$3,000,000 Prize Money For Each Winner
Novak Djokovic and Petra Kvitova
Men's & Women's Singles Champions 2014
After the thrilling and competitive men's final at Wimbledon, the discussion soon turned to the equal prize money ($3,000,000) that is awarded to the men's and women's singles champions. Since this is quite an interesting and hot topic, we might consider a few pertinent facts in this discussion.
* Is it equal pay for equal pay? Not hardly considering the women play best of three sets and the men play best of five sets. In the final, the women played for 55 minutes and the men played for well over 4 hours.
* Is it equal pay for equal drawing power? No way considering the lack of interest and attendance at women's events.
* Is equal pay the product of the emphasis on diversity? Probably so.
* Is equal pay right and fair? Guess the answer is in the eye of the beholder--as is beauty.
Just for further consideration and after searching for a comparable field of consideration--GOLF--here is the breakdown of the golf prize money at the US Open:
US Open Men's Winner: $1.44 million
US Open Women's Winner: $585,000
Not to offend anyone and knowing that this is politically incorrect, perhaps its time that Wimbledon (and the US Open Tennis Tournament) give a little thought to reality. Of course, if they were to make any changes they would be sued in today's politically correct world. Maybe the answer would be to pay them for "minutes played" in each match...
We would welcome your thoughts on this unique and interesting topic.
5 comments:
IT IS A COMPLETE FARCE TO PAY EQUAL.
THE WOMENS MATCH WAS WORTHLESS. I just got done thinking about those poor people who purchased a ticket to the women's final. They hyped the "Genie" Buchard as the next champion. She looked like a joke.
I don't have an answer: but I know equal pay isn't it.
EQUAL PAY AND PAY IN GENERAL ...
It is STUPID and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO JUSTIFIABLE - in more ways than one...
FIRST - NO ONE needs to be paid 3m for playing tennis. Isn't there a better way to use this money than the Joker getting another yacht? How about dropping the price of admission and lowering the cost of strawberries and cream.
SECOND - Women’s tennis is BORING! It is irritatingly loud and most of the time not pretty and I am not talking about the players - but the play!
THIRD - NOT JUST THE BIG EVENTS BUT THE SMALLER ONES - we need spread some the funds out more equally to the early round losers... they need incentive to come - especially the smaller events.
Until a tournament like the US Open makes a stand with pay adjustments - it will always be an elitist sports that cost too much to attend and eventually play
BACO
So you pay less for your movie ticket when it is only 90 minutes than for a movie that goes 2.5 hours? Or less for a movie ticket that has a female lead instead of a male lead?
Rod Laver won two Wimbledon finals in under an hour. His 6-3, 6-1, 6-4 win over Chuck McKinley in 1961 took 55 minutes, while his 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 win over Marty Mulligan in 1962 took just 51 minutes. Must have been some horribly worthless tennis.
Laver also holds the record for the shortest final of the Open Era, beating Tony Roche 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 in 1968 in exactly one hour. He made 2000 pounds in that win. That same year, Billie Jean King defeated Judy Tegart 9-7, 7-5 in more than one hour and only took home 750 pounds for the win. So by this logic, Laver should have given some of his winnings to King?? After all, he didn't hold up his end of the bargain by playing for more time than her.
If there is a tennis event in which both tours are present and playing equally deep draws, prize money should be equal.
If the women are going to get equal pay then they should have to play the same format--three out of five sets.
ANONY JULY 8 1:43
Wake UP!!! Your comparison to a movie is silly! If the actors are bad NO ONE WILL SEE IT!!! We go to watch the ladies final because its on before the Bryan Brother win doubles! NOT BECAUSE ITS WORTH IT - let alone $3 million!!!
I'll bet you a MILLION DOLLARS not one LADIES ONLY tournament would be strong enough advertisement wise to bring in 3 million in prize money - NOT ONE! No one would even try - that is silly! We give them the same money because we are a society of wussies - WE HAVE TO - or there will be bitching all the way to the supreme court!!!
You are just silly! Here's one for you - lets say a few decades back... your hero Jane Fonda is the star of a movie and on the other screen is Clint Eastwood - who is going to pull in the most revenue?
Same thing - a Serena final or a Nadal final... which one will pull in the sponsors, spectators, television... GET REAL!
If you were honest you'd also admit there is way too much money for EITHER group of tennis players. It is just silly how much money is passed out. Silly and Sad! I agree with "baco" use it toward others things that will help tennis - not another diamond ring or sports car!
Post a Comment