Prize Money

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

Prize money allocations

philwrig · Hall of fame

I am a huge supporter of the WTA in general, but attending both the ATP and WTA tournaments at Notts last year only 2 weeks apart, was a real eye opener. Whilst there was mostly empty seats throughout most of the week for the WTA event, I believe the finals day was sold out, the ATP was completely soldout from QF's onwards and a solid attendance for the 1st few days. I spoke to one of the organisers about this, and he said they were disappointed with the the ticket sales for the ladies event and had even considered dropping the prices for this event, however it wouldn't look good if ticket prices were substantially lower for the ladies event. So 100% agree on equality but I completely see the argument for having unequal pay. It's a toughie.

-- Edited by philwrig on Wednesday 23rd of March 2016 12:24:15 AM

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Was the men's event before the women's at Notts last year? I think the most poorly attended women's events are those where they roll into town a week or so after the men. All the hype and excitement of attending 'the tennis' has been mopped up by the men's event and the women are the equivalent of a film sequel which has been rushed out. In combined events, the women's matches in general attract as much interest as the men's (obviously depending on players, stage of tournament and the potential closeness of the match, as with the men). I believe 2 or 3 year's ago the WTA reached out to the ATP to try to increase the number of combined events and certainly to have a joint tour finals. Needless to say, the ATP felt that as they already took more money than the women that they didn't need to 'dilute their product'!

Sim · County player

The Optimist wrote:
Was the men's event before the women's at Notts last year?

No the womens' was 2 weeks before the mens'

paulisi · Tennis legend

On reflection, I suspect the poor women's ticket sales were for a few reasons:

1. Lack of GB entries - Jo Konta and Katy Dunne were in the main draw as wildcards - before Jo had made a name for herself
2. Lack of big names - other than Radwanska, who was a late wildcard, Diyas at WR 32 was the highest ranked player
3. Further from Wimbledon, so all the lead up had not really started in the media - June 8th

For the men:
1. It was new for the men - previously at Eastbourne
2. Later in the season - week before Wimbledon
3. big names - Ferrer, Simon, Lopez all played
4. Bedene, J Ward and Kyle Edmund all made main draw
5. Competition for DC place at Queens

christ · Futures qualifying

I guess that it would be sexist and/or bigoted to note that (relatively) poor women's ticket sales may have been down to fewer people wanting to go and watch the women?

-- Edited by christ on Wednesday 23rd of March 2016 02:59:33 PM

Spectator · All-time great

No, but I think what Paulisi was saying was that there may have been some quite specific reasons why people didn't want to see those women's matches so much. It's a welcome analysis: it's clear that fewer people wanted to watch the women in this instance; the question is why.

Incidentally, Mr Murray has waded into the debate in an interview and in a Twitter exchange with Sergiy Stakhovsky. He is quite clearly of the view that equal pay at combined events makes sense and notes (as several on this board have) that there are times in combined tournaments when a woman's match is the draw, and times when a men's match is. And he has queried why it would be acceptable for lower-ranked male players to benefit from the revenue generated by the top men and women and someone like Serena Williams, who is one of the main tournament draws, not to do so.

-- Edited by Spectator on Wednesday 23rd of March 2016 05:20:21 PM

paulisi · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
I guess that it would be sexist and/or bigoted to note that (relatively) poor women's ticket sales may have been down to fewer people wanting to go and watch the women?

-- Edited by christ on Wednesday 23rd of March 2016 02:59:33 PM

Nope - I'm looking for reasons behind it.

I suspect if you had three or four top women and Joko and Heather there this year you may see a reversal in the ticket sales with more women than men.

Eastbourne is generally well supported for the women, but Birmingham isn't - I'm guessing the latter due to poorer fields and the fact that Birmingham is not a big tennis following city (DC was not sold out either)

christ · Futures qualifying

Spectator wrote:
... he has queried why it would be acceptable for lower-ranked male players to benefit from the revenue generated by the top men and women and someone like Serena Williams, who is one of the main tournament draws, not to do so.

I have two issues with this logic:

1) The lower ranked men benefit - and should benefit - from being in the same tournament as the "big names" because they play them. They are the poor suckers standing at the other end of the court being peppered by the "big names" that the people are (apparently) paying to see. And sometimes they don't read the script and go on to win. The "big names" therefore need the minnows or they wouldn't have a tournament. This only applies to the lower ranked men - the "big names" don't need the women.

2) It is undignified and somewhat controversial - it is, after all what the bloke in America lost his job for - to assume that the top women (e.g. Serena Williams) are benefitting from the presence of the men's "big names": If that is the case then she shouldn't be paid the same, as she is just getting crumbs from the men's table. Either the women generate the revenue and therefore deserve the reward, or they do not, and thus do not.

