March 20, 2016

Brilliant. Just when the Williams sisters were getting past the ugliness of the past to return to this venue that they had avoided for many years.

Moore goes into the hall of hallowed commentary with Sepp Blatter and Ben Wright, among others.

Tie a stick of TNT to the guy's dick and have the local spectators give him a group hug right before it goes off.

posted by beaverboard at 07:55 PM on March 20, 2016

If I was a lady player

What year is this?

thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport

And for a long while before them, the mens' game was a just-about-unwatchable ace-off and the womans' tour was more interesting.

posted by yerfatma at 03:40 PM on March 21, 2016

I don't think Djokovic is entirely out of line. While I wholeheartedly agree anyone doing the same job should get paid as equals, I think sports are a different thing altogether. These people are revenue generators and if any group generates more revenue than another, the pay should reflect that. I don't see that as sexist and I would say if a woman's sport brings in more cash than the men's equivalent, then they should make more than those men. I don't really know the breakdown as far as tennis goes, but if it is correct that more people watch the man's game than the women's game, how can you justify equal pay. In everyday life is where this needs to be corrected, not on the field.

posted by Ricardo at 12:19 AM on March 22, 2016

Well, I think women shouldn't get equal prize money at major tennis tournaments if they are only playing best-of-3-set matches and men are playing best-of-5-set matches. The men are simply playing more (time/play-wise) than the women as a default, and should be paid more. That's definitely not a case for equal work/equal pay.

Now, if you want to pay equal appearance fees for your stars to non-major tournaments, or equal prize amounts when both genders play best-of-3-set matches, that seems fair.

posted by grum@work at 06:24 AM on March 22, 2016

Etrigan, I don't think it has anything to do with equality. If you look at a sales job which is based off commission, then one salesperson is going to get paid more than the next person because he or she is selling more. I don't think men should be paid more by default. I think whoever is generating revenue should be paid accordingly.

posted by Ricardo at 09:22 AM on March 22, 2016

From your link ...

1. Female tennis players work just as hard as men.
Lower ranked male players work just as hard as Djokovic and Nadal. This doesn't mean they should be paid the same.

2. Longer contests are not worthy of higher pay.
I agree here. Length of the contest shouldn't play into it.

3. It's a myth that fans are always more interested in men's tennis.
I also agree here. I watch many women's sports and often enjoy them more than the male counterpart.

4. Men get paid the same as women in figure skating and gymnastics.
Why should this matter? The counter argument (which is also incorrect) is that women get less than men in other sports. I would argue the reason behind this is that women's gymnastics and figure skating draw a similar or larger audience than the men's does. And their pay should reflect that.

5. The fact that women's sports are (sometimes) less popular is a vicious cycle.
I'm not sure this is true. There are plenty of women's sports that thrive, tennis being one of them.

posted by Ricardo at 01:02 PM on March 22, 2016

On what specific grounds should men be paid more for that tournament?

I'm not saying any specific sport or tournament should pay men more, or women more for that matter. I'm saying each should be paid according to the revenue they generate. If they generate the same revenue, pay them the same. I don't know whether they do or not. But we can take a different example. The NBA generates WAY more money than the WNBA and for that reason, NBA players should be paid more.

posted by Ricardo at 09:15 PM on March 22, 2016

Don't mistake my arguments for sports related pay to mean I don't believe in equal pay in the real world. I am very liberal and absolutely feel women in the work force should be paid as equals.

posted by Ricardo at 09:55 PM on March 22, 2016

I am very liberal and absolutely feel women in the work force should be paid as equals.

It has to start somewhere.

posted by owlhouse at 12:49 AM on March 23, 2016

Being a higher draw usually equates to skill level (although not 100% of the time).

I would like that as a tennis fan, because some great players don't get the following they deserve, but fans don't always fall in love with the talented but not particularly charismatic grinder.

Eugenie Bouchard's one of the top draws in the women's game and she's ranked 45 now (7 in 2014). She's a good player with a lot of upside at 22, but I think it's fair to say that her following is ahead of her on-court success because she's considered one of the most marketable athletes in the world. There are always examples like that in individual sports -- Tiger's more marketable as a struggling duffer than most current tournament winners -- but I love sports where income is based on victories.

I wish we could have more of that in team sports, like putting the equivalent of 10% of total NFL salaries into a pool that's awarded to players based on playoff victories.

posted by rcade at 08:51 AM on March 23, 2016

Out in the real world, women earn only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn.

The gender wage gap has stayed the same since 2001, so things are not getting better.

April 12 is Equal Pay Day.

I know which side I'm on.

I'm pretty sure everyone in this discussion is on the same side, but that doesn't mean it is applied the same way.

