|You are in: Tennis: Wimbledon: Sports Talk|
Friday, 28 June, 2002, 20:27 GMT 21:27 UK
Should prize money be equal?
Wimbledon have increased the prize money for women but they still receive significantly less than men.
Is it time the ladies winnings matched the men's?
Wimbledon officials have increased this year's prize money by 5% in the singles competition.
The increase means the men's champion will pocket £525,000, while the women's top prize is £486,000.
The Australian and US Opens both award men and women the same amount of money to the winning champions.
Is it time the men's and ladies prize money was equal regardless of the number of sets they play?
Yes, we admit that men are stonger, that's why they play 5 sets - however it doesn't mean that women work less hard - they play 3 sets because physically their bodies can only cope with that level. In all professions, it is recognised that women work as hard as men and therefore, the pay should be equal.
By all means pay women the same as men but do it by reducing the amount men are paid down to the same level as women, they're all vastly overpaid in the first place for bashing a ball over a net.
It surely doesnt make much sense to me. Rewards should be comensurate to input. Men go through tougher competition to reach the final. It goes without saying that their reward should be higher.
If women want to earn the same prize money as men then they ought to play the same number of sets. They could use the same system as the men: five set matches in the Grand Slams and in some of the Masters' Series Finals.
The women should get paid more. The women are playing much better tennis, have much better rivalries, and are a much bigger draw. I understand they only play best of three sets, but time spent playing is not the best measure of value.
I think the women should only be allowed the same pay as men if they play the same number of sets
Put the prize money in one big pot and draw all the names, men and women, from one big hat.
It is a very simple fact that men in every sport are paid more than women.Women in tennis are much better off than their counterparts in other sports and still they whine.
Of course women should receive equal prize money. It's as much about entertainment as physical endurance. The womens' game is much more about skill than relying on a big serve.
The average women's match lasts little over one hour. Even a straight sets victory in the men's game lasts considerably longer than that. Until women play the best of 5, it is not reasonable to expect equal payment.
This is a ludicrous discussion. The only principle which applies, speaking as a woman, is as in everything, equal pay for equal work. Why don't the women work as hard as men? Best out of five sets, period.
When we have tried that for a few years then we have an open premier table inclusive of men and women, and seriously, if the women get into the top 50 I shall be amazed.
Tennis and the Royal Marines are places where men will always excel.
If this is about equality, the war cry should be for women and men to compete in the same arena for a single prize. I am sure the spectators and gate payers wouldn't object to Venus Williams meeting Tim Henman.
Gender segregation exists in all sports simply because if men and
women competed in the same events the women would be predominantly
overwhelmed by the generally superior performance of the men.
That's not sexism, just scientific fact.
Yes, the prize money should be equal. The women's matches are often much more interesting to watch than the men's.
Equal pay, equal sets.
Three sets in not enough at this level,
especially when there is a big gulf between the top seeds and the rest.
I have always been disappointed when I have received tickets for ladies' matches, because it is not value for money to see someone beaten 6-0 6-0.
When women play the best of five sets then they should have equal money but not before.
I think that men and women should have equal prize money.
I think the pay should be equal. The number of sets they play is immaterial as it's all relative.
Yes the prize money should be the same.
Women have to work just as hard as men to win their championship. Let Wimbledon and many other sports move into the 21st century.
If you want equal pay you should allow women to compete with men in tournaments.
I don't think any woman would pass the first round and couldn't earn even a fraction of their current earnings.
There is no earthly reason in the 21st century why
men and women in tennis or any other sport where both sexes compete, should not receive equal reward for their efforts. They both input the same drive, courage and sheer determination to their game so should be rewarded equally! Anything less is an insult and subject to sexual discrimination!
It should not automatically be equal. Men play the best of five sets and draw a bigger crowd, therefore they should get more. If it was the other way round then by all means pay the women more!
Women don't work as hard for their money.
When they play five sets, only then should they get the same money.
Less work, less pay.
Of course women should be paid equally to men. It makes me angry that women have progressed so far in the world in issues of equality, yet they are blatently being held back by not being paid the same wages as male tennis players.
If we ever wish to call this an equal world, events such as Wimbledon should begin to promote sexual equality in order to portray the right message to the world.
Absolutely not! Women play 40 per cent less tennis, put in half the effort (particularly the top seeds), and are only half as entertaining. So I make that about 15 per cent of the pay, as the hardest thing they have to do is comb their hair and put their make up on.
I think the women's game is every bit as exciting as the men's, but if it comes down to out-take from in-put then no, the prize money should not be the same. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a woman player could come back from two sets to love down and win, instead of having already have lost!
Play five sets ladies, and give us some even more wonderful tennis.
I realize it presents a logistical problem for tournament organizers, but so what!
It's in the interest of the future of the women's game and the game of tennis.
Equality of pay? No. When the ladies play the same number of sets as the men, then yes, but not until then. Equality should be a two way street.Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
Mark Leggo, England
Of course women should receive the same amount of prize money as men. They work just as hard to be the best and they need the extra money to pay for all their hair extensions and security staff.
Yes, of course women should earn the same as men. These days I think women's tennis is more entertaining than men's. There is more skill and finesse, longer rallies and not so much serve and swerve!
I think that the prize money must be equal for men and women because they both have to work as hard and play the same number of matches. Why that kind of discrimination?
I do not think prize money should be equal unless the ladies are prepared to play five sets like the men. Not that I think women's tennis is inferior to men's, in fact in this day of the big serve it has become more enjoyable to watch as there are more likely to be decent rallies.
No other sport is paid on a time spent on the court basis. If it was, cricketers would be paid more than footballers. Both men and women are bringing in the crowds, so they should be rewarded equally.
Top Sports Talk stories now:
Links to more Sports Talk stories are at the foot of the page.
|E-mail this story to a friend|
Links to more Sports Talk stories
BBC News >> | BBC Weather >>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy