Home / The Ramble: Women Tennis, Stop Whining About Wimbledon Winnings

The Ramble: Women Tennis, Stop Whining About Wimbledon Winnings

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Wimbledon, the only Grand Slam tennis tournament to have unequal prizes for the men’s and women’s winners, is getting grief from all quarters for not following the lead of the Australian, French, and U.S. Open tournaments by paying equal prize money to men and women.

Critics of Wimbledon are portraying this as an issue of sex discrimination, which is pure nonsense. Unless of course, it’s discrimination when someone is paid slightly less for doing a lot less work. Let’s cut to the chase.

All through the tournament the men play the best 3 out of 5 sets to win, while the women only play the best 2 out of 3 sets. The fact is that the women will make about 5 percent less for actually playing a lot less than the men throughout the entire tournament, especially in the finals.

The men have to play at least 3 sets no matter what, while 3 sets is the most that the women will have to play.

Since 1980, the women’s final winner has won in two sets 14 times and had to go three sets to win 12 times. The average length of a Wimbledon women’s final match is 92 minutes with the shortest match lasting only 54 minutes and the longest match lasting 165 minutes. Only 8 times since 1980 has the women’s final lasted more than 100 minutes.

During this same stretch on the grass courts at the All-England Club the men’s winner won in 3 sets 13 times, 4 sets 7 times, and 5 sets 6 times. The average length of a Wimbledon’s men’s final match is 150 minutes with the shortest match lasting 80 minutes and the longest match lasting 256 minutes.

And these figures don’t even touch on how many more hours the men play over the course of the tournament than the women, nor does it take into account how many more hours of conditioning that the men need to log in order to be fit enough to play 5 set matches.

Oh and one more thing, last year the top 10 women at Wimbledon made more than the top 10 men.

But why let facts get in the way when people can knee-jerk react themselves into screaming about sex discrimination? Where are all of the men’s rights activists screaming about how the men have to prepare and play longer yet don’t see these extended hours of labor reflected in their pay, when compared to their distaff counterparts?

The men don’t complain because they’ve been told that they sound stupid, petty, and greedy when they make a big stink about stupid, petty, and greedy things.

Just because these other Grand Slam tournaments have done the wrong thing doesn’t mean that the folks who run Wimbledon have to make the same mistake. And the chairman of the All-English club should be commended for holding his ground.

The bottom line is that most of us would gladly make 5 percent less money if we could work 40 percent less time. I’ll bet the men’s players would take that deal. They wouldn’t have to bust their humps and spend all of the extra time training to be in shape to play 5 set matches, and in turn would make relative pennies less.

And rather than accusing the Wimbledon folks of having a “Victorian-era view,” like the president of the WTA did, he and the women on the tour should be happy that they are so well compensated despite working less hours than the men.

And it’s a little bit of a disappointment — but not a surprise — to hear Billie Jean King accuse the All-England Club of not doing “the right thing on the prize money issue.”

Here are some possible solutions for the women and their supporters to chew on:

1) They can be happy that the women make a tiny bit less despite playing a whole lot less.

2) In an effort to achieve true equality, they can offer to play 5 set matches.

3) Either Nos. 1 or 2, plus shutting up.

Powered by

About Sal Marinello

  • Sherri

    For the most part, I agree with you — although I would also argue that any administrative assistant worth his or her salt works a lot harder than the CEO … and gets paid a lot less. But that’s an argument for another day. 🙂

    The only argument against the women getting paid less might be this (and I don’t have empirical data): if the women draw more eyeballs to the TV sets and thus more money to the coffers of Wimbledon, then they deserve equal money.

    In this case, it’s not an hourly wage we’re talking about … it’s how much money you bring to the table. After all, cricket players play much longer games than baseball players … but no one is arguing they should be paid more than that utility infielder on the Milwaukee Brewers.

    Just a thought.

  • sal m

    the argument from the wimbledon critics has been framed in terms of equality, not popularity. therefore, i responded to this argument.

    if you equalize for the time spent on the court the women are paid much more than the men. they are already getting MORE than equal money.

    if women want true equality – and if their brand of tennis is so popular – they should demand to play 5 set matches and demand they be paid the additional $50,000 or so for their efforts.

  • Most everything women do vs. men are smaller in size in sports — hitting from the “ladies tees” and playing with a smaller basketball.

    But softball, that’s a larger ball. So should they get paid more? Then again, the mound is closer to the plate, so maybe that offsets the size.

