The Ongoing Issue of Equal Pay in Pro Tennis

dolores haze

international guttersnipe
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
3,937
Location
far from the madding crowd
Wasn't sure if this should go in Sports or P&CE. Mods, feel free to port.

The issue of equal pay in the tennis world is always current, but this year a couple of tournament directors made some comments that got everyone arguing about it even more, ahem, passionately than usual. First, the CEO of the Indian Wells tournament suggested that women players should go down on their knees to thank Federer and Nadal, while making ill-advised remarks on the attractiveness of female players. Then, the owner of the Madrid Open said that women players did not deserve equal pay, while also remarking on the physical attractiveness of the women (he’s obviously a leg man, lol). He also pointed out that the men’s tour brings in a lot more revenue, a fact that cannot be disputed.

The usual response to calls for equal pay is usually something along the lines of “but the men play best of five sets, while the women only play best of three.” This isn’t strictly true, however. The men play best of three in the majority of tournaments with a few exceptions which include Grand Slam events.

Now, Tracy Austin, former champ and Tennis Channel anchor, is suggesting that women should also play best of five, that they have done so before and are willing to do so again (she’s not the first, just the latest to suggest this). Or, alternatively, that all men’s matches should be best of three sets. I’d LOVE to see the women play best of five at Grand Slams. Stamina is not a male preserve, after all. This, in addition to a couple more tweaks of the rules in women’s tennis (no on-court coaching, less time between points) would, IMO, truly equalize the men’s and women’s games and lend credence to the calls for equal pay.

The revenue issue, though, I continue to scratch my head about. Should the men be paid more just because, as a rule, they bring in more money? If so, should Serena Williams get paid more than the other women due to her drawing power? Should Novak Djokovic get paid less if he beats a lowly-ranked player with less drawing power?

I love both the men’s and the women’s tours. My favorite events are when the tours come together, and I get wall-to-wall tennis. I wish this issue could be settled once and for all, and think it’s time a precedent is set for equal pay in women’s sports. It really irritates me that the US women's soccer team, winners of the frickin' World Cup, has to squabble for equal pay with the men's team.

What thinkest thou, sports fans?
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Wasn't sure if this should go in Sports or P&CE. Mods, feel free to port.

The issue of equal pay in the tennis world is always current, but this year a couple of tournament directors made some comments that got everyone arguing about it even more, ahem, passionately than usual. First, the CEO of the Indian Wells tournament suggested that women players should go down on their knees to thank Federer and Nadal, while making ill-advised remarks on the attractiveness of female players. Then, the owner of the Madrid Open said that women players did not deserve equal pay, while also remarking on the physical attractiveness of the women (he’s obviously a leg man, lol). He also pointed out that the men’s tour brings in a lot more revenue, a fact that cannot be disputed.

The usual response to calls for equal pay is usually something along the lines of “but the men play best of five sets, while the women only play best of three.” This isn’t strictly true, however. The men play best of three in the majority of tournaments with a few exceptions which include Grand Slam events.

Now, Tracy Austin, former champ and Tennis Channel anchor, is suggesting that women should also play best of five, that they have done so before and are willing to do so again (she’s not the first, just the latest to suggest this). Or, alternatively, that all men’s matches should be best of three sets. I’d LOVE to see the women play best of five at Grand Slams. Stamina is not a male preserve, after all. This, in addition to a couple more tweaks of the rules in women’s tennis (no on-court coaching, less time between points) would, IMO, truly equalize the men’s and women’s games and lend credence to the calls for equal pay.

The revenue issue, though, I continue to scratch my head about. Should the men be paid more just because, as a rule, they bring in more money? If so, should Serena Williams get paid more than the other women due to her drawing power? Should Novak Djokovic get paid less if he beats a lowly-ranked player with less drawing power?

I love both the men’s and the women’s tours. My favorite events are when the tours come together, and I get wall-to-wall tennis. I wish this issue could be settled once and for all, and think it’s time a precedent is set for equal pay in women’s sports. It really irritates me that the US women's soccer team, winners of the frickin' World Cup, has to squabble for equal pay with the men's team.

What thinkest thou, sports fans?

