The World no.1 mens tennis player, that well-known Scots-Irishman Jock O’Vitch, has caused some ripples in the usual areas with his remarks over the ATP (Mens) tennis tour being the bigger draw than the WTA Tour in terms of ratings and therefore being deserving of more prize money.
Of course, in a free world, it doesn’t quite work like that, as it depends on the contract that you have, and the comments of the CEO of the Indian Wells tournament, a Mr Moore, appears to have led to the usual media ‘storm’ and to his resignation in a bout of pseudo-Maoist self-criticism.
Moore said female players “should get down on their knees” in thanks to male counterparts such as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. The South African – a former player – later apologised for his “erroneous” remarks.
In this Holy Week, should we not remember the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, the only bit of the Bible that resonated with me at school (apart from Balaam’s Donkey, for other reasons), as being an obvious statement of what is right and wrong.
12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them,
18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
We shall know that there is progress in the cause of liberty when those who protest against the perfectly reasonable comments of the World No. 1 are laughed at and ridiculed, and those who speak as they see things shall not cower before those who scorn reason and liberty.
And where are the complaints from the same horde that sponsorship deals for some women tennis players far outstrip the earnings of male tennis players?
Your Tim (Henman) made a related comment at Wimbledon about 15 years ago. When the women were calling for equal prize money, he noted that the disparity was much greater at the WTA vs. ATP Tour levels, and that the women would do well to focus on that disparity instead of the one at Wimbledon that existed at the time.
He, too, was excoriated for wrongthought.
You know, we also have discrimination of another kind. How many para-olympians get the same attention as able-bodied sports-stars? Can anyone name a disabled sports star?
And there’s unfairness of another kind. I can’t get a date with Miranda Kerr at all! Just because I’m not rich or famous! Someone oughta do something!
I see Serena Williams has already disagreed with Djokovic, but she also objects to the obvious solution, put both sexes in the same competition.
Ted, the word you’re looking for is ‘thoughtcrime’.
Oscar Pistorios got the same as OJ.
I have no problem with women tennis pros being paid the same as their male counterparts in mixed-sex tour events (although there really aren’t many of those; for the most part WTA and ATP events are entirely separate, and as far as I know the prize money at each event is set by its sponsors, not by the associations). Equal pay for equal work, and all that. And I do think that these days the women draw as well as the men; in fact, perhaps better, as there is more parity there, and more upsets. But I disagree when it comes to Wimbledon (and the other three majors) because there the women don’t do the same work. They play best of 3 set matches, whereas the men play best of 5. So the men are doing 40% more work but being paid the same. Where is the equity in that?
Be real, Mr Ed. It is obvious even to the over-perfumed but underwashed horde that the girls deserve much better pay than the guys, because they bring way more value to the spectating, which means better ticket prices (for the impresarios and investors), which means higher wages for the working girls.
How is that? you ask.
I’m sorry you asked, as it should be even more obvious to a red-blooded boy such as yourself than it is to me, a mere slip of a girl (and one with both X-chromosomes functioning normally, thankyouverymuch), that women playing tennis are way more scenic than men. At least, they were in the days when they looked like girls, and wore tennis skirts and dressed in white with perhaps a slight jab of gold ornament on the outfit. Maybe the pro players are too rangy? I wouldn’t know about that. My favorite sport is figure-skating, which is more art than sport in my opinion. :>)
Good post Mr Ed.
It is indeed up to private property owners what they do with their money.
If they wish to give more prize money to men (or more sponsorship money to women) that is up to them.
The cult of “equality” (egalitarianism) and “anti discrimination” (i.e. hostility to freedom of choice) is evil.
The “Social Justice Warriors” must be fought at every point.
There is no such thing as Political Correctness “Gone Mad” – Political Correctness (egalitarianism – “anti discrimination) is evil in its basic principle.
Laird,
Women’s tennis matches feel longer than 3 sets max when you have grunters playing, and the usual explanation for the fewer sets to play for is that the scheduling of tournaments would suffer if the women also played best of 5 sets, but that’s no reason not to have say, the semi-finals onwards played for best of 5, and the scheduling argument implicitly concedes the point that women’s tennis fits around the men’s game, with the latter as the main attraction.
Julie,
Women’s tennis watchable, why? I could watch paint dry instead.
Oh, bummer, Mr Ed–I’m on the dongle, so limited bandwidth, which means no videos at the moment.
In the meantime, I must say that unless I were a fanatical fan of tennis as a spectator sport, which I am not, I’d just as soon join you in watching paint dry (or grass grow) instead of spectating. Unless the players look like Grace Kelly in proper outfits, of course. But even then I’m sure I’d switch the channel to the Olympic figure skating competition, or the Eukanuba Dog Show Championships. Or the Westminster Dog Show, of course.
:>)
Well, I am a big tennis fan (I subscribe to the Tennis Channel on TV), and I watch at least as much women’s tennis as men’s. They’re both equally good. But the 5 set thing annoys me. It should be the same for both (whichever way it goes).
And there seem to be as many “grunters” among the men and the women these days. I find it annoying, too, but usually manage to tune it out.
One more reason for me to root for Djokovic at the upcoming French Open!
OTOH: Laird has got a point, in the sense that the 2 most exciting tennis matches i watched in the last 12 months, actually the last few years, were in the Women’s Tour. (Both involved Serena Williams getting beaten: by Roberta Vinci, and Angie Kerber. There is an advantage in having a player dominating the field: it’s exciting watching her being beaten.)
On the gripping hand: what does it matter what i enjoyed watching? i contribute very little money to professional tennis. It’s a matter of supply & demand: tennis players get paid more than “real”-tennis players because people prefer to watch “unreal” tennis rather than “real” tennis; so, if people prefer to watch men’s unreal tennis rather than women’s unreal tennis, why not pay male players more?
On the 4th hand: afaik this cannot be blamed on the State: tournament officers have decided to offer equal prizes because of pressure from non-State organizations. What are we supposed to do? protest for more money for the like of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal??
Which brings me back to the starting point: I don’t much care about who gets paid how much, but Djokovic deserves the full support of sensible people, for saying what SJWs don’t want to be said.
Ah but the subtext is the march of equal pay legislation, an affront to the Common Law, enacted here in the UK in 1970, coming into effect on 29th December 1975. Our hero spoke out against the spirit of the law and the hordes of SJW, all emboldened by State power.
Holy cow! Mr Ed, watching paint dry turns out to be a very interesting activity. And having also watched the Sixty Symbols video on de Broglie waves, all I can say is, what a wonderful series!
Thank you very much.
UToob-dot-com/watch?v=JIGI-eXK0tg&spfreload=10
This subject came up at my tennis session this morning. Someone mentioned that there was talk of reducing the men’s game to three sets to make it more exciting (I disagree). Us girlies took on the boys and beat the pants off them, but that’s another story. What is spoiling it for me as a spectator sport is the endless moronic chanting of the crowd – not so much at Wimbledon but certainly at the Davis Cup. I hope it is not contagious.
Yes, if women play up to 5 sets like men, and compete directly with them, then equal pay would, in a free market, result, more or less.
Johnathan,
Then there would be calls for ‘action’ to address the ‘under-representation’ of women in tennis.
Equal is unfair! The sound quality improves as soon a Yaron Brook, who is promoting his new book, begins speaking 7.30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ7P1SCRQjE&feature=youtu.be