    Damn, this would make one hilarious irreverently gender-slamming post. And Sal, you beat me to it. I shake my fist at you.

  • sal m

    wait a minute there mr. sports editor…

    women golfers may play from different distances, but they still play tournaments that are made up of 4 rounds of 18 holes each.

    and softball is too obscure of a sport, has different rules than baseball and doesn’t compete with major league baseball in any way.

    the coexistance of women’s and men’s tennis in these major tournaments is unlike any other sport. imagine if the men’s and women’s golf’s us open were played at the same course at the same time or if the nba/wnba finals or men’s and women’s college final four played at the same time.

    the issue in tennis is unique because the major tournaments feature both men and women at the same time. the rules and courts are the same, but the women play less and make more money.

  • Ah, I gotcha — so it’s amount played, not distance played.

    So in the WNBA they play 40 minute games, as opposed to 48-minute games in the MNBA. A softball game is 7 innings vs. a 9-inning MLB epic struggle.

  • sal m

    in a game like golf the dimensions and elements of the “field of play” constantly changes. the pin placement changes during a tournament and the length of holes change from week to week. this year’s us open course is different from last year’s tourney and will be different next year – length’s, pin placements, roughs, greens and everything will change. the constant is 4 rounds of 18 holes.

    and do you really think that the salary structure should be the same in the wnba as in the nba? and is the only difference between baseball and softball the differnce in innings played?

  • Good points Sal.

    Given the purse difference is a mere $53K, I doubt if your arguments could justify that. I can only guess, a methodical approach connecting playing time and purse value would increase the disparity by a factor of 3 or 4.

    It only shows the WImbledon authority have no reasonable justification for their decision except their stubborn insistence that only raises more questions. In my opinion this is a clear case of gender discrimination for the heck of it – not that they are going to come forward and admit.

    Equality is fine – but should be appropriately enforced where applicable and not blindly. I guess neither side gets that.

  • sal m

    Q Bit:
    You miss my point.

    Wimbledon has no reason to back away from what they’ve done. They’re right.

    The women play less but make more than men. There’s really not too much more to it than that. And to make this an issue of sex descrimintion trivializes all real issues of such.

    Equal pay for equal time – or something close to it – used to be the motto. I guess that’s changed.

  • Let me explain. If the Wimbledon authority wants to justify the disparity (it is reasonable to ask why there is one) then going by your arguments, it should be more than just a symbolic $53K.

    May be the authorities don’t have one and that is ridiculous.

    When Pratyush posted his article, my initial reaction was – sounds good.

    Your post now gave me something to think about.

  • sal m

    Qbit, here’s the reasoning from the Wimbledon folks.

    “Phillips said because top men rarely play in Grand Slam doubles events, they earn less overall than women. In addition, the men play best-of-five set matches while the women play best of three.

    “It just doesn’t seem right to us that the lady players could play in three events and could take away significantly more than the men’s champion who battles away through these best-of-five matches,” Phillips said. “We don’t see it as an equal rights issue.”

  • Kris Kieslowski

    The argument about time spent on court seems flawed to me. First of all, if you’re going to use it to begin with, you’d better be consistent about it. So, for example, if a Wimbledon men’s champ wins in two hours, why shouldn’t he be paid half what a men’s champ gets for winning in four hours?

    But here’s my biggest problem with the argument. Yes, women spend about 40% less time on court. But the time, money, and dedication it takes over many years to reach the level to win Wimbledon is probably every bit as great for women as it is for men. The number of hours spent playing, taken out of this context, is a pretty poor measure of the work that women’s players actually do.

  • sal m

    it’s not just a simple matter of time spent on the court, although how can you justify paying someone equally for ultimately doing less work?

    men have to play the best three out of five, which right off the bat means that the shortest match they play is as long as the longest match women play.

    the time spent playing is not taken out of context as it takes a lot more time to condition to prepare to play five set matches than it does to play three set matches.

    just like boxers who need to train for 12 round fights need to spend more time training than boxers who have 8 round fights.

  • Kris Kieslowski

    The point is that women *don’t* do less work when one factors in the thousands of hours of preparation that it takes a player of either gender to reach championship level.

    As for men supposedly having to train harder because they play up to five sets, I’d have to see hard evidence for this before believing it. The difference has to do with inherent physical makeup, not greater preparation time. Do the fastest female sprinters train only 90% as much as their male counterparts, because they run only 90% as fast?

