Archive for Percy896's Tennis Forum This is a new tennis forum to discuss professional tennis, vote and create polls, and ask advice about equipment, fitness, or anything regarding tennis! Now with a new Fantasy Tennis League!
 


       Percy896's Tennis Forum Forum Index -> General Tennis and Player Polls
PSALT

Wimbledon Prize Money

Wimbledon announced today that men will still get more prize money than women. What do you think? Should women be paid less money than men?
Gators-Rox

Of course they should get the same pay. The game is just as demanding on the women as it is on the men. The women hit the same shots(forehands,backhands, serves, volleys,dropshots,lobs) the last time I checked as the men. And even sometimes the women a more entertaining then the men. It is time for Wimbledon to join in with the times and the other slams and give equal pay to the ladies.
PSALT

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/n...ORT-TENNIS-WIMBLEDON-UPDATE-2.XML


here is an article about it. the likes of Chris Evert, Billie Jean King, Larry Scott, Venus Williams, and Maria Sharapova spoke out against it.
Gators-Rox

That is a great article. It would also be interesting to hear some views from the touring men on what they thought on this issue.
dav6789

Some people say that the men deserve more money because they play best of 5 sets. I think that is stupid. Firstly, they dont have to play 5 sets, why is that a rule? Also, men's or women's tennis attract the same amount of attention and bring the same crowds, so the prize money should be equal. That is what tennis is: Show-business. The most important thing in tennis is the fans that pay the money. The women put just as much effort into it and deserve the equal prize money.
PSALT

I personally believe women should get as much money as men. Look at last year. The womens final was MUCH better than the men's. I enjoyed seeing Lindsay and Venus fight over who would be the winner much more than I enjoyed seeing Andy roll over dead at the sight of Roger. Who did more work? Davenport and Venus. More dramatic? Davenport and Venus. More competive? Davenport and Venus. Why should Andy and Roger get paid more than Lindsay and Venus when the women had a better match?
J-man

it's pretty obvious that all the women everywhere will speak out against it. i think they should get payed the same. with wimbledon doing this there could be boycotting of the tournment, riots and what not. wimbledon will also get a bad rap, as being a ist tournment.

by the way why is maria sharapova speaking out against it? she's making a boat load of money!!!!!!!! plus it's not like venus is going to play (jk)
dav6789

PSALT wrote:
I personally believe women should get as much money as men. Look at last year. The womens final was MUCH better than the men's. I enjoyed seeing Lindsay and Venus fight over who would be the winner much more than I enjoyed seeing Andy roll over dead at the sight of Roger. Who did more work? Davenport and Venus. More dramatic? Davenport and Venus. More competive? Davenport and Venus. Why should Andy and Roger get paid more than Lindsay and Venus when the women had a better match?


Thats exactly right. The women's final last year (the longest ever women's Wimbledon final), was about the same length, if not more than the men's final. It was much more entertaining...

At nearly all the grand slams (excluding French Open), we all know who the winner will be. It is almost impossible to predict the women's champion. Both men and women should be paid the same amount because they both attract the same media and worldwide attention.
PSALT

so NEA..... why did you vote no?
PSALT

FYI for everybody. I knew NEA's view on this from CP. Percy PMed me and made a good point. some people might not vote if someone can see their vote. To clear things up I can't see them unless you post your opinions here or on CP.
Not_Even_Amateur

PSALT...shall we continue this in a PM? I find it ridiculously hard to believe that you know my views on this from the CP board. Nigh on impossible. Certainly impossible enough to be so confident and rule out that it was only me for 100%, which you did extremely quickly.

Also, if you knew my views you would not be asking why I did this. Also, I do not believe I have expressed these views before. So...you can carry on this facade or you/percy can PM me and let me know exactly what just when on...

I SERIOUSLY would advise you to do so PSALT/Percy...I have a lot more to say on this issue...and I will be proved right, trust me.

Give me a PM Wink
stevos14

J-man wrote:

by the way why is maria sharapova speaking out against it? she's making a boat load of money!!!!!!!! plus it's not like venus is going to play (jk)