Spectator · All-time great

"And he has queried why it would be acceptable for lower-ranked male players to benefit from the revenue generated by the top men and women" . I'm not clear how what was stated above fits with your comment. What he was saying was that the revenue was generated by both. To put it more specifically, he noted that when Serena Williams was playing on one court and a lower ranked man was playing on another, people were coming to see Ms Williams, not the other player. And he continued: "The crowds are coming to watch the women as well. The whole thing just doesn't stack up -- it changes on a day-today basis depending on the matches you get."

He did note that tennis had benefited from the men's rivalries of the recent past and that all tennis should capitalise on that ... but he was not suggesting that the women weren't also contributing.

-- Edited by Spectator on Wednesday 23rd of March 2016 05:43:32 PM

christ · Futures qualifying

Spectator wrote:
"And he has queried why it would be acceptable for lower-ranked male players to benefit from the revenue generated by the top men and women" . I'm not clear how this fits with your comment. What he was saying was that the revenue was generated by both. To put it more specifically, he noted that when Serena Williams was playing on one court and a lower ranked man was playing on another, people were coming to see Ms Williams, not the other player.

Sorry, I couldn't quite pick that apart from the quote: I struggled with it because it is clear that the top ranked players of both sexes do benefit, and yet the top ranked lady was singled out as possibly not.

The revenue is generated by all of the players. It is generated disproportionately, obviously, but it is also allocated disproportionately. For each sex, the reward management is done by determining who won and who lost (I guess that when Cilic won the US Open, he wasn't the biggest draw in the men's tournament, but he still gained - and deserved - the biggest reward). I am not sure that the split between the sexes is quite as straightforward, but if the women bring in half the revenue, they certainly deserve half the reward.

Can we from this distance determine that the women bring in half the revenue? The (ex-) tournament director at Indian Wells certainly didn't appear to think so, and he surely was in rather a good place to tell. If the women (in total) don't bring in half the revenue, does the fact that the top women are comparatively bigger draws than the lower men matter?

paulisi wrote:
christ wrote:
I guess that it would be sexist and/or bigoted to note that (relatively) poor women's ticket sales may have been down to fewer people wanting to go and watch the women?

Nope - I'm looking for reasons behind it.

One of the reasons may be that people prefer to watch the men's game?

For enthusiasts (as the members of this forum) the women's game has much to recommend it, and it can often be more rewarding/ entertaining/ exciting to follow and watch, but to the non-tennis-watching layman I would hazard that they may not want to go and see women play. The same applies to football, rugby and cricket: all sports where the distaff variant can be equally entertaining, but nowhere near as many [eople actually want to go and see it.

Reasons?

I don't know, but I suspect that the paying public may be bigoted (not that they would admit it), and consider men's sports to be "proper sport".

To be honest it doesn't actually matter what the reason is at the moment, as the discussion is about equal prize money, not the reasons for disparity of viewing: As long as the men's game generates more revenue, the participants seem to deserve more reward. In case where the women's game generates the same revenue, then equality is an absolute given. I assume that the prize money in mixed doubles is split equally between the partners, and that is the only real time that the two sexes are doing the same job and generating the same revenue, as they are on the same court at the same time playing the same game.

paulisi · Tennis legend

christ

To be honest it doesn't actually matter what the reason is at the moment, as the discussion is about equal prize money, not the reasons for disparity of viewing: As long as the men's game generates more revenue, the participants seem to deserve more reward. In case where the women's game generates the same revenue, then equality is an absolute given. I assume that the prize money in mixed doubles is split equally between the partners, and that is the only real time that the two sexes are doing the same job and generating the same revenue, as they are on the same court at the same time playing the same game.

The thread started about discussions about equal pay, but has also moved across to look at reasons for the bigger demand for the men's as opposed to the women's. There are two different arguments.

The fact are that you cannot determine(accurately) on which sex has the greater appeal where there are joint tournaments, the TV money and ticket sales generated make these tournaments millions and the men and the women should be split evenly. I think we have agreement on this.

What you don't have in the lower events is free markets. The ATP an WTA dictate the prize money, no matter what TV coverage, attendances etc.

In terms of marketing, the WTA are miles behind the ATP and once they get the profile of the players, tournaments up to the levels of the ATP most of the arguments go out of the window.

Do I believe that the world has a sexiest bias in sport toward men? YES, but perceptions are changing very quickly.

I think the reasons for the lower interest in the women's game are quite pertinent to the discussion of developing a level playing field and it may not be as one sided as some people make out.

