TifosoDiTennis
- 201 comments
- 13 likes given
- 82 likes received
Bio not provided
This argument is becoming progressively tired and has been fruitless for quite some time now. Nothing is going to change apropos equal prize money, and each Grand Slam tournament's governing body has said as much. When Gilles Simon resurrected this issue weeks ago by making his views known, Tennis Australia, the FFT, the AELTC, and the USTA all (in some form or another) said they will continue supporting equal prize money. So, participating in this discussion is nothing more than a mental exercise.That said, this issue comes down to one simple question: how should tennis players be paid at the Grand Slams? At the moment, they are paid per match win—hence, equal pay for equal match wins. However, if one thinks tennis players should be paid per set or per game, hourly, or based on viewership/ticket sales, those arguments can be made. But, there is no reason to bring gender into the equation.Finally, the popularity of men's tennis is a direct result of the top triumvirate of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal. It has almost nothing to do with Janko Tipsarevic, so why does Tipsarevic think he should benefit from a popularity he did not create? In all honesty, I have always liked Janko, as he seems to be a hard-working, intelligent person, but this makes no sense to me.
BWV1006: Of course I have not outlined a plan, as I am not someone who takes issue with the current prize money situation. I am neither criticizing it nor am I suggesting that alterations take place, so I suppose my plan would be to keep it the same. Does that need to be written out? I am also obviously attempting to disassemble the arguments of those with whom I disagree—those who think change is necessary in this regard. If such arguments do not hold up to scrutiny, the proposals for change may be unsound.
You once again argue the sentiment that "the entity responsible for the most revenue generation takes home more revenue" and yet you do not believe the individual applies to that sentiment? That is something I simply cannot understand. If this is the underlying principle behind your beliefs, why does it fail to apply in all facets of the sport? If we can find a practical way to decipher between the revenue of the women and that of the men, we can certainly decide which individual players draw more revenue than others.
As for your mention of the "two separate tours," the ATP and WTA: they do not actually exist at the Grand Slams. Each Grand Slam is owned and operated by the host nation's tennis federation and governed by the ITF. The ATP and WTA, from what I understand, cannot so much as look at the revenue from the Grand Slams, and they certainly have nothing to do with prize money. Separating revenues at Grand Slams based upon the tour to which the players belong is, therefore, absolutely impossible unless each Grand Slam were to split into two separate, single-sex events governed by the ATP and WTA, respectively. Speaking practically, that will never happen. So, collecting revenue separately is also not possible.
How was it done years ago, you ask? Well, it was done arbitrarily, of course. Revenue was not analyzed, and the discrepancy between men's and women's purses had no logic behind it. Women were paid less than men even in years when women's tennis was thriving, and men's tennis was not. This is why it was made equal: to stop the unreasoned discrimination. When prize money is equal, there is no discrimination. The success of players in a tournament, regardless of effort (which is immeasurable), is rewarded equally, and each person, regardless of sex, is valued equally.It is obvious we do not see eye-to-eye on this; oh well, that happens sometimes. Unfortunately for Gilles and so many others, prize money will remain equal for the foreseeable future. In the words of Roger Federer, "It's just a matter of who believes what, and then that is an endless debate." But, "there's nothing you can do, anyway, about it."
I suppose we have different views on pragmatism, as I highly doubt anything either of us say on a TENNIS.com forum would function successfully in the real world, let alone lead to practical consequences. Everyone on this website, including you, is dealing in some form of impracticality.
Also, if any changes in prize money for men and women were to come at Grand Slams (where there are no appearance fees, by the way), it would be necessary that a reason or underlying belief accompanied the decision. "Why" the women would suddenly receive less money than the men would be a far more important question than "how" it would happen mathematically. The "why" must be discussed before the "how," and my point is that no "why" (that I have come across, at least) is valid, agreeable, or practical enough to allow such prize money changes to come to fruition. And, because you are dealing with the "how" before the "why" has been resolved, (to echo your sentiment) I just don't care about the entirety of your argument.
@Krakondack I take issue with a lot of what you've said here. There are no appearance fees at Grand Slam tournaments, which are the tournaments on which this argument focuses. There is no need for appearance fees, in fact; no top player would even think about skipping something as valuable as a Grand Slam. You also say, "the incentives, the prize money, are a large chunk of overall revenues," which is not true. According to many sources (including Christopher Clarey at the New York Times), the figure is lower than 30%—sometimes between 10% and 15% of total revenue for the men's and women's purses combined.You also seem to be under the incorrect assumption that the women do not bring in enough money even to fund their own prize money and costs, which is a ridiculous notion—something for which there is no evidence. There is also no evidence that money brought in by the men's game is being used to fund the women's prize money, which seems to be a common misconception. If you treat men's and women's tennis as separate sports, as you say, the men's game will surely bring in more money, but the women's game will not fail. There are dozens of WTA tournaments at which only the women play, and they are not going bankrupt or handing out "IOUs" to players as prize money. They do just fine.
