NationStates Jolt Archive

Wimbledon pays equal prize money
Amelie Mauresmo celebrates her 2006 success
Mauresmo earned £30,000 less than the men's champion in 2006
The Wimbledon Championships will hand women and men equal prize money for the first time at this year's tournament.

The announcement by the All England Club brings the tournament into line with other Grand Slams following criticism from officials and players.

Wimbledon joins the United States and Australia in paying equal money across the board, from the champions down to the first-round losers in all events.

The French Open only offers the same cheque to the champions.

Report: BBC News' Kevin Geary
News conference: All England Club's Tim Phillips
Interview: Tennis commentator Peter Fleming

Roger Federer, the 2006 men's champion, earned £655,000 while Amelie Mauresmo took home £625,000 for winning the women's title.

The All England Club had previously defended the difference by saying that women had best-of-three-set matches while the men had best-of-five contests.


Good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon

All England Club chairman Tim Phillips

On Thursday, Tim Phillips, chairman of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, announced that the championship committee had decided "that the time is right to bring this subject to a logical conclusion and eliminate the difference".

"We believe our decision to offer equal prize money provides a boost for the game as a whole and recognises the enormous contribution that women players make to the game and to Wimbledon," said Phillips.

"We hope it will also encourage girls who want a career in sport to choose tennis as their best option. In short, good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon."

Phillips stated that the cost to the club would be £600,000 and that the decision taken on Wednesday night was unanimous.

Triple Wimbledon champion Venus Williams expressed her delight at the news, saying: "The greatest tennis tournament in the world has reached an even greater height today.


This decision will only strengthen the bond between women players and one of the world's great sporting events

Maria Sharapova

"I applaud today's decision by Wimbledon, which recognises the value of women's tennis.

"The 2007 Championships will have even greater meaning and significance to me and my fellow players."

Another former champion Maria Sharapova said: "Wimbledon has always been a leader in so many ways in the world of tennis. This decision will only strengthen the bond between women players and one of the world's great sporting events."

Three-time men's Wimbledon champion John McEnroe also backed the decision.

"I think when you've got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay," he told the Daily Telegraph.


Women's tennis is the leader in women's sports. Equal prize money is a no-brainer

Billie Jean King

"It would be setting an example to the rest of society in general to have equal prize money.

"There's probably no other sport, and very few professions in this world, where a woman can earn as much as a man."

Fellow American Billie Jean King, one of the leading campaigners in the move for equality, said: "Women's tennis is the leader in women's sports. Equal prize money is a no-brainer."

Peter Fleming, with whom McEnroe won four Wimbledon doubles titles and three US Opens, told BBC Five Live: "The difference last year was so small - it was a symbolic gesture for the last couple of years - but finally the club have realised it's not worth the effort to maintain it."

Fleming said he hoped that any male players angry at the decision would see the light.


606: DEBATE
If women want to be paid the same then they should be playing five set matches

BB
606: Have your say

"They'll grow up at some point," he said.

Last year Prime Minister Tony Blair and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell joined the Lawn Tennis Association, the governing body of British tennis, and the Women's Tennis Association, the rulers of the women's game worldwide, in calling for an end to the inequality.

Larry Scott, the WTA's chief executive, praised the decision and urged France to copy Wimbledon.

"I'm hoping this really helps convince them that they need to go the whole way," Scott said.

Reigning Wimbledon champion Amelie Mauresmo said: "It's great that they did it and now the French Open is going to struggle staying back."

Prize money levels for this year's Wimbledon will be announced in late April.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

Now normally I would think that this is a good thing, but how on earth are these players getting away with this. Not only as a minimum do they play 30% less (women wins in 2 sets men 3) but it is clear that the womens game does not hold the attraction that the mens does.

So then getting paid the same for doing less work imo goes against the basic pay ethos not only of professional sport but also generally.

just have the women play with the men if any of the women (or men) think its too hard they can have there own competition

There I just resolved the pay issue and made a massive leap into the 21st century

just have the women play with the men if any of the women (or men) think its too hard they can have there own competition

There I just resolved the pay issue and made a massive leap into the 21st century
Yup.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the worth of an athlete should not be judged simply by how large a crowd they can draw. Plenty of so-so athletes can attract big crowds if they are prepared to make a spectacle of themselves, or if they are particularly hot, or if they are a big enough asshole to get media attention.

We also have to take into account the fact that women's sports are still not taken as seriously by much of the public, and it's hardly fair to blame the athletes for the fact that the crowds still have sexist ideas about what is "real" sports. By holding female athletes to equal standards, and granting them equal recognition, we can help cement the fact that an athlete's worth is also not determined by their gender.

I think most sports should be completely co-ed, myself. If necessary, there could be "weight classes" like what you find in boxing to help ensure that raw size doesn't become the ultimate deciding factor. Heck, I think American football would be a better sport if there were weight classes right now, even if they didn't make it co-ed. It would be great to have basketball leagues that allow for shorter players, too, because I've known a couple of phenomenal basketball players who simply could not hope for a professional career because they were too short. I can't see why it would be any less entertaining to watch them play ball. I watch sports to see the athletes in action, and it really doesn't matter to me if they happen to be 7 feet tall or 300 pounds or whatever.

Yup.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the worth of an athlete should not be judged simply by how large a crowd they can draw. Plenty of so-so athletes can attract big crowds if they are prepared to make a spectacle of themselves, or if they are particularly hot, or if they are a big enough asshole to get media attention.