Let's start with some basic assumptions for my calculations:

1) A set of men's tennis is equal to a set of women's tennis, in terms of entertainment value and length of time. It might not be (and I'm not sure which gender has longer sets), but I'm going to say it is for the ease of calculations.

2) Revenue earned by the broadcaster is based on advertising time sold, which is a factor of time (more time, more ads). As a result, a broadcaster is going to pay higher rights fees if they can sell more advertisement. This assumes that men and women matches draw the same relative advertising revenue which, again, I'm going to assume for calculating purposes.

The length of time for a match is dependent on the number of sets played. If we were to assume two equal opponents were to play each other, then if we assign a 50% chance for either to win a set, the number of sets for a men's or women's match works out to:

Women:
- A wins 2 straight sets.
- B wins 2 straight sets.
- A wins 2 out of 3 sets (losing the first or second set). There are two results like this.
- B wins 2 out of 3 sets (losing the first or second set). There are two results like this.

Therefore, there are 6 different outcomes. Two of them are 2 sets each, and four of them are 3 sets each.
Therefore, the average number of sets in a women's match would be 2 2/3 sets.

Men:
- A wins 3 straight sets.
- B wins 3 straight sets.
- A wins 3 out of 4 sets (losing the first, second, or third set). There are three results like this.
- B wins 3 out of 4 sets (losing the first, second, or third set). There are three results like this.
- A wins 3 out of 5 sets (losing two of the first four sets). There are six results like this.
- B wins 3 out of 5 sets (losing two of the first four sets). There are six results like this.

Therefore, there are 20 different outcomes. Two of them are 3 sets each, 6 of them are 4 sets each, and 12 of them are 5 sets each.
Therefore, the average number of sets in a men's match would be 4 1/2 sets.

That means, on average, the men play 1 5/6 more sets per match than the women.
That's about 69% more.

I'm for equal pay for equal play, but that isn't the case here in majors.

If women start to play 5 set matches, then they should definitely be paid the same amount as men. If men start to play 3 set matches, then they should definitely be paid the same amount as women.

But if there is still a significant difference in match length, I don't think the phrase "same pay for same work" applies here.

posted by grum@work at 09:38 AM on March 23, 2016

Players already get paid more if they win playoff games.

I know they do, but it's not enough money to be a motivator except for the players at the bottom of the roster.

That's about 69% more.

If men and women play sets in the same amount of time.

Until women are given the option of playing best of five in majors, paying them less isn't very equitable either. If women in the workplace were paid 70% because they only got 70% as many work hours as men, they'd still be economically disadvantaged even with an equal per-hour compensation.

If the goal of a pro sport is to maximize fan satisfaction, basing pay on duration of the event seems arbitrary to me. How big a factor in your personal enjoyment of tennis is the number of sets? Do you like men's tennis 5/3rds as much as women's?

In soccer, is golden goal worse than full overtime periods because it's shorter? I hate seeing an epic match end with the players all gassed and hanging on for PKs.

posted by rcade at 10:08 AM on March 23, 2016

Is there a reason, other than historical precedence, why women's tennis is best of three and men's is best of five? In any case if the women's tour wanted to go to best of five sets surely there would need to be a transition since the current players have a trained to use their energy up in a shorter span.

posted by billsaysthis at 10:39 AM on March 23, 2016

grum has contributed another good analysis and an excellent rebuttal of the arguments against it. The "women earn 77 cents for each dollar a man earns" argument also needs some analysis. This, by Glenn Kessler, from April 2, 2015 in The Washington Post is a fairly well-reasoned debunking of that.

To be sure, there are gaps in pay for women vs men, but they are neither as stark as the 77 cent (or the updated 78 cent) number would indicate, nor are they solely the result of discriminatory practices in the workplace. However, tennis gives us the unique place to measure differences. Should women, having the expectation of working approximately 0.6 times what a man would work (per grum's analysis), be paid equally? If one goes by the standard of drawing power, TV money, and ticket sales, the analysis must be extended a bit. I would argue that the TV ratings and ticket demand for men's and women's matches in the quarterfinals and later matches are roughly equal. I would also argue that those matches that feature the highly ranked men against the "mid-level" players are slightly more attractive than the same sort of matches on the women's side. I have no figures to support this claim. It is subjective and based only upon what I feel. Take it for what it is worth. What I am getting at is that the top prize money for the women and the men (top 4 places0 should be equal, but this is based only on the probable demand for tickets and TV rights for the match. For the lower finishers, I would award the prize money on the basis of 60 cents on the dollar for women vs men, and this is based solely on the above analysis.