BWV1006: Time on court is one of the main arguments that proponents of Simon's idea bring up, and it is the only way to measure how much work was put in per player, as time spent training is nearly immeasurable. Also, you are completely speculating that those who perform better are better prepared. Natural ability, experience, etc. are also factors that can contribute to better results and quick matches.To add, in your hypothetical situation, you have accounted for the discrepancy in viewership between the two tours, but you have not done so for the discrepancy in viewership between players. Suppose Serena Williams and Andy Murray win the 2012 women's and men's US Open titles, the men bring in more money than the women overall, but Serena sold more tickets and received higher TV viewership than Murray. Under your plan, Murray would receive more money because the ATP as a whole brought in more money, right? But, how about Serena's individual contribution to the event? She's not getting out what she put in.
So far, I have heard two notable arguments that essentially defend Gilles Simon's stance on this issue. The first is: equal pay for equal work; female tennis players do not work as hard as men, so they should be paid less. The second is: those players (the men) who bring in more money through ticket sales and TV ratings should be paid more. Neither argument makes complete sense to me, to be honest.
If we follow the principle of equal pay for equal work, it must be applied between the sexes as well as within them. In other words, women who do less work than men are paid less, but men who do less work than other men must also be paid less. If that is then the case, Roger Federer (who spends very little time on court and has won many Grand Slams dropping two sets or less) has a lot of money to refund.
If we follow the idea that those who bring in more revenue should be paid more, it must be applied between the sexes as well as between the individual. In other words, if women are paid less because they bring in less, men who bring in less should also be paid less, right? In that case, Roger Federer (who has consistently high TV ratings and ticket sales) would be paid more than just about every other player—even if they reach the same stage in a tournament. On the other hand, the journeymen (who leave the stand empty and receive little airtime) should be paid even less than they already are because they contribute very little to tournament revenue.
Obviously those ideas sound foolish, and I do not agree with them, but if you truly subscribe to such ideologies as "equal pay for equal work" and "get out what you put in," you will have no problem applying them to the individual as well as the group. The circumstances may change, but the basic principles do not.
Holding all four Major titles at the same time would be one of the greatest achievements in tennis history—not THE greatest, but one of them. To give one an idea of its importance, it would potentially catapult Djokovic from No.40 on the infamous Tennis Channel "List" to the top 15 or better. I wish Nole well on his quest, but I must admit that I would be more comfortable with him reaching this achievement if he had done a bit more to convince us that he would be winning Slams well into the future. The prospect of someone holding the non-calendar year Grand Slam while only ever winning 8 or 9 Majors scares me a bit. In my opinion, it would be akin to calling someone who had not mastered all surfaces the "GOAT."
Your comment does less to make Roger Federer look bad than it does to make you look rather pathetic. You are reading into his comments to such an extent that you warp their meaning with your own prior biases—biases that develop from your own insecurities. I always appreciate criticism, as I think it can be constructive, but your critique focuses on things that were concocted within your own mind, i.e. things that are not steeped in reality.
@tennislover To add, I actually have found a clause in the ATP rulebook stating, "Loser points for the rounds achieved are awarded to players in any tournament not completed." Therefore, there is no splitting of points, and Rafa and Nole would receive 600 each.
@tennislover I think you are either stretching the truth or misinformed. Yes, if the weather did not improve, no match would take place. This is very true, and there is a 70% chance of rain in Rome tomorrow, so it is also likely.
However, it has nothing to do with Novak and Rafa refusing to play past Monday. Each day matches are planned and cancelled, the tournament is wasting money—money they probably do not have to begin with. Therefore, the ATP has a rule in place that states, "If because of rain, etc., a tournament cannot be completed within the tournament week, then, at the option of the tournament, one (1) extra day shall be allowed." Only one day is permitted, it is not a decision for the players to make, and one does not need "insider's news" to read this in the ATP rulebook.