We also have to take into account the fact that women's sports are still not taken as seriously by much of the public, and it's hardly fair to blame the athletes for the fact that the crowds still have sexist ideas about what is "real" sports. By holding female athletes to equal standards, and granting them equal recognition, we can help cement the fact that an athlete's worth is also not determined by their gender.

What about the other argument (they would be getting payed the same amount for less work).

What about the other argument (they would be getting payed the same amount for less work).
I bet if I offered you $100 dollars to answer that question, you'd be able to figure out what I would say just from re-reading my post.

I guess I have to ask - why don't the majors just bump up to three sets out of five for the women, anyway? They can start by making the championship matches best three-out-of-five, and then add in a few later rounds, and then, pretty soon, they are doing the same work as men, and if the men can handle it, why can't the women?

Furthermore, in my opinion, the worth of an athlete should not be judged simply by how large a crowd they can draw. Plenty of so-so athletes can attract big crowds if they are prepared to make a spectacle of themselves, or if they are particularly hot, or if they are a big enough asshole to get media attention.
If the athletes can't draw in crowds, then they can't produce money for the stadiums or get attention for the advertisers who buy space at the stadiums, rendering the athletes worthless. (This is, of course, assuming that Wimbledon is run like a business, as opposed to being some sort of bizarre British government program designed to create employent for female commentators with British accents).

I think most sports should be completely co-ed, myself. If necessary, there could be "weight classes" like what you find in boxing to help ensure that raw size doesn't become the ultimate deciding factor. Heck, I think American football would be a better sport if there were weight classes right now, even if they didn't make it co-ed. It would be great to have basketball leagues that allow for shorter players, too, because I've known a couple of phenomenal basketball players who simply could not hope for a professional career because they were too short. I can't see why it would be any less entertaining to watch them play ball. I watch sports to see the athletes in action, and it really doesn't matter to me if they happen to be 7 feet tall or 300 pounds or whatever.

Too impractical business wise.

That's crazy. The women will eventually just marry a man who will take care of them financially. They don't need the money.

Too impractical business wise.
Which is why the sport of boxing died out and ceased to be profitable once weight classes were introduced...

If the athletes can't draw in crowds, then they can't produce money for the stadiums or get attention for the advertisers who buy space at the stadiums, rendering the athletes worthless. (This is, of course, assuming that Wimbledon is run like a business, as opposed to being some sort of bizarre British government program designed to create employent for female commentators with British accents).
I specifically stated that I don't believe an athlete's worth should be judged by the size of the crowd they attract. So, obviously, the athlete is not "worthless" to me if they fail to draw the biggest possible crowd.

You also appear to think that prize money must be award to the crowd favorite in order to attract a crowd in the first place. I can assure you, this is most definitely not the case.

That's crazy. The women will eventually just marry a man who will take care of them financially. They don't need the money.
And that's the best argument yet presented on this thread. :D

I think most sports should be completely co-ed, myself. If necessary, there could be "weight classes" like what you find in boxing to help ensure that raw size doesn't become the ultimate deciding factor. Heck, I think American football would be a better sport if there were weight classes right now, even if they didn't make it co-ed. It would be great to have basketball leagues that allow for shorter players, too, because I've known a couple of phenomenal basketball players who simply could not hope for a professional career because they were too short. I can't see why it would be any less entertaining to watch them play ball. I watch sports to see the athletes in action, and it really doesn't matter to me if they happen to be 7 feet tall or 300 pounds or whatever.

I've suggested height classes in basketball before for much the same reasons, but I never thought about having weight classes for football or tennis. I think it's great idea though. I think the sports would benefit financially because of increased interest and participation if they made such changes.

I specifically stated that I don't believe an athlete's worth should be judged by the size of the crowd they attract. So, obviously, the athlete is not "worthless" to me if they fail to draw the biggest possible crowd.
To you, maybe, but to the people running the show . . .

If the athletes can't draw in crowds, then they can't produce money for the stadiums or get attention for the advertisers who buy space at the stadiums, rendering the athletes worthless. (This is, of course, assuming that Wimbledon is run like a business, as opposed to being some sort of bizarre British government program designed to create employent for female commentators with British accents).

What if the athlete draws attention and crowds not because she wins tournaments, but because she's hot? Remember the criticism of Anna Kornucova? She didn't win a lot, but she got lots of press because of how pretty she was. Would that entitle her to be paid more than someone like Serena Williams who wins, but isn't generally regarded as sexy? I think so. But then I'm not a tennis fan. I won't watch men's tennis, but I've watched a few minutes here and there of women's tennis because pretty girls in short skirts were on the tv screen.

In my opinion attractive female tennis players should get paid more than male tennis players because they attract attention to the sport from folks like me.

I don't like the height or weight class proposals because it prevents the best of the best athletes to compete with each other. Perhaps if there were a pro league in which anyone could play, and a few "minor" leagues with size limitations. I do like women playing with men at the same level and with the same financial incentives, but I do worry that if women do not initially succeed, and there are no women only leagues, many girls may dismiss sports at a young age. I sorta like the system in golf, where there is a WPGA tour, but there are a few women who compete in some PGA events.

Personally, I like watching both men's and women's Grand Slam events, when I can, and seeing that there dosn't seem to be an oppurtunity for women to compete in the men's event, there should be equal prize money.