OV9

https://www.wimbledon.com/pdf/The_Champ ... 0Money.pdf

Prize money has been equalised between the Mens and ladies for several years now.

I understand female footballers getting less, there's less interest in the sport and they generate less money. But women's tennis is just as big a deal as men's and the tournaments are the same so no problem with them earning the same.

Give them all minimum wage and the same prize whether or not they win. That way the motivation would be what it should be: the kudos, not the money.

I’d imagine winning has its own commercial benefits afterwards anyway.

Looking at that table there’s immense disparity between the singles and doubles and even more once you get into the wheelchair stuff.

I imagine Jamie Murray must be pretty pissed to have won the mixed doubles twice and runner up once, to have only come out with £160,000, where his brother wins once and gets 14.6x the amount

Equal pay for equal play. Pay them the same but either women have to play 5 sets or men drop down to three.

Seems odd the women should get paid more for playing less / putting in a shorter show

Equal in, equal out.

They aren’t putting in equally so shouldn’t get the same out.

Dave!

You're thinking about this all wrong. This isn't 'pay' for 'effort' expended. This is a 'prize' for beating everyone of the same sex. It requires the same effort and skill in relative terms, therefore, for the 'best' man to beat the other men as for the 'best' woman to beat all the other women.

Simon wrote: Sat Jul 15, 2023 9:30 pm You're thinking about this all wrong. This isn't 'pay' for 'effort' expended. This is a 'prize' for beating everyone of the same sex. It requires the same effort and skill in relative terms, therefore, for the 'best' man to beat the other men as for the 'best' woman to beat all the other women.

There’s many men who go 2 sets down in the beginning of a match, only to come back and win the next 3. The final 2 sets can become a match of attrition, whoever has the endurance to continue will triumph- something the female game doesn’t include or promote, as if you go 2 sets down you loose

Not disagreeing with your point or saying women shouldn’t be paid less, just I can see the reason why people say there should be a difference

I see what you're saying but I still say you're over thinking it.

Simply - it's as big of an achievement for a woman to be triumphant as it is for man. That's why it should be the same. They may be able to win in fewer sets but that also means they can lose quicker too. In your example, their drawdown risk is tighter.

How would men feel if their female colleagues in the same role earned the same salary but worked 40% less

Lady footballers play for the same length of time as men footballers. Lady marathon runners run the same distance as the men. Ladies cycling uses bikes as opposed to trikes. Yada yada.

I don’t see any reason why ladies tennis isn’t best of 5 sets if they receive the same prize money. If I had the choice of tickets for either final, I’d almost certainly go for the blokes as I’m far more likely to be entertained for a longer time.

Isn't wheelchair tennis over with the 3rd hit every game? Aim at opposite corner, job done. Next.