I think the women deserve the same prize money, but why are you questioning maria sharapova's speaking out? She has every right to, and just because she is making a "boat load" of money doesnt mean she doesnt deserve the same amount. I'm sure nadal and fed are making similar "boat loads", so should they not be allowed to speak out, or should they get less prize money? Maria made good points, and think about the players who are making it only to the first, second rounds if lucky or just qualifying. I think they deserve the money, but nobody would really listen to them so I think its a good thing maria is using her influence to change this issue. And on the fact of equal prize money, if you're talking to someone about tennis, its bound to be womens. Most people who arent big fans know only the women players, and like maria said, womens matches get higher ratings. And the women are the ones on the covers of the magazines and such. They are more important to bringing the game to everyone than the men are in my opinion.
leftys_rock

i think that the women should deserve the same prize money.....though they might spend less court time than the male players, they still work just as hard for their matches and a womens match can be just as exciting as a mens match(in the 05 wimby final, the womens match was much more exciting than the mens)......
J-man

stevos14 wrote:
J-man wrote:

by the way why is maria sharapova speaking out against it? she's making a boat load of money!!!!!!!! plus it's not like venus is going to play (jk)


I think the women deserve the same prize money, but why are you questioning maria sharapova's speaking out? She has every right to, and just because she is making a "boat load" of money doesnt mean she doesnt deserve the same amount. I'm sure nadal and fed are making similar "boat loads", so should they not be allowed to speak out, or should they get less prize money? Maria made good points, and think about the players who are making it only to the first, second rounds if lucky or just qualifying. I think they deserve the money, but nobody would really listen to them so I think its a good thing maria is using her influence to change this issue. And on the fact of equal prize money, if you're talking to someone about tennis, its bound to be womens. Most people who arent big fans know only the women players, and like maria said, womens matches get higher ratings. And the women are the ones on the covers of the magazines and such. They are more important to bringing the game to everyone than the men are in my opinion.
i totally agree with you. we need to show some respect to women because they work just as hard as men do. it's very s,exist.

by the way jk means i was just trying to make a joke
stevos14

yes but you were joking about venus not playing, and if you were joking about the maria thing, no offense but its not a very funny joke Laughing
J-man

stevos14 wrote:
yes but you were joking about venus not playing, and if you were joking about the maria thing, no offense but its not a very funny joke Laughing
Embarassed Laughing i'll try harder next time Rolling Eyes
stevos14

Lol, I was just kidding too. Forget about it. Laughing
J-man

oh dude i'm getting played Laughing Mr. Green Joker
admin

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
PSALT...shall we continue this in a PM? I find it ridiculously hard to believe that you know my views on this from the CP board. Nigh on impossible. Certainly impossible enough to be so confident and rule out that it was only me for 100%, which you did extremely quickly.

Also, if you knew my views you would not be asking why I did this. Also, I do not believe I have expressed these views before. So...you can carry on this facade or you/percy can PM me and let me know exactly what just when on...

I SERIOUSLY would advise you to do so PSALT/Percy...I have a lot more to say on this issue...and I will be proved right, trust me.

Give me a PM Wink


N_E_A, to make things clear, I PMed PSALT after I read his post about you voting for "no". I asked how he knew this and that he should explain to the forum that he indeed assumed this and actually cannot view individual votes. This is so people are not discouraged to vote because of supossed lack of privacy, but I assure everyone, NOBODY (not even myself) can view individual votes or even who voted. That is all that was discussed in the conversation.
Not_Even_Amateur

admin wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
PSALT...shall we continue this in a PM? I find it ridiculously hard to believe that you know my views on this from the CP board. Nigh on impossible. Certainly impossible enough to be so confident and rule out that it was only me for 100%, which you did extremely quickly.

Also, if you knew my views you would not be asking why I did this. Also, I do not believe I have expressed these views before. So...you can carry on this facade or you/percy can PM me and let me know exactly what just when on...

I SERIOUSLY would advise you to do so PSALT/Percy...I have a lot more to say on this issue...and I will be proved right, trust me.

Give me a PM Wink


N_E_A, to make things clear, I PMed PSALT after I read his post about you voting for "no". I asked how he knew this and that he should explain to the forum that he indeed assumed this and actually cannot view individual votes. This is so people are not discouraged to vote because of supossed lack of privacy, but I assure everyone, NOBODY (not even myself) can view individual votes or even who voted. That is all that was discussed in the conversation.


Yes, PSALT PM'ed me. It is a bit weird but I shall leave it go:

In answer to your questions PSALT,

I did vote no and I am the only one to do so.

A.)Tradition. I want wimbledon to keeps its amazing tradition, something that makes it the tournament it still is, I do not want it to become a totally modern tournament.
B.)Time spent on court. Men play significantly more. If they women want equal pay, they should have equal play and go the best of 5 sets.

These are starting points....there will be more whenever you guys reply, as there are seven of you who voted yes.
dav6789

Fair point, the men generally spend more time on court in grand slams. There should be equal money at all other tournaments. But this topic is about Wimbledon...

The men do spend more time on court but that dosent mean they put alot more effort into it. The prize money comes from the people, the tennis fans who pay the money. Tennis is entertainment, and I think watching men's and women's tennis is equally exciting and entertaining. Some may have preferences, but men's and women's tennis attract similar amounts of audiences who pay money.

