Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Equity of prize money in tennis...
Although it's not a particularly new area of debate, David Edmonds on the University of Oxford Practical Ethics blog has recently written a post arguing against the claim that women and men should receive the same prize money in tennis. His main syllogism is that prize money should be dependent on ability, men have greater ability than women, therefore men should receive more prize money than women. He does concede that there is a degree of personal interest involved in his claim in that any counter-argument resting on the premise that women should receive extra advantage in their 'handicap' [my word not his] by virtue of sex, would descriminate against him as a less tennis-abled man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have been against equal prize money simply because women are required to play fewer sets than men (women need only win two sets to win the match, men must win three sets to win the match). Either this difference is arbitrary and therefore must be changed, or it reflects an implicit judgment about women's ability (they can't play decent tennis for more than three sets), perhaps thereby justifying a pay difference. The latter looks absurd. So why not just require the same amount of work for the same amount of money?
The reason why women should earn less less in sports is not because they play less sets, but simply because there are less people paying to see women playing than people paying to see men playing! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with merit, with deserving... I know a guy who's a researcher trying to find a cure for cancer, do you how much he earns? He earns less money in 10 years than what these tennis players earn in two weeks of "work". Does he "deserve" to win less than people who play tennis for a living? Of course not... Tennis players are simply selling the images of their games much like an actor sells his image on films. Do hollywood actors "deserve" to win millions? These dumb tennis players have no clue of where their fortunes come from. They seriously think they "deserve" it... what a joke.
Anonymous found the right answer but how he got there is a little weird. The main reason is for the money men bring in verse woman, this is a business as is baseball, football or any other event you pay money to go and see and TV rights are paid to televise said event. You want to see people playing for the love of the game you can find those people in back yards and playgrounds around the world. The comparison to someone trying to find a cure for cancer is a bit of stretch, I know a lot of tennis players trying to find their way to the pro tour also who make far less then you researcher friend. Let me know the difference in incomes between tennis players and your friend when he discovers the cure or comes anywhere close to a cure. The pros are also aware of who they are and what they earn, all the work to keep them at those levels, the kiss ass stuff they do before and after the matches to the sponsors and TV interviews are a few things that remind them. Given the fact they learned about supply and demand in fifth grade and if you offer something for money and they pay for it you make money, if it is really good more people will pay even more money and you make a lot more money!
its a really nice post regarding sports. i mostly get saving through holabird sports coupon code because i love sports too much.
In no other sport besides tennis where men and women are paid equally do women abide by different rules.
Get the women's game playing the same number of sets and the criticism will be over. That's true equality.
Get women to play men and to win against men, then pay the same money.
Why should a woman champion get more money then the #300 ranked man that would annihilate her on the court?
I am writing a post about this topic on Human-Stupidity.com
Women’s tennis: equal pay for weaker play, less work, less spectators, less advertising dollars
Post a Comment