  • sal m

    since you are unaware of the level of training necessary to compete for different competitions it’s easy to see why you don’t understand the issue.

    your assumption that inherent physical makeup lessens the need for specific training reveals your lack of knowledge with regards to the subject.

    people who train for 5 set matches do in fact train more than people who train for 3 set matches. just because you don’t think so – or are unaware of this fact – doesn’t change this reality.

    furthermore, male and female athletes who are 100m sprinters for the most part train almost in the exact same way because their races are the same length. the fact that the men are slightly faster doesn’t change the fact that the distances both sexes run are the same, therefore the mechanisms trained for 100m races are basically the same.

  • Kris Kieslowski

    OK, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, for now. You’re right that my believing something doesn’t make it true, but the same applies equally to you. Fair enough? 🙂 So how about you point us to some reliable sources (books, articles, websites, etc.) that document the allegedly greater training time for male tennis players. And while you’re at it, why don’t you also back up your “knowledge” by giving an approximate percentage of how much more time male tennis players spend training than their female counterparts.

  • sal m

    well that’s a bit too much info for this setting, but here’s what i can tell you and you can make up your own mind.

    in my 20 years of being a professional strength and conditioning coach i have worked with tennis players from ages of 10 and up. some have gone to great things, some very good and some not so good.

    i’ve trained a state champ, big 10 champ who is also the all time winningest women’s big 10 singles player and who was inducted into her school’s hall of fame, who played some pro and is involved in pro tennis today.

    i’ve also worked with and been around boy/men players as well.

    as the level of tennis goes up,the level of training increases. an element of this increased level of play is the increased length of matches.

    my state champ had to increase the amount of training that she did for college because college matches went longer, and we made the same adjustments when we were preparing her for the pro events.

    in working with her, and with other conditioning pros who worked more with boy/men players i know how these guys train, and the difference between what males and females do.

  • Kris Kieslowski

    Thanks for the explanation. You’ve gone some way towards persuading me. Just out of curiosity, could you tell me if you think women can play five sets as readily as men, provided they receive the necessary training, and if so, why their matches don’t therefore get extended? This would help to remove a lot of the controversy concerning equal pay, it seems.

  • sal m

    i certainly think that women can and should play 5 sets, at least in the biggest tournaments. maybe they could phase it in by having them play the final two rounds best of five.

    as long as women adjusted their training, there’s no reason to think that they couldn’t maintain their level of play throughout these longer matches.

    my position with regards to pay has nothing to do with the level of ability, so i agree with you. as a matter of fact i think you can make the case that women’s tennis is more popular then the men’s and by going to 5 sets the women would wind up making more.

    i think the best of 3 set format is a remnant of the old days when the thinking was that women weren’t able to go a best of 5.

    i’d like an explanation from the tennis folks as to why the women are still playing best of 3.

  • While it is doubtless that there is no good reason that women play 3 rather than 5 sets, the issue of prize money has never been tied to how long the player plays. If it were, then we should see a sliding scale for everyone, based on how long they appeared on court.

    This approach is akin to arguing that similarly, in single occupant sports like boxing, we should scale the purse to the length of the fight. And if the fighters drag the fight out longer to make more money, well all the more enjoyment for us.

    Or how about cycling? World record runs should be worth less money because they’re quicker. Track & Field? See where this is going folks?

    Prize money has never been about “amount of work” or equal “pay”. It’s a friggin prize for winning a tournament. Period.

    This is not an issue of “work”. Before one wants to make an argument like the one that our author has tried to make, one needs to establish that the time spent on the court is tantamount to “work” and that the prize money is somehow tied to the amount of time that the winner spends on the court.

    Good luck with that.

  • sal m

    thanks for missing the point.

    your examples are incorrect as the purse has no bearing on the time it takes to complete the competition, but on the scheduled duration.

    boxers who participate in 12 round fights make more than boxers who participate in 8 round fights.

    and in the example of cycling, who makes more the top guys in the tour de france, or the guys who win individual events in the velodrome?

    you didn’t address the issue of scheduled length, as that is the issue. women have to play no more than 3 sets when the men have to play at least 3 sets. the fact that the women’s purse in nearly identical and that the top women make more than the top men more than make up for the few bucks difference, especially when you consider how much less tennis the women play.

    good luck with that.

