I used to not care for Novak Djokovic. I thought he came across as arrogant and mean. But I softened on him a few years ago, and now he’s one of my favorite players to watch. It’s sort of Novak’s golden age right now – he’s the current #1 in the world, and he’s been owning his game for a while now. So… you would expect that at this point, Novak would know that every word he says is going to be published and analyzed. He’s gotten much better at toning down the arrogance and showing more grace in (rare) defeat and victory equally. But someone might want to give him a primer on how to discuss women in sports.
As we discussed yesterday, the CEO of Indian Wells, Ray Moore, said many sexist and derogatory words about female players on the circuit. Moore said, in part, that women players “ride on the coattails of the men.” The women are “lucky” that they have big strong men like Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal to carry the sport, and that those ladies should “go down every night on their knees and thank God” for those men. Serena Williams slammed Moore, openly and unequivocally. I would imagine most high-ranking players were asked or will be asked about Moore’s statements. Novak was asked at Indian Wells, and his answer was… no bueno. It’s a convoluted mess, but most of it is offensive.
On women getting the same amount of prize money as men: “[It is] a delicate situation…I applaud them for that, I honestly do. They fought for what they deserve and they got it. On the other hand I think that our men’s tennis world, ATP world, should fight for more because the stats are showing that we have much more spectators on the men’s tennis matches. I think that’s one of the reasons why maybe we should get awarded more. Women should fight for what they think they deserve and we should fight for what we think we deserve.”
Women are different, you see, with their hormones: “I have tremendous respect for what women in global sport are doing and achieving. Their bodies are much different to men’s bodies. They have to go through a lot of different things that we don’t have to go through. You know, the hormones and different stuff, we don’t need to go into details.”
But he’s for women power: “I have had a woman that was my coach and that was a huge part of my tennis career. I’m surrounded by women. I’m very happy to be married with one and to have a child. I’m completely for women power.”
That SB Nation piece ends up being an excellent screed against the entirety of what Novak is saying, and what’s even better is that the SB Nation piece was written by a man! Novak falls into a trap of thinking that all tennis fans are mostly interested in watching the men play, and those fans merely tolerate the women players. But as Serena said in her previous statement, her matches always sell well. Her US Open final sold out before the men’s final (between Novak and Federer, arguably two of the greatest players of all time).
While there’s definitely an argument to be made that Serena Williams’ popularity is largely carrying women’s tennis these days, that’s an argument for a different day. The fact of the matter is that Novak is using some really sketchy and bullsh-t reasoning to say that women are inherently unequal to men (because of the hormones???) and that we should go back to the good old days of men always getting paid more because obviously men are more interesting and/or less hormonal. What the sh-t, Novak?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Well isn’t he a peach.
A peach that can go $&!$ himself.
I honestly can’t stand when it’s mansplained how women come up just short of doing what men do because of hormones. Views like that are why people think female leaders are unstable, because they get periods.
Super well said !! I laughed out loud!LOL (for real)
are you being sarcastic?
@ayeisha: not at all!
We make life, they can’t. Poor babies are just jealous 😉
@ Cherokee Yeah but we can’t do it (lol) without them.
I don’t think what he said was right, in fact I think he argued against himself when he said women are different and go through different things than them, and then you have Serena who sold out the tennis match before them.
This is a tough thing to discuss hence why he tried to back track so many times. I just think he’s kinda stupid with the sponsors thing argument. If they were doing different things that would be something reasonable to argue, but their not, they are playing the exact same sport.
Which is why they need to be paid the same, it doesn’t take anything extra to play the same sport and even so I would think the physicality of it would be harder on the women like he said “hormones and sh-t” so maybe they should get paid more than men or just pay them equally and stop whining, and arguing yourself into a circle. I would have more respect for this guy even though I really don’t know who he is, if he was just honest instead of saying “women power, but still they should be paid less”, then I would respect this moron.
I also love how he said I’m married to a women, that old trick when you mess up but don’t want to look bad so you bring up how you’re close with the group you’re dissing like “yeah minority x shouldn’t be this but I’m not being discriminatory, my best friend is x”
–
“Views like that are why people think female leaders are unstable, because they get periods. ”
Yes. Odd that most murderers are male, however. So are most suicide bombers.
I am an avid tennis fan, watch n follow it, also been playing it for a long time. If anything, our periods r shorter the more we work out, helps with pains n as he says hormones. As for the games being sold out etc… the prices are ridiculous, its what u can afford. In the us we follow american players but in Europe, the women sell out well, all women. I do love watching the men’s game because naturally they play a faster stronger game but the women’s is just as exciting. Equal pay for equal play, women should play best of 5 for grand slams, but he never mentioned that. He talks as if its a movie grossing weekend. Thing is, tickets need to be same price to see who sells more. He needs to play his game n shut up.
Yes, I think everyone needs to re-read his first comment before bringing out the flaming pitchforks. The pay equality is only brought up in regard to ticket sales — he just further digs his grave with the hormone comments. And, Fee is right, he can’t equate ticket sales if the price of the mens’ game is different than admittance to the womens’ game.
The mansplaining is real these days. Lord guys please just stop
Women play fewer sets and attract fewer fans. Of course they deserve less money.
@hjjq1oj:
The women have offered to play best of five sets but they were turned down. so you can throw the “sets” argument out the window. Plus, men only play best of five sets at the Slams and Davis Cup – every other tournament is best of three for the men, same as the women.
Not gonna lie, men’s game is stronger but not better, just different.
Totally agree Stacey. There’s so much nonsense spoken about this topic, some of it by Novak. You can’t run a sport on some sort of sliding scale as to how many people. Watch it – take a Register at each match? Pay the winner once the TV figures are in? – or how long it takes. on those grounds, marathon runners should get 100s of times more money than Usain Bolt.
Actually if you look it up, women have higher ratings. However, they should not be payed equal in grandslams because women only play 2 out of 3 sets and men play 3 out of 5. Way harder to play 3 out of 5. I am a woman and i used to play and i dont understand why they dont make the wonen play 3 out of 5 as well. Then its equal.
Because it would go on longer than the men’s matches, maybe? And regularly. You occasionally got a thrilling men’s match that stretches into the next day. Great for business and hype. With women, it would be like that nearly every match and bore the audience to tears. Men’s tennis was about aces and power shots at one point and women’s was about strategic volleying. It’s converging in the middle now but hasn’t met.
The women’s matches are more a draw for women spectators and all this pay nonsense is just more code for devaluing the worth of females in general–spectators and players alike.
Same reasoning male executives use for not funding or paying female actors equally. It’s because they don’t value women, so they don’t charge sponsors the same, don’t pay the actresses the same, yet reap a wonderful benefit off their backs anyway.
The head of the Indian Wells tournament praised Billie Jean King and Venus Williams in particular for fighting for equal pay. Venus is the reason why female players won this huge achievement, as she won the battle when she was fighting for it during the time she was at the top of her game. That’s the sole person these players should feel beholden to, at the moment. Not no man.
–TheRealPinky
@pinky
Yes the matches would last longer but the longer the match the more exciting. mens natches r more boring since it is all about the aces most the time. And no women dont volley much save a handful of players. Its like a unicorn siting to see a woman at the net.
Equal pay means equal work so during grandslams play 3 out of 5.
Thats like me getting a job that pays 100k n working partime n someone else getting paid 100k and working fulltime.
Isnt it more sexist to say that women just cant last that long on a court….cause u know…hormoned
You just killed me!! Love it! LOL! He is such an arrogant douche!
Meh, that’s not really what he said. I don’t know about spectatorship in tennis and how tickets sell, etc, but if you have a sport that earns a lot of money, that trickles down to the players. If the men’s matches earn more money, the men should benefit from that. And vice versa if women brought in more money. Isn’t feminism about equality?
Yeah, I’m probably going to get slammed for this, but I think many are taking his comments the wrong way. If men’s matches bring in more spectators and revenue, of course that would trickle down to the players. And, like the article mentioned, if Serena’s matches sell quicker and bring in more revenue than some of the men’s matches, I would expect her compensation to reflect such. This isn’t exactly a case where a woman and man are working side by side in an office doing the exact same job, but the man earns more because of his penis, is it? I don’t think so.
I also took his comments about hormones and whatnot to be sort of complimentary, if totally unnecessary. He seemed to be saying that women go through so much more than men and it’s admirable.
I’m not really feeling the outrage.
@Lookyloo @Goats Yep, that’s how I feel about his comments too. No outrage here either.
Yes, well said LookyLoo and Goats on the Roof. The outrage is misplaced and silly… in my opinion at least.
I think that’s what he meant too. Also not outraged.
Yeah it is about equality, shame it took women so long to finally break even, in this ONE sporting venue 😒
This guy seems like a douche.
It is about equality, yes. Nobody has ever brought up a man’s chemical makeup into the conversation about how it might affect jobs they perform, activities they do, and what they can handle.
Women get this all the time, like we are unpredictable bags of estrogen and progesterone, kept from playing like the big boys because of our chemical setbacks. If we get worked up, “you on your period?” It’s obnoxious and unfair.
I actually thought the hormone thing was a compliment, nut possibly came out weirdly since English is not his native tongue. I didn’t think he was trying to diss anyone. I’m a woman and even I’ve wondered how female athletes feel/cope if they’ve get the cramps while competing during their periods (especially pairs figure skaters who have to be held up in the air).
Although maybe I erred in thinking he alluding more to the physical effects rather than the emotional ones that men might seem to like to imply about that time of the month.
Even though he speaks English well, the construct of the sentence was totally Serbian, esp. with the usage of ‘hormones’, which shines a light on how it’s still ok to talk about women in the context of hormones and earning in this part of the world. But he’s smart and really shouldn’t have said anything at all or said something limited to revenue from ticket sales whether they are women’s, men’s, singles or doubles matches.
I am interested to see how he’s going to explain himself.
perplexed, how on earth could the hormone comment be a compliment!!!!
He’s basically saying “Good for women! Playing sports even though they have hormones and lady pains and are inferior beings!”
“He’s basically saying “Good for women! Playing sports even though they have hormones and lady pains and are inferior beings!”
Like, I said in my original comment, I admitted that I may have erred in assuming he was talking about women in a physical context. It didn’t immediately register with me that he meant something to do with emotions, because he had said something about women’s bodies being different from men’s bodies (which I was thinking of from a physical point of view, not a mental one). From a physical point of view, I do think women are physically stronger than men in that way (I really don’t think men would be able to deal with the physical difficulties that come with a period, because that kind of cramping is way more hell than a blister, a twisted ankle, or even just knee cramping) , and it was probably my own bias that got in the way. It wouldn’t have immediately struck me that he was talking about women as inferior since I do think of women as being stronger in terms of dealing with actual physical pain. Maybe that sounds reverse sexist from my end, but I really can’t see a man being able to deal with non-stop cramping that won’t go away even after you’ve taken an Advil.
I agree with you.
I understand what you’re saying but part of the problem with this type of thinking is that women do not get the same supports from the get-go in terms of funding, coaching, sponsorships, promotion etc. So it’s not an even playing field that we are looking at – you can’t just compare the women and men based on ticket draw as so much more support goes into the men, so of course they bring in more revenue. They whole system in sports is focused on men. It’s a really complicated dynamic and I think this kind of argument simplifies it too much and ignores the barriers in place for women.
People keep bringing up Serena and Venus, but I think we can all agree that they are exceptional in a lot of ways – coaching, promotion, skill probably. The women in tennis have done a great job in fighting for equal pay, which is shockingly rare in sports – for all the reasons above.
If it’s not an even playing field, to me that means it takes much more effort to get to and remain a professional tennis player as a woman. Pay them properly.
Yeah Djokovich’s stance is one based on mere optics and ignores the underlying systemic issues that led to this inherent disparity. THAT’S why he’s getting slammed for it.
That’s what I mean HK9, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Also it’s ignoring that the for a good amount of time during the 70 s 80s and early 90s the women’s side was much more popular than the men’s and they were still paid less. Non Williams women’s tennis may be in a slump but eventually there will be great rivalries and bigger draws again.
He brought the period argument. He didn’t argue about money trickling down. Also, that’s not how prize money in sports works.
We do not operate in a vacuum. If men’s matches earned more money — which they regularly don’t — it’s also worth asking whether broader society sexism is at play that draws folks away from women’s tennis without giving it a chance.
Don’t try to throw feminism back in our faces, dear. We know what we’re about.
I need to lie down next to you.
-TheRealPinky
Totally agree with you, INeedANap.
I’ve never been interested in tennis, but the WIlliams sisters were the ones who got me interested in watching the sport. Before last year, I would’ve stared at you for forever if you mentioned Nadal to me. (I thought someone was mispronouncing Ralph Nadar to me…)
Agree LookyLoo, not offended by this at all
I agree
I know I will get attacked but I do think men should be paid more at Grand Slams. They have a minimum of three sets whereas women have a max of three. Most of the time men play 4 or 5 sets. During the rest of the tournaments the gap should be closer. Women’s tennis is very popular. I’m not sure where the idea came from nobody likes it.
Women can play a minimum of three sets if that’s what is considered equal. These modern girls can do it.
They can…but they don’t want to.
@ Louise177: Then why don’t they change it so that the men only play a maximum of three sets. Why do the women have to change? Would it make the men any less “macho” if they only played 3?
swak, Louise, Most ATP tournaments for the men are also best of 3. That’s where the pay disparity really lies (between it and the WTA tournys). It is the Grand Slam tournaments where the men’s matches are best of 5 and the women’s are best of 3.
Thanks Is_boston. I don’t really follow tennis. I just feel that if people are going to bring up that the men play 5 matches instead of three, why do the women have to make the change – even in the Grand Slam events. Why can’t they change what the men play? Five matches go on forever, especially as you get closer to the finals.
i dont like womens tennis and refuse to pay to see 2 quick sets. and serena isn’t the whole tour. there just isnt the same depth on the womens tour as on the mens.