I'd like to see backup for the idea that the men's tour brings in more revenue, tv-wise, than the women's. I would absolutely dispute that -- because I think it swings. Sometimes the men are the story of the year or few years, but often it's the women. What got higher ratings in tennis this year than the end couple of tournaments of Serena's Slam run?

The Williams sisters are insane draws, and were even more a while ago. They didn't exactly break a barrier there either; there was Evert, Navratilova, etc.

I don't buy they're a smaller draw in this arena -- and I also think it likely depends on the country watching. Andy Murray is a huge draw on British tv, but not as much here.

I'd totally support parity in play. It's deeply dumb to have the shorter matches for women.

Tennis, unlike most sports, at the pro level, does have wide interest and support of female players.

Should the WNBA get the same $ as the NBA? Hell no. This though, hell yes.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
In the Grand Slams, there already is equal pay (prize money). That seems unlikely to change, despite the occasional comment from one corner or another.

So? There are tons of tournaments that don't have pay parity, and step down a level and the disparity gets worse. If there's equal pay at the very top, should the disparity exist down the line?
 

dolores haze

international guttersnipe
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
3,937
Location
far from the madding crowd
I'd like to see backup for the idea that the men's tour brings in more revenue, tv-wise, than the women's. I would absolutely dispute that -- because I think it swings. Sometimes the men are the story of the year or few years, but often it's the women. What got higher ratings in tennis this year than the end couple of tournaments of Serena's Slam run?

It will differ according to year/era and country, yes, but in general there is a bigger viewership for men's tennis. According to this BBC article, viewership for men's tennis in 2015: 973 million. For women's: 395 million.


In the Grand Slams, there already is equal pay (prize money). That seems unlikely to change, despite the occasional comment from one corner or another.

Indeed, yes, there is equal prize money in Grand Slams after notable activism from Billie Jean King and, later, Venus Williams. That's not true across the tour, though. At the most recent big event, the Italian Open in Rome, the men's singles champ, Andy Murray, took home significantly more prize money money than the women's champ, Serena Williams. Both played best of three set finals.
 

dragonfliet

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
124
Reaction score
15
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
It's such a difficult question. On the one hand is the very real and subversive problem of sexism. On the other hand is the fact that in entertainment pursuits, pay should (and tends to) reflect the money that the people draw in (because, let's be honest, how else can we measure the "worth" of entertainment?).

Personally, I tend to think that pay should reflect the draw (money out is a percentage of money in), but a caveat to this is that when people understand that there is a difference in pricing (here for instance, in the prize money), one feels like a budget, or less-worthy version of the other, and so I do feel that pressure should be placed in that regard.

And then comes the problem is addressing directly, as you did in the first post, the really regressive sexism of people in leadership roles.
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
8,433
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
I think the situation with the Women's national soccer team is illustrative as some evidence this mostly is a sexism issue. In soccer's case, the US women's national team actually generates FAR more revenue than the men. But it allegedly takes more money to get the men to leave their pro teams to come and play for their national team, thus the excuse of needing to pay men more.

So we get both sides, "women don't create as much revenue, thus less prize money" AND "women create more revenue, but *reasons men need to be lured to pay*, thus less pay. Can't win for losing.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Dolores - Thanks for the article. Huh. I do wonder about the genesis of the numbers (like adding numbers for viewership each day of a tourney, from all sources, vs. championship matches vs. specific countries or networks or... ) but that's a large gap.

It's such a difficult question. On the one hand is the very real and subversive problem of sexism. On the other hand is the fact that in entertainment pursuits, pay should (and tends to) reflect the money that the people draw in (because, let's be honest, how else can we measure the "worth" of entertainment?).

Personally, I tend to think that pay should reflect the draw (money out is a percentage of money in), but a caveat to this is that when people understand that there is a difference in pricing (here for instance, in the prize money), one feels like a budget, or less-worthy version of the other, and so I do feel that pressure should be placed in that regard.

And then comes the problem is addressing directly, as you did in the first post, the really regressive sexism of people in leadership roles.