  • but then again if you see how much jobs this tennisenterprise makes , ie providing jobs in the entire world, entertaining so many people and how much the marketing boys make off of them I think that the amount of money these guys get for winning that tournament is even a little too less.


  • sal m

    i think women’s players may make more in endorsements then men….i know in the US women players are way more visible than the men.

  • Indeed the women do but that’s an individual thing. SO sharapova for example really gets 25 million a year outside the WTA.

    As for gate receipts it’s still the men who attract a larger audience so they are more people and get more money. I believe it is this way.

    And also at the women and men; it’s only a select few who get the really big sponsorship deals. Just the ‘goodlooking ones’, like a few years ago and no offense Zina Garrison hardly got any sponsorship deals even though she was very succesful.


  • sal m

    how to the TV ratings compare between the men and women?

    if the men really do draw better at the gate, are their ratings better as well?

    if in fact the men do draw better and do get better ratings, then those who feel that women should be paid equally REALLY don’t have a leg to stand on. especially if women make more in endorsements.

  • And they dont have a leg to stand on. But let’s not forget that the men play 5 sets at max and the women only 3 at max. Which is Wimbledon’s main argument to not give equal pay to the women. Women put in less hours to win the title.

    But this whole emancipation thing and all and Wimbledon is the most conservative tournament in the world with their all in white and no electronic media allowed.


  • sal m

    that’s the whole point of my item…less play for about the same pay.

  • Dipti

    To summarize your argument:
    #1: Women play fewer sets.
    Well, that isn’t up to the women is it? It is circular logic to make a rule which forces women to play limited sets and then use that rule to justify paying them less.
    #2 Female athletes overall at this event earn more than men
    This is because they play more tourneys, including doubles and singles, than the men.

    Perhaps your opinion is based on a lack of research and knowledge, and (hopefully) not just sexism. If so, I strongly urge you to read battle of the sexes. It will explain the issues at hand for you with numbers, or facts if you will, and might help you to understand why this problem is so much more well defined and complex than your writings about would lead any reader to believe.

  • sal m

    actually the link you provided just is an attempt to deflect attention from this central point that the author makes.

    “If you have to start calculating the per-game earnings, then you should already know you are not where you need to be. In many ways, the heads of Wimbledon are misleading everyone and still living in some alternate reality. While it appears that the women make more per game, it is true that they are just about second-class citizens in every other aspect of the tournament, as well. The best match times and courts go to the men. The better facilities currently go to the men. I’ve even heard it discussed that the men even get the better officials and judges on the green grass. The women’s final for many years was broadcast on tape delay, while the men’s final was live. I wonder what the cost per game all that is.”

    all the other stuff is window dressing. the author never refutes the point that women make more per game than the men.

    if it were up to me, i’d have men and women play best of 5 and pay them the same. let the women prepare and play the extra sets and pay them the lousy $55K for their troubles.

    personally, i would rather have the choice to work/play less and make more for my time spent.

    if this was about men and women being equal, those who want equal pay should base their argument on playing 5 sets, not on making equal amount for less work.

    in my item, i mention that the top 10 women make more overall, but this fact doesn’t have an effect on my opinion that the prize money is just fine as it is.

    perhaps you should re-read my item and comments, for nowhere can any reasonable person attribute any of my comments to “sexism,” a nice little term people use rather than speaking about the facts.

    if you want to lead the charge to have women first play 5 sets, and as a result get paid equally, i’m right there with you. if you just want the same money for playing less, you’re just someone who wants a handout for the women players.

  • I have been thinking and it occured to me that women physically aren’t as strong as men. They tire more easily. For example the Dutch army does not distinct men and women for their physical trainings and last year there were complaints from the women that they just couldn’t keep up with the men. It was too heavy for the women.

    Having women play 5 sets would I think end up with women protesting that they can’t keep up.

    Also have you seen the amount of injuries on the WTA tour. Some of them can’t keep up and are retiring (Kim Clijsters) or some are so heavily injured by the power tennis that they cant lift their arms anymore without feeling pain (Jennifer Capriati).

    In my opinion, they should get paid equally because physically they do about the same as the men with 5 sets when they play 3.

  • sal m

    you’re contradicting yourself.

    on one hand you say that women aren’t the physical equals of men, but on the other had you say that they should be paid the same despite not being able to perform at the same level, and that somehow the relative effort level that the women can perform at is reason enough for equal pay.

    that just doesn’t fly and certainly doesn’t represent equality in any real sense of the word.

