Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:47 pm  

At the risk of reopening old wounds, why should the Wimbledon women's finalists receive the same money as the men, when they play maybe 25% of the time the men do and limit their game to max 3 sets? Never seen any remote justification for that

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:58 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

At the risk of reopening old wounds, why should the Wimbledon women's finalists receive the same money as the men, when they play maybe 25% of the time the men do and limit their game to max 3 sets? Never seen any remote justification for that

Do the ticket prices get reduced for the women's games? Do less people watch the women's games?

I don't think the tickets are split by sexes, are they? I think you get tickets by the court by the day. So there will be no way to differentiate whether people go to Wimbledon to watch the men or the women.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:18 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Do the ticket prices get reduced for the women's games? Do less people watch the women's games?

I don't think the tickets are split by sexes, are they? I think you get tickets by the court by the day. So there will be no way to differentiate whether people go to Wimbledon to watch the men or the women.

Aren't the viewing figures much lower for the women's than men's games?

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:46 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Do the ticket prices get reduced for the women's games? Do less people watch the women's games?

I don't think the tickets are split by sexes, are they? I think you get tickets by the court by the day. So there will be no way to differentiate whether people go to Wimbledon to watch the men or the women.

My argument is based on like work. On average, let's say the women work 1 hour; the men 3 hours. I don't know of any other identical job where the women would be paid the same as the men for 1/3rd hours worked.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:47 am  

Him wrote:

Aren't the viewing figures much lower for the women's than men's games?

Don't see that is relevant, if they did the same work then they should get the same pay. They don't.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

At the risk of reopening old wounds, why should the Wimbledon women's finalists receive the same money as the men, when they play maybe 25% of the time the men do and limit their game to max 3 sets? Never seen any remote justification for that

Because, despite what you have rightly pointed out, in this sooper dooper politically correct age someone decided it was unfair / unacceptable / not good press / possible discrimination for the men to get paid more.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:22 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

My argument is based on like work. On average, let's say the women work 1 hour; the men 3 hours. I don't know of any other identical job where the women would be paid the same as the men for 1/3rd hours worked.

The tennis authorities have deemed that the best way to decide women's games is best of 3 sets and men's best of 5 sets.

If the pay was based upon sets played then the best men's player might be playing 3 sets every match because he never loses a set. So should he be getting less money because he doesn't have to do as much work as an average player who needs 5 tough sets to win a match?

If women are forced to switch to 5 sets and the women's game suffers as a result, who does that help?

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:24 am  

Him wrote:

Aren't the viewing figures much lower for the women's than men's games?

No idea.

I've watched some women's tennis. Watched hardly any men's tennis.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:57 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The tennis authorities have deemed that the best way to decide women's games is best of 3 sets and men's best of 5 sets.

Why?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If the pay was based upon sets played then the best men's player might be playing 3 sets every match because he never loses a set.

Oh, yes, because that has really ever happened, or is really likely ever to happen.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

So should he be getting less money because he doesn't have to do as much work as an average player who needs 5 tough sets to win a match?

That's a pretty ludicrous argument. Maybe Messi should be on minimum wage since he finds it so easy to score goals?

Anway, you are looking from the wrong end, presumably because you can't construct an argument from the right end. Which is, that whilst there will obviously be variations in the length of every match, nevertheless the starting point is that the men have to play best of 5 (so cannot ever play less than 3 sets even in a whitewash) - whereas the women don't, they play best of 3. I said there is no justification, in those circumstances, to be paid the same, and I note you don't suggest one.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If women are forced to switch to 5 sets and the women's game suffers as a result, who does that help?

If a hypothetical thing happened, and then on the back of that, another hypothetical thing happened, whom would that help? I'm sorry, there's not enough "question" there to make any sensible reply, and I don't see that we had the initial aim of "helping" anyone.

But are you suggesting that the women's game would suffer? Or might? If so, then you need to explain why it would suffer as a result, what form might this suffering take, and why? What scenario do you predict?

I agree entirely with Martina Navratilova that ALL games should be best of 3 sets, not 5 (as they often are) but I do not see any logic at all, if a tournament chooses to have best-of-5 matches for men, why the men should not be paid significantly more for that inequality.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:37 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Oh, yes, because that has really ever happened, or is really likely ever to happen.

*cough* Nadal *cough* Roland Garros *cough*

I'm with you on the point, though. I agreed with complaints about the size of the disparity in pay in tennis, but I do think it's harder to make a case for equal pay when the 'maximum' length of a women's match is the 'minimum' length of a men's match (obviously in terms of sets, not games or time).