Yes, Wimbledon has a great tradition, but the prize money tradition is bad. Wimbledon started years ago, when men were considered more 'important' than women. In fact the womens tournament didnt start until much later. I think the prize momey tradition is bad for this era, to still have men being paid mroe than women...

There are still traditions like the men's champion starts on Monday, women's on Tuseday. Those are alright, but the prize money tradition should be stopped. Even if Wimbledon becomes a completely modern tournment, I would rather have people being treated equally...there are still plenty of traditions, equal prize money wouldnt hurt...
Not_Even_Amateur

dav6789 wrote:
Fair point, the men generally spend more time on court in grand slams. There should be equal money at all other tournaments. But this topic is about Wimbledon...

The men do spend more time on court but that dosent mean they put alot more effort into it. The prize money comes from the people, the tennis fans who pay the money. Tennis is entertainment, and I think watching men's and women's tennis is equally exciting and entertaining. Some may have preferences, but men's and women's tennis attract similar amounts of audiences who pay money.

Yes, Wimbledon has a great tradition, but the prize money tradition is bad. Wimbledon started years ago, when men were considered more 'important' than women. In fact the womens tournament didnt start until much later. I think the prize momey tradition is bad for this era, to still have men being paid mroe than women...

There are still traditions like the men's champion starts on Monday, women's on Tuseday. Those are alright, but the prize money tradition should be stopped. Even if Wimbledon becomes a completely modern tournment, I would rather have people being treated equally...there are still plenty of traditions, equal prize money wouldnt hurt...


But, again, you say about treating people equally: ok, good idea, good points, women's matches are now best of 5 sets, yes? Or else, they are being treated inferior...people are assuming they couldn't manage this because they are physically weaker than men. But, if we are going to harp on about treating both genders as equals then bring on the 5 sets for women.

You mention entertainment. 5 set matches will add a new dimension to the women's game.

However, I do not want the length of matches to change. Therefore, I do not want the prize money to change.
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
Fair point, the men generally spend more time on court in grand slams. There should be equal money at all other tournaments. But this topic is about Wimbledon...

The men do spend more time on court but that dosent mean they put alot more effort into it. The prize money comes from the people, the tennis fans who pay the money. Tennis is entertainment, and I think watching men's and women's tennis is equally exciting and entertaining. Some may have preferences, but men's and women's tennis attract similar amounts of audiences who pay money.

Yes, Wimbledon has a great tradition, but the prize money tradition is bad. Wimbledon started years ago, when men were considered more 'important' than women. In fact the womens tournament didnt start until much later. I think the prize momey tradition is bad for this era, to still have men being paid mroe than women...

There are still traditions like the men's champion starts on Monday, women's on Tuseday. Those are alright, but the prize money tradition should be stopped. Even if Wimbledon becomes a completely modern tournment, I would rather have people being treated equally...there are still plenty of traditions, equal prize money wouldnt hurt...


But, again, you say about treating people equally: ok, good idea, good points, women's matches are now best of 5 sets, yes? Or else, they are being treated inferior...people are assuming they couldn't manage this because they are physically weaker than men. But, if we are going to harp on about treating both genders as equals then bring on the 5 sets for women.

You mention entertainment. 5 set matches will add a new dimension to the women's game.

However, I do not want the length of matches to change. Therefore, I do not want the prize money to change.


Yes, but the prize money comes from the tennis fans in general. The men and women both attract the same audiences, both as exciting, both bring the same amount of money. The other grand slams have equal prize money, why should Wimbledon be different? Wimbledon is by far the easiest on the body to win.

I dont think the amount of time on court should be a factor on the prize money, especially at Wimbledon. Money mainly comes from the fans, and should be distributed equally to men and women...
PSALT

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
Fair point, the men generally spend more time on court in grand slams. There should be equal money at all other tournaments. But this topic is about Wimbledon...

The men do spend more time on court but that dosent mean they put alot more effort into it. The prize money comes from the people, the tennis fans who pay the money. Tennis is entertainment, and I think watching men's and women's tennis is equally exciting and entertaining. Some may have preferences, but men's and women's tennis attract similar amounts of audiences who pay money.

Yes, Wimbledon has a great tradition, but the prize money tradition is bad. Wimbledon started years ago, when men were considered more 'important' than women. In fact the womens tournament didnt start until much later. I think the prize momey tradition is bad for this era, to still have men being paid mroe than women...