  • Maurice

    I read the article but not the comments – so I apologize if anyone has already pointed out that the women are by far much more entertaining. The mens points tend to end quickly especially on grass. The women have longer more entertaining rallies. I have been to all the grand slams except the Australian and typically avoid the mens matches.

  • Harlequin

    Manfred – by your logic I could play one set and get paid the same as the champion as physically to me that would be about the same amount of work. I am all for equality and agree that there are many cases where women are underpaid for doing the same ammount of work but tennis simply isn’t one of them.

  • Kris Kieslowski

    From Jon Wertheim’s Tennis Mailbag on cnnsi.com:

    Why do you find it so hard to understand people only deserve the same pay if they do the same amount of work? Of course male and female employees should be paid equally. In Burger King, a woman who works three hours gets paid the same as a man who works three hours. But, if the man consistently works at least an hour extra every day they work, it is preposterous to suggest they should be paid the same over a two week period.
    — Ciaran Lisburn

    Since when do athletes get paid by the hour? This whole line of argument about duration of match is really a red herring. Is Superman better than Sideways because it is an hour longer? It’s about entertainment. Unless you can credibly quantify an economic difference, I don’t see you how justify paying different wages.

  • sal m

    whoever jon werthheim is, he should be grateful that with his lack of reasoning skills that he is able to blog for a big time site like cnnsi.

    people like werthheim never address the issue from the standpoint of having the women play the same length matches as the men, or from the standpoint that it is in fact unfair for the men to play longer matches and get paid less as a result. if it the length of the matches don’t matter, why don’t the men play best of three?

    they make incorrect comparisons – like the length of movies or people getting paid hourly “wages” – rather than discuss the basic issue. it’s convenient for these people because when you take this position – that the length of matches doesn’t matter – you don’t need to know anything, and you can just shoot off your mouth.

  • Maurice

    All you have to do is check the endorsements of the players. Women players get more money in endorsements than men. Why?

    Why are the stands filled for the ladies matches?

    THEY ARE MORE ENTERTAINING. Which translates into money.

  • sal m

    if that’s the case, then great for the women…if the women’s game is so entertaining let’s get more of it, and have them play the best of 5. i have no problem with that. if it’s all about equality nobody else should either.

    if women’s tennis is so great – and i’m not arguing that it isn’t entertaining – then why aren’t people clamoring for them to play best of 5? at least in the last two rounds of big tourneys?

  • Kris Kieslowski

    But there are many situations, both athletic and non-athletic, where amount of time spent working is not the one and absolute only thing that determines amount of payment.

    You’d be more convincing if you’d explain why prize money in tennis should depend so totally and exclusively on playing time, instead of claiming that anyone who suggests that there are other considerations is “just shooting off his mouth.”

    (Go Maria!!!!)

  • Maurice

    I would argue the other side – Mens tennis has been seeing declining numbers because it is too boring and lasts too long.

    McEnroe has proposed less powerful raquests for years. His point is that the points would last longer. I think he might be right.

    Longer points less sets.

  • sal m

    these points, which you were a part of, were laid out last month…check above.

  • Maurice

    sal – don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

    I didn’t join this discusion until #31. I even stated that I had “read the article but not the comments..”.

    You are probably referring to your own post #22.

    If you knew more about tennis you would realize that it suffered a decline in interest in years past and it was determined that LENGTH OF PLAY was part of the problem. Tennis has always been viewed as “television unfriendly” simply because it just goes on too damn long.

    As far as fitness – why would that ever be a measurement for salary? Geez!

  • sal m

    actually maurice, i posted my response to kris…at the time i was posting, kris’ comment was the last one (#37).

    and if you weren’t interested in being a smart ass and actually knew something and did read the comments above you wouldn’t make your laughably off-base and demonstrably incorrect comment about fitness not being a measurement for salary. for fitness is the key component as you go up the competitive ladder and those at the highest level make more money and need to prep more. at higher skill levels more prep time is required. for a simple example, look at amateur boxing versus the top professional boxing.

    and as i stated previously, despite the fact that the female tennis player that i worked with always needed to prepare for best of 3 matches from high school on up through professional, we constantly had to adjust her training to reflect the increased difficulty of her level of play. and furthermore, her prep varied greatly from that of men who had to play best of 5.

  • Maurice

    The interesting and marketable part of tennis is the brain part – not the brawn. I don’t care which player trained harder so they can ‘go the distance’. I care about the ‘thinking player’ that can put together a point that requires power and the element of surprise.