The money in-money out thing is kind of interesting in tennis from a chicken-egg perspective -- the men's final of most tournaments is on a different day than the women's, is usually the final event, etc., in a ratings sense. Stadium prices are also often not different for most of the matches, at least at some stadiums, as long as we're talking about the same court.

The soccer thing is ridiculous.

Parity across the board would be bonkers though. Finding a metric to decide when to do what and when seems beyond us, if we can't even agree on any of this (us like people, not us on AW).
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Indeed, yes, there is equal prize money in Grand Slams after notable activism from Billie Jean King and, later, Venus Williams. That's not true across the tour, though. At the most recent big event, the Italian Open in Rome, the men's singles champ, Andy Murray, took home significantly more prize money money than the women's champ, Serena Williams. Both played best of three set finals.
I think the whole match length angle is inconsequential. Many tournaments have best of threes for men and women. The Slams--where the men all have best of fives--have equal pay. 'Course the Slams are also the tournaments with the big TV deals, with the sponsorships, and with all of the top players. This isn't true of every other tournament.

Personally, I think equal prize money would be great, but in practical terms that might mean lowering the purses for the men, while also raising the purses for the women. For some tournaments, this could cause problems. I guess the issue is best viewed from ticket sales, when the men's and women's finals require separate tickets (because they're on different days). Maybe the answer is equal base prize money plus more based on the ticket sales for such tournaments.

Really, I wouldn't bat an eye either way. It's pretty far down my list of injustices. Women golfers make far less than their male counterparts. And the golf tournies are not about to change, because the money is coming in where it's coming in.

The USWNT, that's a different matter. Many of those players struggle to earn a living playing soccer. And while that is their choice, when they're asked to step up and play for the national team, I think there should be absolute equality as compared to the men's team when it comes to salaries/stipends.
 

dolores haze

international guttersnipe
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
3,937
Location
far from the madding crowd
Personally, I tend to think that pay should reflect the draw (money out is a percentage of money in), but a caveat to this is that when people understand that there is a difference in pricing (here for instance, in the prize money), one feels like a budget, or less-worthy version of the other, and so I do feel that pressure should be placed in that regard.

I'm not against this in theory, but think it would be incredibly complicated to figure out. What if a final was between unseeded players from small countries. The winner would make less than if it was between two powerhouses like Roger vs. Novak? Currently, the players know how much is in the purse. The winner gets the trophy and the check right after winning. They don't have to wait for the dust to settle, for all the revenue to be counted. And I believe the broadcast rights all get negotiated far in advance. ESPN has already bought the rights to certain tournaments and/or finals; Tennis Channel has done the same. Eurosport and the rest, too. Is there a sport in which the prize money is decided by revenue? Just for a comparison.

I think the situation with the Women's national soccer team is illustrative as some evidence this mostly is a sexism issue. In soccer's case, the US women's national team actually generates FAR more revenue than the men. But it allegedly takes more money to get the men to leave their pro teams to come and play for their national team, thus the excuse of needing to pay men more.

So we get both sides, "women don't create as much revenue, thus less prize money" AND "women create more revenue, but *reasons men need to be lured to pay*, thus less pay. Can't win for losing.

That's the reason? The men get paid more because they just ask for it? Surely the women have massive bargaining power in this regard?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Well, there's some other stuff with regard to the USWNT. Right now, US Soccer pays the salaries of national team members who play in the NWSL. There's more details here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html

So the comparison isn't that simple.

But I would argue that US Soccer's decision to pay salaries (and provide insurance, maternity leave, and severance pay) of players who are in the NWSL is on US Soccer. They don't have to do that. When it comes to straight up national team salaries and perks (like first class air travel), US Soccer should give men and women the same pay and benefits.

Of course, if this were to happen, US Soccer might decide to stop paying salaries in the NWSL. And that might cause the NWSL to fold in short order, ending the careers of many other non-national team women players.
 

dolores haze

international guttersnipe
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
3,937
Location
far from the madding crowd
Dolores - Thanks for the article. Huh. I do wonder about the genesis of the numbers (like adding numbers for viewership each day of a tourney, from all sources, vs. championship matches vs. specific countries or networks or... ) but that's a large gap.

