Equal Prize Money Thoughts…
So Wimbledon finally ponied up and decided to offer equal prize money to Men and Women this year, which brings them up to speed with the other Grand Slams. I was going to post my knee-jerk reaction (that it is insane to offer equal prize money) to this piece of news when it first came out, but I decided to do some serious thinking about it first. And I came to the following conclusion – while it isn’t insane, I don’t think it’s right either.
There are tons of arguments, all of which make lots of sense, that fall on both sides of the controversy. Why should Women make equal prize money when Men work harder? The whole 2/3 vs. 3/5 set debate. There is a simple counter argument to that – there isn’t an hourly wage for tennis players. Roger Federer and Serena Williams have the same essential job- entertain fans while playing tennis, and hopefully winning. People can literally go back and forth all day debating this, much like the debate between who is better – Tom Brady and Peyton Manning (that was a joke, we all know Tom Brady is still superior). In fact, arguing that Men typically have to play more was usually my go to point when debating prize money, but I’ve since realized that is a relatively irrational argument.
Tennis, like all sports, is a business, and its main goal is to make money. It’s obviously a bit different than sports such as baseball, football, etc, because it is not a team sport paying its athletes yearly salaries; but again, the NFL, MLB, ATP, ITF, WTA are all trying to make money, there is no doubt about that. The governing tennis bodies make their money through ticket sales and sponsors. What generates sponsors and ticket sales? Players. And while I sincerely believe that Maria Sharapova and Roger Federer probably generate close to the same amount of revenue, no one could ever convince me that worldwide, the top 10 Women are as popular and create as much revenue as the top 10 Men. I’ve been to almost every significant tennis tournament, and I have witnessed first hand the crowd each event receives. And while most stadiums are 100% packed for the final, I sat in a half full Arthur Ashe stadium in 2005 to watch an exciting semifinal match between Mary Pierce and Elena Dementieva. The SEMIFINALS of the year’s biggest tournament! That same year, the TV rating for the two finals were 3.1 and 6.2, guess who had the larger rating? In 2006, the Women’s final had a rating of 3.2 and the Men’s fell back to 4.2, but that is still a 25% larger audience. There is clearly a reason as to why the Men’s final is always on a Sunday afternoon, a more primetime TV slot that the Saturday night spot that the Women’s final receives. My basic point is this – if Men’s tennis creates more revenue than Women’s tennis, should they not get paid more as well?
Some of you will not agree with my opinion, but keep in mind it is only my opinion, and opinions can be changed with a good argument. So I urge you, try to change my mind.
Today’s Link has nothing to do with tennis, but feel free to watch one of the greatest NBA Playoff Moments of All Time. RIP Dennis Johnson
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I am in agreement with you here Jeremy. What annoys me though about the whole debate is that women have come up with this slogan, “equal pay for equal play”, correct me if i am wrong, but what about the men playing 3/5 sets and the women playing 2/3 sets is equal play? If the women were bringing in the same amount of money as the men then they should be paid eqaully and if they are bringing in more money, then they should be paid more. Thanks to the stats Jeremy provided that obviously is not the case, i am curious as to why this is the only sport where this becomes an issue? Unless i am failing to think of another example, you dont see anything like this in basketball, or soccer, or even golf, why is it that this is the case, i too hope for someone to enlighten me…
On an entirely different note, i have to pay my respect to DJ, sad to see him go at such a young age but cant help but think back with his passing of the days when the Celts were the dynasty of the league, knowing there luck the ping pong balls will fall and we’ll end up with the 3rd pick in the draft…
February 27th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Another well thought out argument and I agree, but with one question. Does the majority of prize money come from sponsors or ticket revenue? If it’s from sponsors, the women might have more of a case. It would be interesting to count the number of Sharapova vs. Federer TV ads during the next major.