    I agree with your last paragraph that fitness is required to participate. When it comes to laying out my $600 bucks for a seat at the US Open I don’t care how many situps the player did – I just want to see good matches.

    Finesse trumps fitness. Quality over quantity.

  • sal m

    even though we seem to disagree, i don’t think it’s by much.

    finesse comes from fitness, just as strength and power does. just as skill does.

  • MCH

    Ok sal…but now for the important question…

    Who’s got the best boobs in women’s tennis?

    I’m partial to Serena Williams as no. 1, and Kim Clijsters, in second place.

  • sal m

    that’s a dicey friggin’ question there, especially since some of the gals on the tour are barely of consenting age…suffice to say, i’m not a “boob man” – even though some may think that i’m a boob, man – and that i admire the female form in all its athletic versions.

  • MCH

    Yeah, FWIW, I did hesitate before I asked…but I read an article on Chris Everett years ago in a national magazine where the author actually came out and wrote, “The general consensus is that Chrissy has the best boobs on the tour”…so I thought it was OK to bring it up…

  • sal m

    hey, it’s fine to bring it up…let’s see if we get some fresh blood as a result!

  • MCH

    How about best legs?

    I’m partial to the gams of Muaresmo, Capriati, Graff, Sabatini…for starters…

  • sal m

    mauresmo is a good call, even though she could care less what us guys think.

    sharapova is my call.

    sabatini is an even better call…she was kournakova before kournakova was, plus she actually could play tennis.

  • The best looking girl: Maria Kirilenko 🙂 No doubt about it, great legs , great everything 😉


  • sal m

    kirilenko…just checked out some photos…she looks like she’s perilously close to jail bait!!;)

  • MCH

    Federer’s off to a good start…up 3-0…hope he can keep it up…

  • I wrote about this issue on my blog, and looked at stats from Wimbledon, comparing some stats for Nadal & Federer and Mauresmo & Henin-Hardenne.
    I enjoy watching both men’s and women’s tennis, but generally the mens’s games are technically much better (less unforced errors, greater variety of strokes and techniques). Many of the women’s finals have been colossal bores, which you don’t usually see with the men’s finals. The Mauresmo/Justine final was a goodie though.

  • Best legs? Federer. Best butt? Sampras.

  • sal m

    good points all, miss k…but sampras?!!??!!?

  • MCH

    Oh yeah…I forgot best butts:
    Martina Hingis, Serena Williams, Anna KourniKova, Jennifer Capriati…

  • Tyedyesky420

    Plain and simple play 5 sets get payed for 5 sets. play 3 sets get payed for 3 sets if you cant understand that then i dont know what to tell you. if you think they should get paid the same for doing less then you yourself are the reason for inequality. You want equality just for the sake of gender without doing the work. what a joke. Everybody is so politically correct today its sickning.

  • Tyedyesky420

    sry..and also if that were the case then everyone in the world that works should get paid the same …i just dont understand ur thought (or lack of) process. do you people even think about the crap u spew out of ur mouths.

  • Tyedyesky420

    and if you people would do a little research b4 shooting off ur mouths u would see that the mens events rake in more money than the womens. i could go on all day but u ignorant ppl aren’t worth it. this comment may get censored but hay its the truth.

  • Tyedyesky420

    god u ppl just erk me so. equal pay for unequal work say it in ur head a few hundred times and it might sink in just how moronic that way of thinking is. ppl like u that make this country unbearable to live in. u’ve been told that ur opinion is just as important no matter how baseless and unfounded it is.

  • Tyedyesky420

    ok im done now just dont know how u ppl funtion u truly do only use 10% of ur brains lol bye

  • Tyedyesky420

    ok really this is the last one….chew on this for a minute….why do these athletes get payed all these millions of dollars . is what they do so vital to this world that it would stop spinning if they didnt PLAY anymore. their salaries are why u pay $6.50 for a freakin hot dog not the other way around. why dont they pay these individuals a decent living wage and charge u $5 to go to the game. oh yeah what this country is founded on GREED.ah screw it just wastin my time u’ll never understand

  • Tyedyesky420

    lol….sorry just saw the posts about jailbait tennis players….ya this countries morals are real strong…kill the crap out of ppl for land, oil and numerous other reasons i.e. wars but god forbid u find a 17 year old attractive. lmao at every body in this world.

  • duane

    Ease off the caffeine.