I heard from a friend who is a high end concierge (attached to just 1 or 2 players) during French tennis tournaments (Roland Garros and Bercy) that he is “nice” only when camera are rolling… and by nice I mean “arrogant and mean” in the words of Kaiser… so I don’t even imagine how he can be worst off camera.
Apparently Nadal is the total opposite: tense in front of cameras and a total sweetheart off camera, super nice and grateful to all the crew and even friendly if he saw you many years in the row… My friend had a baby last year she had the surprise to receive a gift from him and a personal note, and it was between tournaments so months after even having her working for him! so so nice!)
On another note… Djokovic can go f***k himself with all that women hormones
Your friend might not appreciate your giving so much detail about who she is and what she thinks of the players on a public forum.
@GoodNamesAllTaken: Didn’t think of it!… now I kind of want to take it back :/
it was so nice that I wanted to share … and didn’t think of it :/
But then again she talks about it to everyone so…
Probably no harm done. Just for the future, though.
You’re right on the money. I worked in Monaco for five years and took business courses with Djokovic’s now wife, and the gossip mill never stopped turning. It drove me crazy that people would always complain about how Novak and his (then) girlfriend were smug people, only to then kiss her butt cheeks when she’d show up to class and rave about how they were rooting for Novak during the Tennis Masters tournament. What can I say, people are two-faced, but on that note, I’ve always been a Nadal fan 😉
Love Nadal. LOVE!
-TheRealPinky
Vamos! 😉
well, I know both Nole and Jelena and they are fine, decent people. he worked so hard and she is just adorable.
he comes from the Balkans and you need to understand that women over here are still treated like they were born to serve men. also, what is the point of asking him this questions? can he change anything? do you need approval of men to fight for women rights?
he tried to make a joke about the hormones, but he failed. pretty obvious he never thought about that subject.
@Mila: “I know both Nole and Jelena and they are fine, decent people” good for you … but your are obviously quite lonely in his “sweet charming zone”…
My partner is from the Balkans…. and that’s not the way he treats women nor are gis father and uncles and they come from a very secluded isolated village…
Mila, I disagree strongly about what you said about women in Balkans. You are generalizing and being from one of those Balkan countries I can say that women are being treated like that in certain places and by certain people, just like in most countries I suppose. Please don’t perpetuate a stereotype to justify a chauvinist.
Nope, not true. To borrow yourr words- you need to understand that it’s a very sweeping generalisation. Being one to generalize myself I usually point this out.
My personal impression being a Balkan-ese in Germany- I felt more equal at home.
There are no highly political discussions about being “Rabenmutter” if you decide to work after having children, there is no needless fuss if you decide to have an abortion, you get 50% quota at any uni you decide to apply to.
One difference if that we probably do the house chores without drama, it’s just work that need to be done.
I have to chime in too, being half Balkan myself, I don’t think Novak’s attitude clearly reflects the attitudes of all men in the region, and I find it’s even less evident among younger generations.
This is exactly what I’ve heard from a friend who spends a lot of time on the tour in a support role to one of the top ten players. Says he’s an arrogant a**hole and most of the players can’t stand him.
Nadal is lovely. So is his family. Just genuinely nice people.
Novak’s family on the other hand…it’s not hard to see why he has such an ego, they treat him and expect everyone else to treat him like he’s the second coming.
He may actually have a point about the prize money – I don’t know enough about sports to speak to that. But he certainly comes across as an unattractive sexist buffoon. Is English his first language? Never mind, he speaks the international language of sexism.
He’s Serbian.
I’m kind of hoping that there’s something lost in translation between his interpreter and what he actually said.
It’s possible. Except … he still talked about those pesky periods that make women weak and unstable. That’s just a red flag every time. No pun intended.
I think Moore and Djokovic should get down on their knees and thank god for their respective mothers. Only because of them are they ALIVE.
Yeah, their fathers had nothing to do with it.
It’s the mothers who wreck their bodies and risk their lives bringing those sexist douchbags to the world not their fathers.
Yeah, and let’s not forget how it affects their hormones, right? 😉
makes women stronger than men, riley.
I laughed when I read this. At least he appreciates “women power”. I never really paid attention to men’s tennis except for the guy who was famous for having a bad temper during my childhood. What’s his name? On the other hand Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, the Williams sisters and a few others were household names. Is men’s tennis really all that?
Oh, I can picture him – John McEnroe or something like that?
Yes, John McEnroe is who she is thinking of.
The men’s tour generates more revenue annually than the women’s, so yeah, I guess you could say it’s “all that.”
Djokovic is correct, in this case. If a tournament like Wimbledon is going to charge more for tickets to the men’s QF, SF, and F than the ladies’ final three rounds (which they do), the men should get paid more for their labor.
Chrissy Evert is another one that comes to mind.
Men’s tennis has always struck me as popular, especially with the guys like Federer and Nadal and Djokovic breaking records, and then Sampras and Agassi and whoever else before them.
I’ve also always thought of men’s tennis and women’s tennis as being equally popular. I’m not sure why women’s tennis so much popular than other female-driven sports (maybe the personalities are well known?) — I mean, everybody knows who Steffi Graf or Monica Seles was even if they didn’t watch tennis — but I definitely think of both genders as being equal in terms of popularity. I really don’t understand these claims that people don’t like women’s tennis. I guess I might understand this complaint about BEACH volleyball (you basically have to have the women stripped to their undies which look like thongs during the Olympics to get people to watch), but tennis???
This guy has always been an ass. His little PR makeover to try to catch up to Fed/Nadal (in terms of popularity) never changed my mind on him. If bringing in spectators determines how much a person should earn, I guess he should be giving some of his money (from the past) to Fed/Nadal. He may be drawing in people now, but it wasn’t always the case.
He’s an amazing player but he’s a jerk and I’m not surprised to hear his comments. He probably has even worse opinions in private.
Johnny Mac
This!!
Data has made everything and everyone very easy to monetized at this point. Top sellers are top earners in anything with viewers/spectators and consumers. That’s capitalism. There are certain things women sell better than men and vice versa. Men’s sports, on average, greatly out earn women’s. It’s up to the consumers themselves, or society at large, to change that, as business types are fairly focused on the bottom line. Something to contemplate while making an epic to do out of things like the Super Bowl. I know I’m guilty of being way more interested in the NBA than the WNBA. On the other hand, I prefer women’s volleyball. With tennis I’m much more player than gender specific. I’d go out of my way to watch both Serena and Djokovic.
But WHY. Why is this the case? If sexism is at the core, then the outcome isn’t defensible.
-how are women athletes marketed to the public?
-how much are they promoted within their sport?
-how much funding goes to their marketing and promotion?
-has a sport been weirdly stereotyped, like volleyball? Where I lived, volleyball was a man’s sport. In the US, it is considered a female sport beginning in high school. Why?
-how many women athletes are playing for sports organizations led by men with the attitude of that moron CEO making comments about women’s tennis?
