BoxRec

off topic, but i have just heard that a lobby of mp's have said that women's pay at wimbledon should be equal to the mens.
if parity is not in place by next year's competion they will go to the european court of human rights to achieve it.

remember the poor overworked things do not spend anywhere near as long on court as the blokes. actually wimbledon would have to go on for another 2 days at least to accomodate parity in match lengths.

The world is going mad.

I don't object to parity.

Get them to play best of five sets.

Better still, if they want parity, get them to play against the blokes. Then they can have 100% of nowt.

Gve em pay parity if they play in bikini's.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Better still, if they want parity, get them to play against the blokes. Then they can have 100% of nowt.

game set match federer.

henin hardenne is thrashed 6-0 6-0 6-0.

In terms of talent parity, perhaps Henman can enter the women's next year?

Loftgroov wrote:In terms of talent parity, perhaps Henman can enter the women's next year?

he certainly has slipped in recent years hasn't he.

i still say 2001 was the year he really fucked up.

he certainly should have made the final that year.

what a piss take....
its a contradiction in itself...
they want equality yet want their own tournament......

1) make 'em play the same length as the men
2) have one tournament
3) work out the percentage women get paid by seeing what percentage of the total revenue they generate....


At the end of the day its an entertainment industry..... you dont hear of male super models making millions for strutting down a cat walk..... you dont hear of male porn stars making big dough.... Woman dominate those two industries pay wise.....

Also the mens talent pool is a LOT deeper

This situation has been pissing me off for a while. As everyone has said, they play fewer sets, but there are other reasons why they should accept less. The main reason is that womens tennis is fornicating shit.

If there were seperate mens and womens tournaments, held at different times, would the women generate as much cash as the blokes, with the endless 6-0, 6-0 hammerings handed out by the same 5 or 6 players? Bollocks would they.

Should the winner of the womens Open get as much as Tiger Woods? No, because she's just not as good, and fewer people actually care. Same with tennis.

Twinkle Toes wrote:Gve em pay parity if they play in bikini's.

That should be subject to qualifications standards before taking place. No way do I want to see Lindsay Davenport in a bikini, but if Sharapova were to volunteer, then you're on to something.

In their defence, it's been said that the women have been prepared to play the same number of sets but it's the various tennis organisations that won't allow it.

If they wanted parity they would be lobbying to have men & women playing each other & putting the mens & womens winnings together in one pot. The players could vote on whether to play 3 or 5 sets.

They don't want parity with men. They'd just like to be paid more for playing shorter games against easier players.
Daft tarts:roll:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I don't object to parity.

Get them to play best of five sets.

Better still, if they want parity, get them to play against the blokes. Then they can have 100% of nowt.

I think it's laughable that MP / Commons time is being spent on something like this....I mean jaysus surely there are more pressing things to discuss than what a handful of extremely fortuitous highly paid sportsmen are going to get...

spot the forum full of blokes

We are talking about the entertainment industry its down to who generates most interest in the tourniment and Im sure we see more picturs in the paper of Maria sharapova looking minx like than we do of roger federer.

In French open the champions recieve the same but the rest of the womens draw get shafted.

josh fg wrote:
We are talking about the entertainment industry its down to who generates most interest in the tourniment

exactly and the mens final is the highlight of the tournament for everyone, always has been.....

I can't really add anything new to this, but I wont let a thing like this stop me.

Of course, few would argue that the idealist argument of women and men earning the same is fine - but only if it is for the same job.

The way I view it, the biggest justifiable argument behind the disparity is, as a lot have pointed out, between the sheer workrate between men and women. I'm not expert, but I'd guess that men would probably dream of finishing a match within the time that a women's "epic" match would last. It could basically be interpreted as a boxer asking the same fee for an 8 round fight as a guy of the same ability is getting for a 12 round fight.

Then you could also say (although I guess this is subjective, but I'd reckon there's statistics to back this up) that the men's tour is more competative from round 1 than the women's tour.

I'd reckon they should be changed one way though. Either women should get exactly 3/5 of the man's pay (thus reflecting the hours on court,) or both should get equal pay, which in Wimbledon's case is only about a £40k shortfall or something, and let the men rest assurred that they;re doing a more demanding job 8) (now please excuse me whilst I get battered by the little lady of the house )

josh fg wrote:
We are talking about the entertainment industry its down to who generates most interest in the tourniment and Im sure we see more picturs in the paper of Maria sharapova looking minx like than we do of roger federer.

She generates interest because she plays tennis, And occasionally, tennis draws the public's attention. She's nowt special as a model. Seriously, nobody in their right mind gives a toss about women's tennis.

I thought Venus Williams was a bloke

i'd give good money to show her sister a decent service

states wrote:

josh fg wrote:
We are talking about the entertainment industry its down to who generates most interest in the tourniment and Im sure we see more picturs in the paper of Maria sharapova looking minx like than we do of roger federer.

She generates interest because she plays tennis, And occasionally, tennis draws the public's attention. She's nowt special as a model. Seriously, nobody in their right mind gives a toss about women's tennis.

Yes, I don't see Sharapova as an absolute stunner.. certainly would, but nothing spectacular. I actually think Hingis is smarter, although when I see her now I cannot help but think of the football365's lookalike. Hingis and Mark Bosnich.

Anna K is a completely different league in terms of looks. Although the opposite in terms of tennis play.

It should come down to supply and demand: who puts bums on seats and what generates greater interest – the men’s competition or the women’s.

I know which one I would rather watch, and unless they were to have a final where Sharapova faced Kournikova in a ‘no-knickers’ match then give me the final Sunday of Wimbledon any day!

knockout wrote:3) work out the percentage women get paid by seeing what percentage of the total revenue they generate....

agree with this. By this measure, they should be happy getting as much as they do.