  • Tyedyesky420

    typical american. nothing useful to say just the usual cliche’.

  • duane

    Running about a 9 on the tension scale there, pal. Decaf. Seriously.

  • Tyedyesky420

    no just fed up with stupidity

  • Tyedyesky420

    ran in to this forum by accident. and it physically pains me to see the way ppl think in this world

  • duane

    It’s just sports. It doesn’t really matter.

  • Tyedyesky420

    i probably could take a whole different tact but but as i said b4 im the most politicaly inncorrect person u’ll ever run in 2. i say whats on my mind and i dont watch what i say. thats the point of the 1st amendment but that is mainly just for show anyhow nobody abides by the constitution anymore anyhow. just ask ur prez.

  • Tyedyesky420

    now that matter
    but im getting off the subject sry

  • duane

    Politically incorrect is just fine. But it’s usually the case that insulting people with opposing viewpoints, no matter how stupid the viewpoints might be, is a guarantee that they won’t listen to what you have to say. Everybody loses. Still, it’s sometimes fun to blow off a little steam. Even I, the most reasonabe person you’ll ever run into, do that once in a while. Cheers.

  • Tyedyesky420

    it seems as if ur an inteligent person and i respect that its just the blind following of these cliche’ social issues that infuriates me at no end. i also find it highly amusing that these multimillionaires are bickering over 50 g’s.

  • J

    How do you know women athletes prepare less than men? Maybe they prepare more.

    You are biased.

  • claire

    i think Wimbledon’s right not to pay them as much as men because they do spend less time playing. Plus if they’re winning Wimbledon why the hell do they care if they don’t get that little bit more money..? They’ve just WON WIMBLEDON. I think they should look at it with just a tad more perspective.

  • claire

    They get the same now anyway though.

  • R32D2

    I believe the best of 3 sets for women and the best of 5 sets for men is a carry over from the “olden” days when women’s physical capabilities where considered inferior to that of men.

    so first things first…women can AND should play best of 5 set matches in the grand slams (especially the grand slams). Some tournaments are best of 3 sets for men but not the grand slams.

    I would love to see the women play best of 5 set matches in the US, French and Aussie open. You could have the first 2 sets won and loose the remaining 3 sets. First 2 sets won for a female player is a victory. First 2 sets won for a male can still result in a loss.

    Equal pay for equal play. Women CAN and SHOULD play best of 5!

  • Sam Jack

    I think that what’s really relevant is that female tennis players, just like their male counterparts, devote the bulk of their waking lives to playing tennis, practicing tennis, thinking about tennis, traveling in order to play tennis, et cetera. It’s not as though these female players play their three sets and then go take a nap in hotel rooms. Both the men’s and women’s players are full time athletes who use their bodies as strenuously as they can to be successful.

    No doubt women COULD play five set matches, but everyone has decided to make this concession to physiological differences, as uncomfortable as it is to do so–not in the interest of these women’s health, but because it’s better entertainment value to have a lot of matches that turn on skill, rather than a lot of matches that turn on who can keep sprinting back and forth the longest. That same calculation is what motivates every men’s tournament except the four Slams to keep matches to three sets, as well.

    I’m in favor of equal pay because the ‘work’ men and women on the pro tour put in truly is equal–even if, at the four Slams only, a little more of that work appears on the court on the men’s side.

  • WilfB

    Sal M, Thanks for stating all the that I have espousing for years.
    You have done it succinctly and with class.
    Again, I thank you.

  • Rob

    Professional tennis is not work in the way loading a truck is.

    Tennis players on television are in the entertainment business, whether they know it or not. The compensation comes from things like advertising metrics not what they do in a particular match. Certainly not by how much time they “work”.

    Think of a cruise ship. The highest paid person for a particular cruise is usually the comedian that is on stage fo about two hours.

  • Rob

    Most of the comments I have read are about working hard, etc.

    If you really think about it, neither a male or female tennis player is not producing anything other than ratings for fhe television network and being a spokesperson for their endorsed products.

    So to compare how much time or how hard they “work” is not an valid argument.

    Even if your talking about prize money alone, the money they make is from advertisers and their agreements with television networks not how many balls they knock around.

    If we can make an analogy to a team sport like football, the owner of the team can logically pay a player that will sell tickets. Selling tickets and filling stadiums techically actually has nothing at all to do with winning. if the fans pay to buy season tickets and watch them lose, fhe franchise still makes money…including the players.