Subject: Equal Prize Money for Women at Wimbledon

Whinging finally works for "women"

Thoughts?

I'm against it to be honest. Unless they are going to pay them by the hour, in which case it's ok. Women get more from endorsements because, let's face it, they are nicer to look at. They also play shorter matches and against weaker opposition. Why should they get as much as the men?

There should be more flashing from them to make it worthwhile. Also, the money that's brought it up to the equivalent should be given to them by the audience members nearest the court, in strip club style.

I guess the organisers were sick of the nagging and caved so they can get some peace and quiet.

I don't think the women should receive as much as the men. The men draw bigger crowds and are far more entertaining.

Also, the men take home far more than women in endorsements. No-one buys a Serena Williams shoe. The guys have far more advertising value... Federer, Roddick, etc. It's always been the case too... Agassi, Courier, Sampras, McEnroe, etc.

Put it this way... if you were offered the choice of seeing a mens semi final OR a womens grand final, which one would you choose?

I still say the women take home more from endorsements. Who wants a federer bra? Or make up recommended by Nadal? It's a fact that 70% of all money in the UK is spent by women. Hence the preponderence of ads aimed at them.

Found this quote:

For, surprisingly, Sharapova is also the highest earning tennis player. Imagine that: Roger Federer with seven more Grand Slams, and approximately 22 million dollars from last year stashed away perhaps in one of his country's much revered banks, trails the blonde's 12-month earnings by three million. Bully for women's liberation. Bully for free market economy.

Found it here

I'd rather watch Sharapova any day of the week. You know Federer is going to win.
(edited)

Well there you go, I stand corrected.

And we all know who spends the money in the UK!

I have to admit, I am wearing Pat Rafter undies.

actually watching federer play at times it makes you awestruck, but sharapovas grunting pute me off, sounds like a man she does

Like no man I've ever heard.

like no woman either.

I liked federer when he first came on the scene, now he seems like a gimp, and it gets quite boring.

Sharapova has gone a bit that way too, i'd be quite happy if hingis gets somewhere near the final.

Watching Federer play tennis makes me want to play tennis. He is a master and when he's in full flight he can do absolutely anything. He makes it look effortless and makes me think I can play tennis like that. Hence, I have a deep respect for the guy.

If women want the same money then they should play 5 sets!!!!

There should be more flashing from them to make it worthwhile.

Do you really want to see Mauresmo flashing though?

---

or venus williams.

thing is with federer, for all the winning he is the only person i can watch now, everyhting else seems dull and rubbish, its like if you watch arsenal play perefectly for 10 games, when they dont youd think they were rubbish.

I still think the women get a good deal, playing 60% of the amount of time that men do if it goes to the full length. Added to the fact that there's a massive gulf between the top female tennis players and the next tier which means that a lot of the games are decided in the minimum length of time (2 sets), the lack of comparative athleticism from the women makes me assume a lesser payment for the chicks is the right thing. I have no idea what argument they use/used for equal prize money.

Consider this a bump.