Yes, I was looking for a really complex breakdown stuffed with facts and figures and graphs. Couldn't find one :) There were a lot of mentions of the US Open 2015 women's final selling out before the men's. That's because Serena was expected to play in it, perhaps winning the Grand Slam and equaling Steffi Graf's record. Darn that Roberta Vinci! Though I must admit I've watched the Williams/Vinci match several times. Absolutely brilliant! This point. Holy frickin' Moly. The women's game not as exciting as the men's? Utter bollocks.

I think the whole match length angle is inconsequential. Many tournaments have best of threes for men and women. The Slams--where the men all have best of fives--have equal pay.

The whole match length thing is tricky. A well-contested three set women's match can be a whole lot more entertaining than a straight set blowout in a men's best of five. The women's match could last longer, too. So, the length of time played is not quite the issue, IMO. For me, a thoroughly greedy little tennis fan, the pièce de résistance of all tennis matches is a Grand Slam final in five sets that comes right down to the wire. The comebacks, the shifts in momentum, the tenacity and cunning required to win, the building of unbearable tension and suspense, the necessity of superb physical conditioning and emotional strength and mental focus... *mops brow* Yes, I'm greedy. But I'd love to see the women take on this momentous challenge.

Personally, I think equal prize money would be great, but in practical terms that might mean lowering the purses for the men, while also raising the purses for the women.

Well, the dude who owns the Madrid tournament, once he managed to stop drooling over the pretty lady tennis players' lovely legs, does pay equal prize money, and claimed he struggles to continue matching the men's purse. Seems the men are ever demanding of more prize money. But, you know, as long as he has the money to hire models to replace the ball kids (for the men's games only, natch) I'm going to take his statements with a large pinch of salt. I don't begrudge the models a pay check. They did a fine job. But, really? How many female legs does this dude need?

Really, I wouldn't bat an eye either way. It's pretty far down my list of injustices. Women golfers make far less than their male counterparts. And the golf tournies are not about to change, because the money is coming in where it's coming in.

The 'there's starving children in Africa' argument, from you, oh Vowelly one. Say it ain't so *grin* In the OP I suggested a precedent needed to be set, one that other female athletes (soccer, golf) could cite in legal battles for parity in pay. No better sport for this than tennis. Of the hundred highest earning athletes in the world, only two are women. Of those two, both are tennis players. That Sharapova earns more than Serena is a frickin' travesty, IMO, and the fact that Sharapova's recent suspension for apparent doping will probably change this doesn't entirely set my mind at rest. But that's a whole other discussion. In general, I believe that all the top athletes, in tennis as well as other sports, are grossly overpaid. I'd love to see more pay parity going down the tennis rankings, so up and comers from less wealthy backgrounds can actually afford to be professional tennis players.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Well, there's some other stuff with regard to the USWNT. Right now, US Soccer pays the salaries of national team members who play in the NWSL. There's more details here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/sports/soccer/usmnt-uswnt-soccer-equal-pay.html

So the comparison isn't that simple.

But I would argue that US Soccer's decision to pay salaries (and provide insurance, maternity leave, and severance pay) of players who are in the NWSL is on US Soccer. They don't have to do that. When it comes to straight up national team salaries and perks (like first class air travel), US Soccer should give men and women the same pay and benefits.

Of course, if this were to happen, US Soccer might decide to stop paying salaries in the NWSL. And that might cause the NWSL to fold in short order, ending the careers of many other non-national team women players.

"We don't have to pay you a salary for the work you do, you know. We could pay you more, in some way, but then we'd have no money and we'd close, so....'

They're paid a salary because there isn't a women's pro league and, for reasons that escape me, no women play in the one pro league there is in the U.S. Thus to have them available, and, you know, playing soccer, you have to pay them.

They're paid less. They have to play more games to get it. They made money; the men actually lost money. But hey, if they want more of the money they made, well, then there'd just be no team at all. Tsk.

Why not kill the men's team and give the money to the women's, were that the case?

I like how you separated maternity leave there, btw.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Sharapova makes candy. She has a whole line of candies I've even seen in my local market. Williams gets endorsements but Sharapova goes after a bunch and has branched into that kind of mass-market stuff.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
"We don't have to pay you a salary for the work you do, you know. We could pay you more, in some way, but then we'd have no money and we'd close, so....'

