<p>At the major tournaments, the All-England, Australian Open, French Open and US Open, do the women players get paid the same as the men? If so, are the men really not getting equal pay for equal work since they have to play best-of-five sets where the women play best-of-three?</p>
<p>If you want to see a big pay gap look at golf. I think tennis went to equal pay long ago and the women are about as popular as the men in tennis.</p>
<p>Yes, and shouldn’t the men get more prize money (wages) since they play (work) longer then the women in the Grand Slam tournaments?</p>
<p>I believe that the women do receive equal prize money at the major tournaments and you are not the first person to note the disparity in work required (number of sets played) to earn the same money. </p>
<p>Life is so unfair! </p>
<p>I also found it a bit strange, but I got over it. This has been going on for quite a while now. If it really bothers you I would suggest avoiding the major tournaments. Either that, or a sex change operation.</p>
<p>In general mens professional sports bring in alot more money from corporations and the media so that the tournaments can afford to have larger purses. When womens sports attract the same numbers they will receive the same monies.</p>
<p>Thanks NJres, but I think I’ll keep my gender, and I WILL attend every major I can get to! lol</p>
<p>Perhaps, just perhaps, the women could start playing best-of-five??? They certainly appear to have the stamina and are on the whole better athletes and better conditioned than they ever were…hmm…</p>
<p>Women tend to player longer points as there are few big hitters who slam the ball past the other player. Maybe the total match times are similar. Or not. I don’t think most tennis fans care that much.</p>
<p>I am quite sure that the men’s matches are, on average, considerably longer than the women’s – in the Slams, that is.</p>
<p>I just researched the issue a little bit and found an interesting article. Two points:</p>
<ol>
<li> Wimbledon is one of the few tournaments that still pays more to the men’s winner, but the difference is so small I think it is more symbolic than real.</li>
</ol>
<p>Gentlemen’s Singles Winner<br>
£655,000 in 2006</p>
<p>£630,000 in 2005</p>
<p>increase 4.0%
Ladies’ Singles Winner<br>
£625,000 in 2006</p>
<p>£600,000 in 2005</p>
<p>increase 4.0%</p>
<p>But here is something I didn’t think of:</p>
<ol>
<li> Because the men play 5 sets vs only 3 for the women it is easier for a woman to play in more events (ie, it is much easier for a woman to play singles and doubles and even mixed doubles)
so women are coming out of these tournaments with more prize money than men! But wait… that would be because they are playing MORE tennis! lol</li>
</ol>
<p><a href=“http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2420833[/url]”>http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2420833</a></p>
<p>I think the men should only play best 2 out of three. Life is too short to spend 5 hours watching a men’s tennis match…On the other hand, watching the women play 1 hour is too short of a time. Maybe the women could play the best 2.5 out of 4 sets.</p>
<p>^^^blasphemy.</p>
<p>For many sports, the athletes pay comes from media deals like TV. In football, the average player’s salary depends on how much they get in TV deals. Tickets sales go towards upkeep while concessions and other revenue go to the owner. In tennis men’s and women’s each get ample TV time, but golf is another story.</p>
<p>Funny how, when justifying higher male salaries in athletics, people point to the money it brings in. Let’s use that to analyse tennis:
Assume that seats for a women’s match are sold for the same price as a men’s match; assume that networks pay the same to air the matches; assume that any additional funds are roughly equivalent.</p>
<p>Then women are bringing in the same amount of money as men. Why not pay them the same? Why not, in addition, give them a pat on the back for figuring out how to do it while being paid less? :)</p>
<p>Obviously in professional sports the revenue side is important in allocating the funds to the performers. Tennis was somewhat unique among sports in that they had some very popular women players and majors had both men and women championships. In some sports the female side is much better paying–figure skating and gymnastics come to mind.</p>
<p>Frankly for the last few years it has been the women who people have come to see or watch on TV. Men’s tennis has been regarded as boring and without stars although that may have changed recently with the rise of Roger Federer.</p>
<p>It did not hurt that some of the female players were quite attractive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding? IMHO, watching a well matched five-setter is unbelievable. To watch a player come close to falling apart and then finding their game again and coming back is a wonderful thing to see. I think the ebb and flow of a player’s game is much more visible during a five set match.</p>
<p>I would love to see the women play five sets.</p>
<p>The dudes and the dudettes are on equal footing nowadays in marketing. Thumbing through Tennis magazine you’ll see the clothes and equipment ads pretty evenly spread. Same for TV. Yep there are some lookers on the female side, just wish they’d give up the grunting…</p>
<p>The “grunting” is horrendous AND a distraction, especially when it is conspicuous for its absence, as in whenever Maria “Primal Scream” Sharapova suddenly is totally silent during a point after the opponent has gotten used to the blood curdling “grunts” she makes. I wish there was a rule against making any but the most natural sounds – real grunts – that result from real effort.</p>
<p>ITA, leanid.</p>