Prize money on Adelaide now ...

[David]

A reply to an article about Women's prize money ...

i agree in that the women obviously do less work than the men for the same amount of prize money. but on this reason alone, you cannot say that it is unfair that they get paid equally. correct me if i am wrong, but most of the prize money for the grand slams would be paid by the sponsors of the tournament. and if the sponsors think that the coverage they get as a result of sponsoring the womens game is worth it, then they should pay whatever the the market determines they pay. although there has been consistent lobbying for equality in pay, companies will only pay that money if they think it is worth it.

Posted by: benny the cunt of gawler 10:16am today
Comment 24 of 41

[bennymacca]

thankyou for pointing that out david. my procrastination extends to more than this forum!!

[rcon]

note: this is a question. Do you think the sponsoring companies actually have a say in the prize money split? I personally wouldn't have thought they would, and on top of that, can you imagine the backlash from certain quarters if they insisted on an unequal split?

If women wish to be paid for being "pretty", there are plenty of other options. Wow, I'm cranky today, but that came across harsh!

I just had a quick scan of some of the other comments on the Adelaide Now site, and there is one suggesting the women train just as hard as the men. BS!!!!!!! No way would you see male players with anything other than tight stomachs and generally "cut" shoulders etc.

</rant>

[bennymacca]

what i am trying to say, is that the prizemoney isn't necessarily linked to the physical performance of the athletes, more about the marketability of the players involved.

and there are some smokin hot womens tennis players that draw crowds and sponsorship dollars irrespective of their physical talents - we all know about kournikova.

a similar thing can be said of test cricket compared to 2020 - of course test cricket is a bigger physical test, so does that mean that players playing test cricket should be paid 5 times more than those playing one day cricket, or 10 times more those playing 2020?

no it doesn't, its not reason why companies sponsor sporting events.


pay equality only ever occurs in sport when the two genders have similar marketing potential - in tennis this could still be argued, but no other sport i can think of comes close.

[rcon]

That is my point too I guess - I think you'll find the ratings for the womens final were pretty dismal compared to the mens. I'd never consider going to see a womens match if I had to actually pay the same amount for the ticket as a mens match - i'd sit there feeling cheated the whole time.

Sure, individual (usually good looking) women players can generate a lot of coverage for you, but that is what individual sponsorship is for. There is no way you get as interested in following the womens path thru a grandslam as there are too many 6-1, 6-3 victories, who gets their sport appetite whet listening to that? Most people I know get there interest/entertainment value of tennis in following the men where there are actual challenges along the way.


And if the women had argued on entertainment value from the start, i don't think we'd have ever had this conversation (to my memory anyway) their argument was about equality for effort.

[bennymacca]

That is my point too I guess - I think you'll find the ratings for the womens final were pretty dismal compared to the mens. I'd never consider going to see a womens match if I had to actually pay the same amount for the ticket as a mens match - i'd sit there feeling cheated the whole time.

Sure, individual (usually good looking) women players can generate a lot of coverage for you, but that is what individual sponsorship is for. There is no way you get as interested in following the womens path thru a grandslam as there are too many 6-1, 6-3 victories, who gets their sport appetite whet listening to that? Most people I know get there interest/entertainment value of tennis in following the men where there are actual challenges along the way.


And if the women had argued on entertainment value from the start, i don't think we'd have ever had this conversation (to my memory anyway) their argument was about equality for effort.

what about jelena dokic? that was some of the best sport i have ever seen, let alone tennis

that for me was the best part of the australian open, closely followed by the mens final

[rcon]

exactly my point - you'd now think dokic would pick up some good sponsorship deals, and they may well be value for the companies involved. but you can't tell me the sponsors get the same coverage, or more importantly, the paying punters get equal value, from the womens draw in general.

Would be interesting to know how many of the womens matches had score lines similar to 6-1, 6-3 as opposed the the mens in a similar range. Not that score alone determines entertainment value, but it is often a reasonable guide I would have thought.

[Scotty]

I kinda agree with Mat. And sure, the Dokic story gained a big audience, but that's only one instance from the entire women's draw. I'd struggle to think any others.

[bennymacca]

i agree as well - but what i am trying to say is, someone obviously thinks it is worth their money to sponsor the women's tournament (garnier)

[rcon]

i agree as well - but what i am trying to say is, someone obviously thinks it is worth their money to sponsor the women's tournament (garnier)

What, they just sponsor the women? If so, I had no idea.