And besides all this, Title IX has only been in place in schools since the 1990s.
Every single variable listed here is heavily subject to sexism. So given ALL the many ways athletes are punished by history and culture and reality for being women….why on earth would anyone suddenly expect women’s sports to draw the kind of attention that the Super Bowl does?
Men’s sports are the equivalent of white privilege. They do better because they’re set up to and they’ve been set up to since the beginning of organized sports.
Thank you. You can’t just go, “Oh well guess men are more popular.” without examining why and what might cause that issue.
Men or women you’re watching a ball be knocked back and forth between two players on a field, what is making that more popular when the two players happen to have penises?
+1 that’s exactly what I was thinking. Do men’s basketball games sell more than women’s? Ok, then I understand they get paid more. Don’t female models make more than men, because there’s more consumer interest in them? Or female ballet dancers and ice skaters get far more attention than men, right? Pay goes where money is brought in, right? Or at least it “should,” I think is the argument.
Yeah no though.
Because three out of the top five highest-paid figure skaters are men: Brian Boitano, Johnny Weir, and Scott Hamilton (#1).
Only Kristi Yamaguchi and Kim Yuna are in there alongside the men.
Additionally, Mikhail Baryshnikov is the richest ballet dancer, Rudolph Nureyev second highest-paid, and Benjamin Millepied the third.
So when are we just going to relinquish this idea that women are paid more than men in any field really?
I mean, except for the sex industry. Female porn stars make more than male porn stars so there’s that.
AWESOME and yay for achievements.
Are we still talking about prize money? Because female gymnasts receive the same as male gymnasts. I would think that even fans would have a hard time naming more than a handful of male gymnasts. Female ones? I can give you 20 at the drop of a hat. They draw the crowds.
And by that logic, male swimmers should probably receive a lot more than women simply because of Michael Phelps. He’s going to draw the crowds in Rio. He did so in Athens and in Beijing. London is debatable.
The thing with tennis is that I think there is consumer interest from both women and men in that sport. Men spectators seems as interested in watching women’s tennis as any another sport. I’ve never gotten the sense that women’s tennis less popular with either gender. Whenever a female tennis player is about to break a record, I’m pretty sure men tune in as much as women do. And unlike with other sports, the female athletes appear to be very known. Steffi Graf isn’t playing anymore, but I’m sure people know who she is the way people know who Kobe Bryant is.
Women’s tennis is one of the few “female versions” of a sports that seems to generate interest in a gender neutral way. It’s never struck me as relegated to the background like synchronized swimming.
I’m a massive tennis fan. I’ve made it to Wimbledon, French Open and Australian Open.. I’m still holding out for a visit to US Open! I guess when I got my tickets for whatever court for whatever I have gone to at those events I have, in all honesty, been hoping to see a great men’s game. Why? Cos it gives me more value for money in terms of ticket price because the games go longer. Does that mean I think female tennis players should be paid less? Absolutely not. My reason for that is that Serena Williams doesn’t put less effort in to training than Novak Djokovic. The fact that we’re female does place certain limits on physicality and means best of three is more appropriate than five. But the female players push themselves to the edge of their ability to do that. I’m sure I’m part of the problem in preferring that longer men’s game but that does not mean I don’t want to watch the women’s game or that I don’t value the effort they put in and the skills they demonstrate. Let’s also remember that for most of the year men play best of three set matches outside of the grandslams and STILL get paid more than the participants in the WTA tournaments get. At the moment men’s tennis is in a golden age but women’s is not. That can flip quite quickly so let’s not beat the women down to lower pay compensate for fact that Serena is so dominant. Ridiculous but unsurprising comments from someone like Djokovic..
Does Djokovic think that men don’t have hormones? Perhaps he should get his oestrogen level tested, he might be in for a surprise.
Yes, I think he is misinformed.
Don’t you know that the dreaded “hormones,” like cooties, are an actual affliction that only affects women? Symptoms include irrationality, inability to hold a leadership position, and inability to work hard enough to *deserve* equal pay.
@Shambles – don’t forget all the icky bleeding!
Lol, somehow the way he phrased that statement made me assume that he has little or no experience with women, just sayin’!
I strongly dislike him for many reasons, but he kind of has a point about the prize money. For about 15 years now the popularity of men’s tennis has absolutely eclipsed women’s tennis. That may change in the next few years as Nadal, Federer and probably Djokovic and Murray wind down/retire, but then women’s doesn’t really have anyone rising up ready to take over where Serena and Maria leave off either, so maybe not.
Tickets to men’s matches sell much better (women’s final matches sometimes sell out first, largely because they play a day earlier, but even that’s rare), the TV viewership is very significantly higher, and the men do have to do more work. In the grand slams the men have to win 3 sets out of 5, the women only 2 out of 3.
It’s a hard thing to make fair because the ticket sales, TV viewership etc. all have a lot to do with popularity, and it’s not really fair to pay someone who’s essentially unknown less than Federer or Nadal or Serena when they achieve the same results on the court. Likewise right now men’s tennis brings in more money, but at some point that will change, and they can’t really be changing the prize money about every time the trend changes. Maybe the answer is that prize money is lowered all around, women are paid a bit less unless they choose to play 5 sets (it is a choice, one the players have voted down many, many times), and the players who bring in ticket and TV revenue are paid a sort of bonus by the organizers/stations airing the tennis.
Gosh this point has come up so many times in the remarks I wonder why people don’t think a bit deeper.
Two facts:
(a) People go to see a great match. The fact is that in the past 10- 12 years, Serena has been so much stronger than most other women players that few expect a real match of it. Yes, she’s lost sometimes; but there are poor odds on that and the usual musing is on the margin she will win by. (If Azarenka is back in form, we might start getting real competition again).
The men on the other hand, as you pointed out – there’s Fed, Nadal, Murray, Djoko. One expects to see a competition; and whilst in the past 2 or so years, Djoko has been more or less peak form, there is *competition* in tennis at this point.
As David Lloyd pointed out, yes, at present because of the competition, the men’s matches have been the bigger draw. There have been times in the past with Graf v. Seles, that the women’s were the runaway favorites and were wildly more popular than the men where the competition was poorer and the stars weaker. With 5 set GS matches and all.
(2). All these arguments about men’s matches being more popular start by saying “men’s” matches are the more popular but then remark on Fed., Nadal, Murray, Djoko who are absolute phenoms AND are lucky enough to have existed at the same time. Anyone desperate to see uh, Goffin play Cilic for instance? So, should we save top prize money for Fed-Nadal-Murray-Djoko matches and second tier pay grades for the others?
Personally, I think Djoko should be grateful to Fed/Nadal for the interest they brought to the sport because he has benefited from it. He’s a good player but I won’t hang on to watch him when Fed/Nadal retire – even if they do have a foot out the door at this point.
BS to a). People go to see the athlete play at the top of their game. They don’t go for the competition.
Okay, let’s take that position then, although I doubt that many (any involved with the sport) would accept your point: case in point, Fed/Nadal matches were always at bursting points; not like say Fed/Soderling, even though Fed. had huge appeal in ways other players don’t.