To add, it would not be the first time in history that this would happen; it has happened many times before. In the 1984 Rotterdam final, there was a bomb scare. In 1981, Monte-Carlo was rained out. Queen's Club has been rained out more times than one can count on their left hand. 1971 Kitzbuhel, 1973 Kitzbuhel, etc. Every time this has happened, the title was shared between the finalists, and obviously, no winner was declared.
Because of all these inconsistencies, I can conclude that your comment about splitting the points is inaccurate as well. Although I cannot say for sure, it is much more probable that each player would be given finalist points (600), as both of them would be considered finalists by the ATP. (Tennis journalist Enrico Maria Riva for the Italian newspaper Il Post has also said they would both take finalist points, if that means anything to anyone.) Unfortunately for Djokovic and Nadal, if this scenario is true, the only person a rainout would benefit is Roger Federer.
@SunnyKanagi has given you the *correct answer, @davavaki . This has been determined by the ATP statistician Greg Sharko.
@elenadem No. The word "twin" is utilized correctly here, as the adjective "twin" can be used to describe one person who is part of a twin pair, or it can describe two people who make up the pair. So, "a twin girl" is a girl who is one half of a twin pair while "twin girls" indicates two girls belonging to the same pair. Therefore, "Federer, who is the father of two twin girls" is correct in that it conveys the idea that Federer is a father of two girls who are part of the same twin pair. I agree that grammar is important, but I do not believe it needs correcting in this instance.
@Old School If you think this is what his words say, you are clearly reading into them and forming an alternate, non-literal interpretation—an ill-advised practice. We must accept what is said at face value or else our prior biases misconstrue meaning.
To add, the part that this ticker "article" leaves out is Federer's statement of: "Nole was stronger than me tonight." He gave Djokovic full credit for the win and admitted his inability to beat him.
"Again, I do not know if those comments are word-for-word from Federer's mouth; his *biographer released them in a seemingly abbreviated form."
@Zenga1 Uh. I do not think @Sarcastic Feds Fan is an actual Federer fan. Note the sarcasm and the fact that their name is "Sarcastic Feds Fan."
Also, why would someone retire when they are still winning titles and enjoying tennis?
By the way, did you really just call Roger Federer a "little lady" and a "grandpa?" Are you 5?
New comments from Federer (though apparently not verbatim), according to his official biographer: "Happy tournament is over. Nole was stronger than me tonight." "Clay season great so far. I knew that I wouldn't win both (Madrid and Rome). Expected Nole and Rafa in final here, after Madrid." According to his biographer, Federer knew "Rome was over after beating Seppi" because Rafa and Nole were "still fired up" while he was not.
All in all, these are interesting comments. From what I have read, it appears that Federer did, in fact, want to beat Novak today but did not expect to do so because of how well Novak has been playing in addition to how many matches he, himself, has been playing. He simply could not beat Novak because Novak was the stronger player.
Again, I do not know if those comments are word-for-word from Federer's mouth; his biography released them in a seemingly abbreviated form.
@gilenac @pera kojot @ARIS @SashaT That is not a sound argument for this particular match. Nadal and Djokovic have always been great returners and yet Federer has served phenomenally against both of them dozens of times in the past. What changed this time? Did Federer suddenly realize that Djokovic is a great returner and clam up? No. He had no rhythm or feel tonight, and he could not get the first serve where he wanted it. This is another piece of supporting evidence to illuminate just how poorly Federer was playing.
@gilenac I agree; it was a combination of both. The idea of forced versus unforced is very unclear unless one is actually playing in the match. How can we know which errors were caused by Federer's poor play and which ones were caused by Djokovic's good play? It is not really possible to differentiate between the two. Therefore, I will leave it at: Federer hit 42 errors, and that is a horrible statistic for him.
@pera kojot @ARIS @SashaT As of the moment, Novak is not necessarily the best returner. He is, statistically speaking, behind Rafa in 1st serve return points won and return games won. As for the match today, Federer's 1st serve was at 49%. That has nothing to do with the way Djokovic returns. He was simply not serving well.
@gilenac I do not believe @IamAbraxas is being literal in his comment. He is just trying to put in perspective what it means to lose 42 points from unforced errors in a two-set match. When someone is making that many errors, they are not playing well, and Federer certainly was not playing well. Djokovic, however, played a solid game of tennis; his forehand and backhand were great, though he needs to pick up the 1st serve percentage.
The outcome of a match depends on both players. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account both Federer's poor play and Djokovic's good tennis when looking at reasons reasons why the match went the way it did. Saying, "Well done, Novak" does not accomplish this.
That said: well done, Novak! I wish him luck for tomorrow. On the other hand, it's back to the practice courts for Federer.