewers? Remeber you need to pick players and viewers from different countries, to avoid bias due to local interest.

[Captain Hilts]

35. References to television ratings:

Christine Brennan's here:

Pete Sampras, 31, is all but retired. Andre Agassi, now 33, lost in the Round of 16 here the other day. Both are husbands and fathers. Quick, name another U.S. male player, other than Roddick. The sport desperately needs this young man to win something big, and soon, because tennis' television ratings are paltry, and the Williamses won't be able to attract and hold an audience forever.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2003-07-02-brennan_x.htm

Given the fact that attendance for the WTA Championships has been disappointing during its two-year run at the Staples Center in Los Angeles and that Scott, a former ATP executive, announced "the plan is to move (the tournament) in 2005 and I believe that will happen," the proposed merger makes sense. Additionally, tennis television ratings declined this year at some of the sport's most prestigious events, including Wimbledon, and the American media presence in Los Angeles and Houston was minimal. Combining the events would presumably create greater interest among fans and media.

http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=9954&bannerregion=

Columbia Journalism takes on the ratings/earnings disparity:

http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2005-05-03/russell-tennisprizes

This CNN article addresses the ratings/earnings disparity:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/27/i_qaa.01.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Figures for the 2004 Wimbledon finals

Earlier on Sunday, five million UK viewers watched Roger Federer win the men's singles final at Wimbledon on BBC One, more than 35% of the audience.

On Saturday, an average of 4.4 million viewers tuned in to watch Maria Sharapova win the ladies' singles final.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3867849.stm

As explained above, 2005 figures may not prove much, since the women's final coincided with Live 8. These are viewing figures in a 'neutral' country - with no participants in either final.