Anyhow, let’s use your thesis: The field suggests that Serena Williams is not only top of her game she is so far above the player pack if that’s the yard stick. Are the men that far superior to their others at the craft? No. Not even pay-me-more-Djoko.
Ergo, Serena should be paid more. Then, if Djoko/Fed/Nadal win, they should be paid less than her, but, say, more than other men because they are their own cream.
Gets awfully messy and awfully specious awfully fast with this argument. The truth is that people come to see a competition with the best of breed. Any theories expounded about sporting abilities on gender lines has to confront the uncomfortable truth that frankly some players – in both the men’s and women’s matches – are just a lot better than others. Start parsing that if you want to say men’s matches are “better” (whatever your measure) than women’s.
I can’t turn it into a thesis because the variables are innumerable and I don’t know enough about tennis. But I do know enough about hockey! And people turn out to watch an athlete like Michael Jordan or Lebron James play at the top of their game. That’s why they make the insane contracts.
But maybe tennis doesn’t suit a team sports analogy. I’m not sure that explains why a star player is mysteriously boring within her sport.
>>I can’t turn it into a thesis because the variables are innumerable and I don’t know enough about tennis.
Okay then. QED.
I can’t turn it into a thesis because the variables are innumerable and I don’t know enough about pro tennis. But I do know enough about hockey! And people turn out to watch an athlete like Michael Jordan or Lebron James play at the top of their game. That’s why they make the insane contracts.
alright. But I don’t think you’ve made unassailable points. Whether Serena dominates is arguable, since it doesn’t take much Googling to arrive at some counter arguments (for example, here: http://www.changeovertennis.com/the-terrible-no-good-extremely-weak-competition-of-the-serena-williams-era/).
I think there are many, many reasons why spectators show up for matches and of course, good competition helps. But star athletes drive every sport. And stars are skilled–but they are also packaged and sold to the public. I don’t believe it’s a simple “Serena dominates, ergo women’s tennis is boring.” My opinion doesn’t matter since I’m not a particular fan but apparently I’m not alone in it.
Maria Sharapova=case in point of a less skilled athlete turned into a star via marketing.
^^Sorry for the duplicate–on my phone + crap wifi
GW,
Firstly, I’ve made the same 2 points Amber has made down thread that you appear to have vociferously agreed with. I don’t understand the split differences.
Secondly, that article you post to support your claim is …
… You know what, I had an indignant, umbrage-filled response typed up. Then I went back to it and went through the comments. The article writer you are quoting is being satirical in this article and offering up examples of top flight tennis players to ironically counter the claim that Serena’s competition is underdeveloped.
His response to the very first comment to his article.
” Andrew Eccles August 29, 2015 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
The point of this article is that these women are all fantastic.”
There are more that caught it and many that missed the irony.
“of course, good competition helps. But star athletes drive every sport.”
I offered up an example of two matches, one with two star players vs another with just the one star. If you choose to stick to an opinion you’ve formed about sport-A that you say you don’t follow by drawing analogies to another sport that is nothing like it, well, I’m afraid i don’t have the vocabulary.
Except to point out one last time that good research helps. To wit, the article you’ve offered up to support your argument that ironically was specifically written to support mine 😉
Yes, I understand that the linked article is very sarcastic. Your point:
“Serena has been so much stronger than most other women players that few expect a real match of it.” His point: the opposite. He is arguing it is not the case that Serena dominates women’s tennis and has no competition (he is arguing this in the context of people saying Serena isn’t that good. You are arguing this in the context of saying Serena is too good). There is another lengthy comment below the article with many more reasons why competition is fierce in women’s tennis.
I’m on my phone and the comment thread is always hard to follow on your phone, so maybe I’m not responding to what you think I am. Nothing to take umbrage with. I simply think you don’t have a valid point. I read your first reply, went back and read what you wrote in point a) again–and Googled around–and still think it’s inaccurate or, at best, arguable.
My second point is that even when there isn’t real competition in terms of skill, popularity in terms of spectators can be created through marketing athletes as stars. People will show up to watch two “stars” compete even if they may not be all that good or one athlete may not be as skilled as the other. This is a point I have made elsewhere on the thread. Either way, I’m skeptical that spectator attention follows the competition–as opposed to the star–even in tennis.
I don’t really know why you replied to me with this. I acknowledged twice that the popularity of men’s tennis over women’s is relatively recent trend, and that it will one day change again. Which is why I suggested a ‘fair’ model might be everyone getting the same prize money (assuming the women choose to play 5 sets), and then the players who actually bring in the huge money getting ‘bonuses’ from the people they’re making money for (TV and ticket sales). Which right now would mostly be the 4 guys and Serena, but one day might be all women, then all men, then back to women again.
@Pepper, assuming you’re LS_Boston, we’re talking past each other. I get your point. You’re not understanding what I’m replying to.
And I replied because you thought I didn’t understand the article I linked to was sarcastic, which suggested you didn’t understand my point. And you were getting a bit worked up about it. So I attempted to clarify.
> “He is arguing it is not the case that Serena dominates women’s tennis and has no competition (he is arguing this in the context of people saying Serena isn’t that good. You are arguing this in the context of saying Serena is too good).”
I suggest you go back and read that article because he is actually making the case that Serena is that good. He is making that case by saying that the other competitors aren’t ham-handed but rather that they are very good. But Serena with her 21 GS tournaments is just that good. If you’ll notice, just a scant few of the matches he’s pointed to are actually with Serena but he’s pointing out that it isn’t that the female tennis players have fallen away, but that Serena is truly that good. In fact, his Serena-Venus snippet points to the fact that although Serena lost the point, she’s the one that made jaws drop.
>I read your first reply, went back and read what you wrote in point a) again–and Googled around–and still think it’s inaccurate or, at best, arguable.
Well, you’re latching onto specious arguments – and I’ll submit, misunderstanding them – then, instead of reading what several have actually pointed out. Here’s Jo Durie’s comments on the issue about the perceived lack of popularity of women’s tennis:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/21/navratilova-female-tennis-boycott-indian-wells
Here’s David Lloyd’s: http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35866641
They couldn’t be clearer about my point (a) and they are whose opinions I resonate with.
You say you don’t follow tennis and therefore aren’t plugged into the nuances of the sport. That much is clear as the counter examples you cite with basketball player’s contracts is entirely dissimilar to tennis tournament takings; so much so that it is apples and oranges. So there is no point my countering them as I’m speaking Russian to your Dutch (double-dutch, from my perspective). You will never find my – or articles from the Guardian and the BBC – points convincing because you are choosing to expound on a domain you apparently don’t understand – per your admission.
Pepper, I pointed out in my responses that these overly complex pay strategies are a specious way to run any sort of sporting event. All pretense of awarding skill or merit goes right away if TOURNAMENTS start doing this – say there’s a Serena-Muguruza match that M wins. If S is the bigger draw, even with M’s victory it becomes conceivable that S walks away with the bigger paycheck having lost her match. That’s not cricket for a sporting event!