In terms of attending tennis, i will be based it on locality, weather(outdoors) and who is playing (I.e Brits and big names)

I did Birmingham 2 and 3 years ago as Laura and Heather were playing, I didn't go last year as there were a lack of Brits. I will probably go this year as there should be 4/ 5 Brits in the main draw.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

In amongst all the comments on Equal Pay, this tweet from Alex Ward takes the biscuit for me.

Equal pay debate is back. Fair play to $10ks, freezing prize money for years. Get £4.21 if you lose first round regardless of your sex
23 retweets 26 likes

Spectator · All-time great

Well said! I'm sure there are many out there thinking similar things ....

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

Warning: I don't actually end up getting anywhere useful here!

christ wrote:
I guess that it would be sexist and/or bigoted to note that (relatively) poor women's ticket sales may have been down to fewer people wanting to go and watch the women?

Not at all. Nobody disputes that the ATP ticket sales are higher, and that more people want to watch the men.

The question is, why is that?
Is it simply because people think it better - the men are obviously stronger, fitter and would beat the ladies if they all played in some hypothetical single event together.
This argument effectively considers sport a measure of the best human, or humans for teams, as the only worthwhile measure. By this measure, men's sport is the only thing that demands ones time.
Given the physical differences in the sexes this essentially prohibits women from participation in almost all sports where there is a primarily, or significant. physical component. In terms of strength, speed, endurance, all other things being equal - training, diet, resources etc. - women by nature can't compete physiologically with similarly tuned men. It's not politically incorrect to point that fact out, any more than it is to suggest a giraffe is better at eating the leaves from treetops than is a shark.
Yes there are sports where women compete equally with men, but they are few and far between, and select examples in those sports: namely equestrian and motor racing where the physical element is largely borne by the horse/car (though both horse racing/eventing, and motor racing are undeniably still physically exhausting for elite athletes).
I have often wondered why women do not compete with men more equally in sports such as Darts, Snooker, Archery, Shooting, Lawn Bowls etc. where the physical element is kept to a minimum and yet still the leading men outperform the ladies. I've not ever come across any research that makes cogent explanation for that. But that leads on to the other part of the question.

Are there additional factors why people don't seem to watch women in sport so much as men, even though the competition can objectively be just as fierce or inspiring within their competitions? Some innate received opinion about the place of women in sport and yes, in general society? Some latent bias about cultural and societal norms that would inhibit full consideration of women's sport at a fundamental and underlying level?
Ellipsis is going to do heroic work in the next statement: Yes, there probably is.
I'll offer here, for reasons of time, just one strand of what is undoubtedly a very complex, interesting, and hotly debated argument.
In 2010 an Ipsos poll of over 24,000 people in 23 countries asked people to respond to the statement, "A woman's place is in the home" - either agree or disagree.
They found that globally 26% of respondents agreed, with younger generations more likely to agree than older generations.
The figures aren't skewed by over representation by massive majorities in some countries. I display the full results per country below.

Personally, I find it reasonable to conclude that if this is the underlying attitude, then a proportion of people will not readily watch women's sport at all, and more still will not watch it if an equivalent male sport, or perhaps even any male sport is alternatively available.
That being so, there is inevitably going to be smaller demand. Again, for reasons of time, I've left the argument very undetailed, but I hope the general picture is clear.
The same approach applies to similar questions of the perceived notion of what is somehow appropriate for women, and how it reflects on sport - e.g. the squeamishness in some quarters about female boxers because it's not, 'ladylike'.

There's much more to it than that, of course. Women in sport does not have the same tradition or history - though tennis has a very long history of both sexes participation, as far as all sports go. People, particularly those of older generations might still associate sport more readily with men and it's long traditions amongst numerous other factors.
I really wish I had enough skill and time to go into it with the diligence it demands and deserves.

I've 'ummed' and 'ahhed' about whether to post this, simply because it's so incomplete, there's so much more to say.
I like tennis (duh!), I generally prefer women's tennis.
But, this is not true of all sports. I'd rather watch men in badminton, women in athletics, men in basketball, women in proper volleyball (no one in beach volleyball!). In swimming, gymnastics, skiing, cycling and many others I have no preference.
But in all sports if women's sport is available I'll certainly watch it - except basketball, the WNBA is awful (in balance, I can't stand F1 either) - the competition doesn't change. It's why I can happily watch a $10K doubles match in the middle of the night, where no player is over WR600, as avidly as a Grand Slam final.

In the end, commercial pressures will dictate remuneration. Sport now is business. It does depress and puzzle me personally that society evidently finds so great a disparity in the value of men's and women's sport, because to me, as long as it's competitive, and there are humans giving of their best, I'm in! Whether its Taekwondo, or Tiddlywinks, and no matter who is playing.

*sigh* if only unresolved tangents and non-sequiturs were currency, I'd have a Smaug-like hoard.