They're paid a salary because there isn't a women's pro league and, for reasons that escape me, no women play in the one pro league there is in the U.S. Thus to have them available, and, you know, playing soccer, you have to pay them.

They're paid less. They have to play more games to get it. They made money; the men actually lost money. But hey, if they want more of the money they made, well, then there'd just be no team at all. Tsk.

Why not kill the men's team and give the money to the women's, were that the case?

I like how you separated maternity leave there, btw.
I don't think you're following anything I'm saying at all. Perhaps you're not familiar with all of this stuff?

There IS a women's pro league in the US: the NWSL. It has ten teams. It's not the same thing as the USWNT. The teams pay the players' salaries. And those salaries are very low, on average, ranging from $6,000 to $30,000. But the women in the NWSL who are on the US national team (max 3 per team, I think) have salaries picked up by US Soccer. The range there is a less-than-stunning $40,000 to $56,000 per year. Its all very complicated for the USWNT members.

But the long and short of it is that US Soccer is paying the salaries of the the USWNT members who are playing in the NWSL. US Soccer also pays them for their participation on the USWNT. Two separate things.

Again, I agree that the USWNT members should be paid on the same scale as the men. At a per game rate, this would mean they'd make more than the men, because they play more games. Completely fair, imo. And they should get the same treatment beyond that, as well: same travel standards (first class instead of coach), same per diems, etc. Right now they don't. And it's ridiculous.

All that said, again US Soccer is under no obligation to continue paying salaries for players who play in the NWSL. If the whole deal is renegotiated, US Soccer may stop doing this. And that would send most of the top US players off to Europe to play in the women's leagues there. And it could doom the NWSL (which I'm not saying is good or bad). That's just the way it is.

Personally, I'd like to see US Soccer pay the women exactly the same as the men for National Team duties and continue to subsidize the NWSL by paying salaries for USNWT members. Because that's good for the game, for developing talent here. Alas, US Soccer is unlikely to consult me.

ETA: As to maternity leave, I noted it along with health insurance and severance pay as additional things US Soccer was picking up for USWNT members in the NWSL, things that the rest of the players in the league don't necessarily get, so I don't know how I "separated" it. I'm just laying out the facts.
 
Last edited:

dolores haze

international guttersnipe
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
3,937
Location
far from the madding crowd
I like how you separated maternity leave there, btw.

I think the provision of maternity leave is really great. I remember being surprised and pleased when I discovered how many moms were on the US team. It's a very rare thing in tennis. Don't know if they even get protected ranking if they take time off to have a baby. Off the top of my head, only Kim Clisters was able to get back to the top of her game after having a kid. Though I think the challenges of being on the tour with an infant in tow would be even harder than getting your ranking back. Even a job coaching Andy Murray proved too much for Amelie Mauresmo after she had her baby.

Sharapova makes candy. She has a whole line of candies I've even seen in my local market. Williams gets endorsements but Sharapova goes after a bunch and has branched into that kind of mass-market stuff.

Smart. She'll still have a good income if she ends up with a ban or lengthy suspension for the current doping allegations.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I think the provision of maternity leave is really great. I remember being surprised and pleased when I discovered how many moms were on the US team. It's a very rare thing in tennis. Don't know if they even get protected ranking if they take time off to have a baby. Off the top of my head, only Kim Clisters was able to get back to the top of her game after having a kid. Though I think the challenges of being on the tour with an infant in tow would be even harder than getting your ranking back. Even a job coaching Andy Murray proved too much for Amelie Mauresmo after she had her baby.



Smart. She'll still have a good income if she ends up with a ban or lengthy suspension for the current doping allegations.

I wouldn't at all support protecting ranking while someone took time off. Come back and earn it.

As for whether I'm able to follow anything.... not touching that.

I don't have anything to do with soccer. It's like watching flies fuck.

Considering that a pro league is even sillier than considering the WNBA a pro league. It is a pro league in that people get paid, but much as I can't stand soccer, I knew there was a pro league in the U.S. that men played in. I know the WNBA exists (sadly). That the NWSL exists and is considered a real league, news to me.