Now, that happens anyway because these athletes have endorsement deals that eclipse tourny takings for the more popular athletes, but the sport itself should not be party to this inequality. Capitalism and all that is fine but some pretense at a meritocracy should remain in the hallowed halls of sport. I think. This is the reason I responded to you.
LS_Boston, yes, that’s what I took away as well. That Serena is that good…and that all the other top players are good as well (and this is defended in the comments too, I think the fourth comment down). I get your point that it’s about distance–the gap between Serena and other players is large, and the gap amongst the top male players isn’t large–and this point is clearer as you’ve elaborated on it.
I didn’t want to start throwing out players names because I can’t really engage in that discussion and I simply don’t know, but to put it in those terms: there’s a pretty big gap between Serena and Sharapova, right? And yet Sharapova is a sort of manufactured star in the sense that her profile/celebrity is disproportionate to her achievement relative to Serena. Would a Sharapova/Serena match be poorly attended because it’s not as interesting as a match between Fed+some closer competitor? My instinct was no and that’s the angle I was responding from. But I don’t know that for a fact so I wasn’t even going to begin to trot out hypothetical player combinations to argue with you because I’m fully aware that I can’t engage. It was just a reaction, and I thought the article I linked to was a funny skewering of the general claim (yours is more specific but I don’t think it’s that clear in your OP).
My husband is a tennis fan, worships Serena (got into tennis because of her), and watches religiously. I’m not trying to argue for the sake of arguing–I saw your point about competition and thought, not true. My husband would watch Serena anytime, anywhere. (Yes, I know that is not the equivalent of spectator attendance rates).
…and I just now saw your OP was preceded by Pepper’s comment. I thought yours was the first in the thread. So, sorry! The comment arrows are hard to follow on the phone version. My comment was totally not worth this level of discussion. No wonder I was perplexed by the response.
I used to not care for this dude, and now, even less.
I used to fight competitively in judo, from age 10-21. You have to fight guys until age 16, and then you start being put into women’s only weight classes. And until about age 16, I dominated the guys. But they do begin to catch up and after that, I was happy enough to not have to take my chances with boys. They just have too much muscle mass per lb for a fair match in a sport organized by weight classes.
However, I still fought grown men much larger than me in practice and I could win a match on the ground, where the fight is more about balance and agility over technique and strength.
My point: I have played organized sports with men and while some physical distinction should be made (and I’m happy that it is for the sake of fair competition), it isn’t definitive. It’s not male>female just because. I bet Serena could own a lot of male players. I’d love to see that.
Kind of like the match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. I would love to see a match like that.
I have almost the same story as you except with Tae Kwon Doe. Sparring with the guys was one of my favorite parts of class.
She really couldn’t. Even by Serena’s own estimation, she believes couldn’t even crack the top 100 mens field if she gave it her all.
Maybe if she’d been playing and practicing against male players all her career, but the difference between men’s tennis and women’s is pretty huge. The speed, the strength…most male players, even those with a crappy serve, could just get ace after ace playing even the best women.
@Pepper, yeah, I think this is interesting. Because Serena has trained for one style of play, that’s where she is–right? But what if tennis rules were the same for men and women and Serena had trained against men? Makes you think about how much the sport shapes the athlete’s capacities and not the other way around. On the one hand, I kinda think women should be able to compete against men if they choose to. On the other, that seems…difficult to organize.
It’s still more complicated than spectators and tv ratings because it’s not an even playing field to start with, when there’s inherent sexism not just in how women athletes and sports are perceived, but if only in how women’s tennis is promoted, if it’s promoted at all. They aren’t given prime spots and featured matches. I’ve heard Serena Wiliiams herself and many other players complain about this time and time again. Serena hasn’t always gotten the best courts and times at Wimbledon and it had little to do with “people’s interest”. The athletes are personally not promoted solely based on talent either. We’ve been over that many times with Sharapova’s and Serena’s endorsement money and Anna Kournikova becoming a household name. Do people like Novak think that doesn’t impact the opinion of the women’s game? The men’s game has the big four now. But it won’t have them forever. You can not turn back the clock on this because of current trends when women worked for decades just to get this far.
I get so tired of this. As if the women have never been equal, if not more popular at times than the men. They have. Their league was built by Billie Jean King and a laundry list of iconic, legendary women. Does Indian Wells dude honestly think the Williams Sisters, Graff and Seles, Chris and Martina had no impact on them? That they didn’t help the overall popularity of the sport and increase the bottom line? No one is saying Novak owes Rafa and Federer for carrying the sport before he got to the top. No one would ever think that way. That’s the undercurrent that I’m hearing in this “trickle down”, coattail riding stuff. That these women don’t deserve, haven’t earned, and haven’t built any of this for themselves. Does Novak also think he should earn more than less famous guys? Count the spectators, add up the global “Nielsen” boxes? How do you measure fame and popularity? Twitter subscribers + endorsement money (again, systematic sexism present), carry the one? But it still wouldn’t matter. I love this article http://time.com/money/4265912/equal-pay-tennis-djokovic-williams/ for pointing out that male gymnasts and figure skaters earn the same as their female counterparts. While our US Women’s Soccer Team makes less than the men. $2 Million in 2015 for the Cup winners and $8 Million for the men’s team for losing in the round of 16 in 2014.
And that those women athletes may have brought in female viewers who then also began to watch male athletes? So men’s tennis sells better because of women’s tennis? But no, for some reason it’s like men’s tennis exists in a bubble that for mysterious reasons is sometimes extremely unpopular and other times extremely popular…and none of that has anything to do with women’s tennis. Not at all.
Exactly! Like are you seriously pretending that women like Chris and Martina didn’t help the overall popularity of pro tennis? It’s a hop and skip away from saying they don’t matter to the history of the sport, like they’re segregated and completely exclusive from one another, “Men… and others”. It’s the same attitude that led to the creation of the women’s tour. Where would we be if those pioneers believed that they were second class and there was no audience for them. It’s the same argument that’s been used for decades. Women wouldn’t have a league if they actually believed that or if it were true.
I don’t even need to reach that far back for examples either. The 2013 and 2014 Women’s US Open final received higher rating than the men’s. Of course, as Serena said, the tickets for the 2015 Final sold out faster than the men’s too. You can’t dismiss this due to Serena’s popularity when the men are similarly being propped up by the Big 4. That classic showdown between Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport in the 2005 Wimbledon final drew 1 million more viewers than Roger Federer vs Andy Roddick as well. The Williams Sisters absolutely did help carry THE sport in the 2000s. I started watching tennis as a kid because of them. There were so many great women. I wasn’t all that interested in the men’s game until Nadal came on really. I guess I’ve watched the men and women equally since ’06. But it all goes back to Venus and Serena, (and Davenport, Hingis, Capriati, etc.,), as the American men faded in relevance, my parents wouldn’t have had any other reason to be tuning in.
Best comment on this thread.
Spot on! Well-said, Amber. Agree with you entirely.