Now to throw a bit of gasoline on the fire. The question was asked by billsaysthis why the women played best of three rather than best of five. Good question. It is really historical precedent, but the reason for the precedent is the thing that might have feminists carrying pitchforks and torches to the gates of Wimbledon. Women are the weaker sex!!! At least that was the thinking many years ago when tennis began to organize tournaments. Now try to explain this to a feminist without getting your head handed to you. So here's the simple solution to the dilemma. Ask the women either to play 5-set matches or to have their prize money reduced. If they decline, then say to them that they are reinforcing the fiction that women are the weaker sex and they cannot do all of the things that a man can do. Will this not put the ardent feminist into a bit of a quandary? I think I would like to watch the fireworks as this point is argued.

posted by Howard_T at 11:23 AM on March 23, 2016

Would you pay equal amounts for a tournament pass if you were expected to see 3 rounds of the tournament, or 5 rounds of the tournament?

Fans pay equal amounts for court tickets at Wimbledon whether men or women are playing.

Women are the weaker sex!

The issue here is whether women's tennis is a weaker sport, not whether women are physically less strong than men. Fans of tennis have supported equal prize pay going back to the 1970s, so evidently we are perfectly fine with the present situation. Tennis has exploded in popularity since then for men and women alike.

Physical conditioning has greatly improved as well. There are plenty of women's players who would excel at five sets. Serena Williams and Aga Radwanska immediately come to mind. Radwanska is a fearsome opponent the longer a match goes, because she has phenomenal endurance and rarely appears tired. It leads her opponents to more mistakes.

In any case if the women's tour wanted to go to best of five sets surely there would need to be a transition since the current players have a trained to use their energy up in a shorter span.

I don't think a long transition would be required, since there are only four majors a year and that's where a call to play to five sets is likely to be manifested. It would hurt tournaments before and after a major some, because players would skip more of those events.

But there's probably more of a push to make men play best-of-two at majors than women to play best-of-three.

Billie Jean King: "I don't want the boys playing three out of five. It's too much. ... Playing two-of-three [set] matches will lengthen careers, especially for the guys. The guys are so unbelievably fit -- Djokovic and Nadal in the Australian, they were totally spent. You play a couple matches like that, it takes years off your career. You only have so many miles in your legs."

posted by rcade at 12:08 PM on March 23, 2016

I just want to thank all of you for a set of well-reasoned, non-hysterical arguments. I have thoughts about this issue as well (as everyone likely does) but I was honestly a bit afraid to weigh in given the potential toxicity of the topic. After reading through the above, though, I don't think I have more to add to the discussion.

So kudos to all. There are many forums, I'm sure, where things would have spun out of control long ago. [loud clapping and patting oneself on the back to follow]

posted by sbacharach at 12:53 PM on March 23, 2016

How long would a soccer match be if they just kept playing until someone won (without shootouts)?

While this is a bit off topic, one answer is given by the recent Hockey East Men's Tournament. Providence College and UMass Lowell went 3 overtime periods to reach a decision in a game that went 4 hours and 26 minutes. The really hard part was that Lowell had to play the following evening in the final against Northeastern. The advantage for Northeastern might have been mitigated somewhat by the fact that Lowell played the first game of the semifinals, thus they got to bed at a reasonable hour. Northeastern's game did not end until a few minutes before 1:00 AM. If Lowell was at all tired, it was not obvious, as the final ended in a 3-2 Northeastern win, NU hanging on by their fingernails in the last 2 or 3 minutes.

As I think about it, the way energy is expended in ice hockey is similar to the demands of tennis. Players go all out for short bursts of 30 seconds to 1 minute. They will be on the ice for about 15 to 20 minutes total in the game, perhaps as long as 40 minutes for your top defenseman. Tennis demands the same sort of brief but violent expenditure of energy, followed by a bit of rest. It's not identical by any means, but there is a similarity. I did manage to watch a little of the Hockey East Women's Tournament. Guess what; the women play by the same rules as the men, the games last the same 60 minutes, and involve the same skills and exertion of energy, minus the heavy body contact, as the men's game. The game is a bit slower, but not by much. Women's tennis requires the same skills as the men's game, although serves are generally not as hard, and some of the lower-ranked women move a bit more slowly, but I believe the analogy holds. Women should easily be able to play the longer matches. Guys, this weaker sex idea is a bunch of crap.

rcade, I take issue with one small point you raised. You said the fans have supported equal prize money going back to the 1970s. I would suggest that it is not so much support as resignation to a fait accompli, perhaps you might call it indifference. Those who are fans of tennis want to see tennis. Who gets how much for playing is of little concern.

posted by Howard_T at 02:43 PM on March 23, 2016

T20 for tennis?

I think that's been around for a while, and still going.

posted by owlhouse at 11:18 PM on March 24, 2016