Here here! This comment reminds me how I was appalled to find out the Women’s Soccer Team that was so popular and that met up with President Obama after winning (the ones praised with bringing new passion for people to be interested in soccer) were often given terrible fields simply because they were female and that they were often forced to play on fake turf rather than real grass. Furthermore that at one game not long after that amazing win the field was so bad (they took pictures and put it online, edges of the field were literally coming apart at the seams) that one of their players was injured.
We can’t just say, “Oh I guess boys are more popular/better/talented.” without wondering what has lead to that and if there isn’t some flaw or sexism causing that image. In 2016 we are capable of examining that without merely shrugging our shoulders.
It’s a perfect, awful, example isn’t it? We don’t support women’s soccer in general. But boy do we love our Women’s National Team. Last year’s WC final was the most watched soccer match in the history of this country. “Thanks ladies, here’s your $1.50 and back to the boonies with you”.
Exactly Amber, that was a kick to the gut to realize how blatant sexism in sports is.
So I completely see the flaw in saying, “Men are better.” and not realizing how much in the poor treatment of women and lack of support leads to them not being given equal spotlight and respect.
What really saddens me about men like Novak is that he will actively impose their backward sexism on his daughter(s).
Also, men have hormones, too. Maybe Novak skipped school and is ignorant of this fact.
The next time I beat a man at anything (from table tennis to skating) I will scream HORMONES, and feel better about it. #dunce
LOL cee that’s hilarious!
Also hopefully when his daughter is older and he sees sexism affecting her he will realize he was wrong to hold the views he does. Sadly, it seems most of the time having a daughter does nothing to change a man’s views so you’re probably right.
Okay, the latter part of your comment has me giggling for three minutes straight. Thank you! I needed a little levity.
Had to laugh at the hormones comments 😂 Novak must have skipped pretty elementary classes at school.
Andy Murray for president. He’s the most likeable and intelligent sounding of the top players.
I can’t with Novak either way. I never thought his tennis was all that. Federer is a much more exciting player to watch and I am always sad when Novak beats him because it’s power over finesse.
So much this. You can absolutely tell that Andy Murray was raised by Judy Murray, because he clearly has no problem with strong women. He’s probably the most feminist sportsman I can think of.
Perhaps Novak’s hormones are what cause him to be such an arrogant and abusive ass to the ballboys/girls? No, I just think he is an arrogant, rude, impatient human. Won’t be watching his matches anymore…
stahp Novak with your hor-moans!
men’s tennis at the moment benefited from the Big 4, while women’s tennis is Serena Show at the moment.
but there were decades where men’s tennis was a barren wasteland of Journeymen Roullette playing BORING baseline game. like watch literal crickets boring.
It’s not the worst thing I’ve heard out of a man’s mouth. He is right, women have to deal with different things than males do. That’s biology. But that doesn’t mean women can’t play as well as men can. He said women should fight for what they think is fair. That’s true. If women aren’t going to fight for themselves, who will?
Did women ever stop fighting for themselves? I don’t think we missed the minute where women didn’t experience crushing sexism and went, “Ah a moment to rest.”
Of course women have never stopped fighting for themselves. The point is we must CONTINUE to keep fighting. Women are the ones who will have their own best interests at heart. We can’t rely on men to give a sh*t because a good majority of them don’t.
Now that I agree with.
I actually understand his point. he is not saying that women cant play good as well, he is saying that that male tennis brings a lot more money to the sponsors than woman tennis and therefore men should get more prize money. Now, why does men tennis bring more money and more audience than women tennis….that is a different question. It is the same in professional football, it is all business, the more money you bring (or the more attention you get as am athlete) the more money you will earn. It doesnt matter do you play well enough or how hard you train, it matters how much money you can earn for your sponsors and what profit will they have out of you.
So he is right in a way, men tennis does indeed attract more sponsors, more audience and more money.
His comment about hormones I understood as a compliment, not as an insult.
The biggest thing that irritates me about this argument when women’s tennis was the bigger draw due to hotter rivalries they were getting much less prize money than the men. It’s got nothing to do with fairness it’s just the inherent sexism,and egotism of the sport. Anyone speaking on this without knowing the history of equal pay in tennis, Billie Jean King etc needs to zip it and read up. Right now the men’s side is better due to some epic rivalries but eventually they will fade, Serena will eventually retire and the women’s side will come back these pigs will find another reason to denigrate the ladies.
Essentially an unaware Neanderthal with a racket. And don’t fool yourselves about the hormones comment being a compliment. This is the type of guy who’s gonna bite your head off the moment you have an opposite opinion. This also feeds into my prejudice against ex-Yugoslav males, but let’s just say that’s my problem.
Exactly. Men who seriously think its ‘hormones’ always have the idea at the back of their mind that you’re on your period.
You’re right, Lambda, money and fame will never buy class or sophistication, Novak has proven that more than once. Sorry about your bad experience with ex-Yugoslav guys. Half of my family is from a particular part of the Balkans, and talking with people from other Yugoslavian territories about specific issues * cough * the war in the 90s * cough * will open up a big can of OH NO, so I think I can understand your prejudice. You certainly can’t accuse us of being dull.
Did he get hit in the head a few too many times? I don’t know how being a juiced up moron that hits a yellow ball at another juiced up moron entitles him to share his deep thoughts about gender.
this makes perfect sense to anyone who can actually stop and think. everything is linked to money. the more money you bring in the more money you get paid. female players bring in less money and therefore should get paid less. do female football or soccer players get paid the same? of course not. wake up people. “not everything is racist and not everything is sexist”.
…but why do female athletes bring in less money? There’s many posts above explaining that the lack of attention to female sports is directly resulted from sexism. So yeah, this is about sexism. It absolutely is.
They bring in less money because fewer people are interested in women’s tennis. Was this a trick question?
No, it wasn’t powerada.
I still keep having a hard time believing that women’s tennis brings in less money or less interest. Women’s tennis seems to have a certain level of popularity that makes it more visible than, say, women’s basketball. There might be ups and downs in the sport depending on which players are dominant or whether American or European players are dominating or whether a particular athlete is “boring” (people said that about Sampras, and I think at the time people might have even gone so far as to say that women’s tennis was generating more excitement) , but overall women’s tennis has never struck me as less interesting to people. Even when the Maria Sharapova drug scandal went down, everybody was talking about the incident, and even the male players were giving their opinions. I can’t necessarily picture that level of discussion happening with women’s volleyball, for instance, but tennis seems to transcend gender to some degree in terms of interest level. When the US Open or Wimbledon coverage is going on, you’re just as likely to see male celebrity X watching a women’s match are you are while watching a men’s match.
Women’s tennis is very popular, but for about 15 years it’s paled in comparison to men’s tennis. In the past it’s been the other way round, though not for nearly as long.
I attend a lot of matches, and with women’s tennis, up to a grand slam final, I can usually just show up on the day and buy a pretty good ticket. With the men, not so much. I might get a ticket, but it will be one of the worst seats. Men’s tennis sells better, especially outside the grand slams. But the major thing that matters is TV viewership. Men’s tennis currently dwarfs women’s in terms of viewership. I remember the 09 Nadal & Ferdasco semi final at the Australian Open. The next day, absolutely everyone was talking about it, everyone had tuned in at some point. People who’d never watched tennis, who’d never heard of either player. It’s been decades since women’s tennis was able to do something like that. One day it will again, but in the meantime I understand why the men would be annoyed that the women get paid the same when they play less, sell less and bring in less viewers.
Caveman loser.
I love that I don’t watch tennis.
Meh, I never liked him but I see his reasoning.
I’m a tennis fan, and aside from some terrific female players, there are arguably more terrific male players these days. It’s got nothing to do with sex though, it’s just a thing. 20 years ago it was different, but now you do get much more interesting matches in the men’s arena. It started some 10 years ago and really exploded in the Federer-Nadal era.
So yes, overall men’s matches attract more viewers. But correct me if I’m wrong, are they all entertainers or sports people?! Did he confuse himself with an actor or a singer? Is the prize money a prize for ENTERTAINING or a prize for EXCELLENCE IN SPORT?
I mean even I don’t know anymore, I can’t argue with Novak that sure sports are all about money these days, but they’re still SPORTS right? The women deserve equally prize money because they put in an equal amount of hard work and dedication and they fight to win for THEMSELVES not for the viewers to be entertained!!
I’m not even gonna comment on the hormones, he sounds just like my guy friends who get embarrassed when women mention periods and shaving their legs. Really, no comment.
But according to other posters the men were still being paid more than the women 20 years ago, so really we have a standard of no matter how good women are playing they are worth less.
That’s true. I believe there’s a subconscious element in dare I say it, many, many people, perhaps even me and I’m a woman, that men are tougher and whatever they do is more difficult somehow (talking about sports only here!), because they have more muscles and more physical endurance. I mean if you put the best athletic man next to the best athletic woman, he’d win because you can’t beat biology. So probably for that reason many still feel men work “harder” and their physicality entitles them to earn more when it comes to sports.
Or maybe I’m full of it, I dunno, just my two cents.
Novak’s still an ass.
Why do men associate women’s equality with something’s being taken away from them?
Selfishness, ignorance and comfort in privelage. They’ve never had to be without so they don’t know what it feels like and can’t be bothered to examine.
THIS
They bring in less money SOMETIMES because they are not as well marketed and supported as the men and the tickets for women tennis games are less.
Tennis has always been a sexist sport. Women play 2 out of 3 sets, while men play 3 out of 5, which is how men are able to paid more. Women in tennis have been demanding equal play for years and they never get it. So if men’s tennis is more “exciting” and more people come to watch the men, it’s because they’re given the opportunity to put on more of a show, while women players are denied that. Ask any female tennis pro and she’ll say she’d love to play 3 out of 5.
I feel like comments made by men like this just give us an inside glance as to what is being said behind closed doors across all industries of why women should not make more money. I read this and the price yesterday and think this is absurd, these guys are ridiculous… But then I realize this is truly the rationalization being used all across the board and it is so infuriating. It sounds so archaic! Ugh.
Just pay women equal. It’s not that hard. There have always been similar arguments as an excuse not to pay women equally in all areas of life. It used to be that men were the heads of households so they needed more money or so the powers that be argued.
Female athletes were stigmatized horribly in the past and discouraged from sports with accusations ranging from it being “unladylike” or “butch” or “lesbian” or “manhating” or were flat out denied opportunities. This attitude has a lot to do with the catch up game women have to play in order to be able demand equality.
How many would be superstar girls sat home instead of participating for fear of social retribution? Even today women in the sports world have to be attractive to get the lucrative endorsements or to be considered for positions as TV reporters or anchors on ESPN.
The careers where women exceed men in pay are directly associated with looks, such as porn and modeling. Models are largely inanimate objects-voiceless’, young and non threatening. Actresses speak and emote so lower pay. But not in porn because of sexual gratification geared to men.
Female athletes are physically showing power and strength so they are threatening the balance so must deserve less pay because they are going against nature right?
In any area where women have the ability to compete in the same manner as men, they are insidiously punished with sorry ass excuses as to why women should accept less. Always the hormones and always the inferior strength.
So my argument is that women in tennis are playing other women so it’s equal. Period.
At Grand Slams men play best out of 5 sets while women only play best out of 3 sets. If you demand equality in pay then women should play by the same rules, just my opinion.
who? i’ve never heard of this person. seriously. on the other hand, i have heard of the williams sisters, martina navritalova, maria sherapova, kournikova, caprioti, etc. yeah, dude rocks. F*** him.
Do we have any real data?
Do women bring in as much attendence at the events?
Do women bring is as many viewers on TV?
Do women bring in as much advertising money?
IF they do, then they deserve equal money. If they don’t, then they don’t. Until we have all the numbers, we can’t really judge.
Women should get equal pay EXCEPT for tournaments where men have to play best 3 out of 5 sets & women are 2 out of 3 sets.
EQUAL PAY ONLY FOR EQUAL WORK!
Reminds me when Andy Murray won Wimbledon and even David Cameron tweeted something like “congrats to the first british winnner ever”
Too bad there was a female winner before and she tweeted back… I can’t remember her name but her response was gold.
The comments were mainly “who?” “yeah but it’s just woman’s tennis. That’s not real tennis just filler.”
you did not refute any points he made.men’s tennis attracts more viewers than women.
@Wolf Not all the time. Sometimes women attract more viewership. It is not a static situation. 2013 and 2014 the women had a higher viewship. It changes from match to match depending on whose playing. The sponsors are right pay both men and women equally and be done with it.
I get the argument that payment should be merit-based. It’s true that men’s matches often last twice as long as women’s do.
The problem is, for a merit-based system to take place you’d need to have a baseline of equality.
Women’s sports don’t make as much money because there isn’t as much interest. There isn’t as much interest because society has been conditioned to see men as athletes rather than women, and therefore female athletes have less intrinsic value as athletes than men do.
If women hadn’t been prevented from being professional althetes for so long, and if female athletes hadn’t been mocked and derided when they first began to appear in the public consciousness, then maybe women would be valued equally by everyone and thus a merit-based system would be fair. You could have a base rate that all people are paid according to, and then bonuses based on performance.
But that’s not the case, so it isn’t fair.
I’m sorry, but this argument strikes me as being utterly stupid. The public sees men as being better athletes BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER ATHLETES. They are bigger, they are faster, they are stronger, they have more stamina. It’s why tennis isn’t intergender, the women would get killed.
There is a HUGE difference between being the best women’s tennis player in the world (S. Williams) and being the best player, period (N. Djokovic). As good as Serena is, a decent men’s college player would beat her in straight sets. She’s not the best, she’s just the best among the gender that isn’t very good at sports.
People want to see the best in the world perform at the highest level. As long as that’s the case, male athletes will always have an advantage. They are better at what they do than the ladies. If you don’t believe that’s “fair”, take it up with God.