There are still traditions like the men's champion starts on Monday, women's on Tuseday. Those are alright, but the prize money tradition should be stopped. Even if Wimbledon becomes a completely modern tournment, I would rather have people being treated equally...there are still plenty of traditions, equal prize money wouldnt hurt...


But, again, you say about treating people equally: ok, good idea, good points, women's matches are now best of 5 sets, yes? Or else, they are being treated inferior...people are assuming they couldn't manage this because they are physically weaker than men. But, if we are going to harp on about treating both genders as equals then bring on the 5 sets for women.

You mention entertainment. 5 set matches will add a new dimension to the women's game.

However, I do not want the length of matches to change. Therefore, I do not want the prize money to change.



For entertainment alone the number of sets should be left alone. it's interesting to watch such a high stakes womens match that has three sets. they have much less time than men to find their game. they are then forcd to play their best from the beginning, something that you do not have to do in men's 3 out of 5 matches.
Gators-Rox

Dav6789 I really think you hit a good point when you said that the prize money comes from the fans in general. And so in that case if a Mens Finals at Wimbledon is filled to capacity and a womens final is filled to capacity and the tournament is generating the same amount of revenue on both sexes, then why pay one give one a less share of the cut then another. Just because one person plays 5 sets and the other 3 doesn't mean that each participatant man or woman is not putting out 100% effort to entertain.
Not_Even_Amateur

Hahahaha! Dav6789, Gators_rox...I hate to demolish your bubble, however, this "great point" is really a DISASTROUS point that has been turned into something that doubles the strength of my argument. Seriously it may pain you to read on!

It took me two seconds to find out this information...what were you thinking dav?!

Just looked at wimbledon ticket prices it costs more to watch a men QF than a womens QF. Significantly more. Hahahaha. First page I went on I saw that straight away...so i havent done much research but enough to know men's tickets are dearer and therefore more revenue is created.

Sorry, everyone who voted yes but dav has just shot you guys in the foot. I would now say I am 100% right. It is not moral and LOGICAL to give the men more money!!!
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Hahahaha! Dav6789, Gators_rox...I hate to demolish your bubble, however, this "great point" is really a DISASTROUS point that has been turned into something that doubles the strength of my argument. Seriously it may pain you to read on!

It took me two seconds to find out this information...what were you thinking dav?!

Just looked at wimbledon ticket prices it costs more to watch a men QF than a womens QF. Significantly more. Hahahaha. First page I went on I saw that straight away...so i havent done much research but enough to know men's tickets are dearer and therefore more revenue is created.

Sorry, everyone who voted yes but dav has just shot you guys in the foot. I would now say I am 100% right. It is not moral and LOGICAL to give the men more money!!!


Hehe, I had no idea...

Ticket prices might be higher, but I wonder why that might be...maybe so they can afford to pay the men higher ? That does not mean that men's tennis is more popular, and attracts more TV audiences or attention around the world.

Is men's tennis more enjoyable and liked by more people around the world?

I think that both should be paid equally as they both contribute to tennis becoming a great sport...
Not_Even_Amateur

dav6789 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Hahahaha! Dav6789, Gators_rox...I hate to demolish your bubble, however, this "great point" is really a DISASTROUS point that has been turned into something that doubles the strength of my argument. Seriously it may pain you to read on!

It took me two seconds to find out this information...what were you thinking dav?!

Just looked at wimbledon ticket prices it costs more to watch a men QF than a womens QF. Significantly more. Hahahaha. First page I went on I saw that straight away...so i havent done much research but enough to know men's tickets are dearer and therefore more revenue is created.

Sorry, everyone who voted yes but dav has just shot you guys in the foot. I would now say I am 100% right. It is not moral and LOGICAL to give the men more money!!!


Hehe, I had no idea...

Ticket prices might be higher, but I wonder why that might be...maybe so they can afford to pay the men higher ? That does not mean that men's tennis is more popular, and attracts more TV audiences or attention around the world.

Is men's tennis more enjoyable and liked by more people around the world?

I think that both should be paid equally as they both contribute to tennis becoming a great sport...


Yes, but yours and everyones primary point is now gone. The men's cost more because you will likely be in there for longer? Maybe...just a guess. They probably ARE more sought after slightly. More revenue created=More prize money! So many things are not equal between the two games, there is no way the prize money should be!
stevos14

I dont think dav shot us in the foot at all. Just because Wimbledon prices mens tickets higher, obviously it should because its giving men more money! If they charged the same then they'd look REALLY stupid. I still vote yes and I agree with dav's points. And theres no need to add all the HAHAHA's about it.
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Hahahaha! Dav6789, Gators_rox...I hate to demolish your bubble, however, this "great point" is really a DISASTROUS point that has been turned into something that doubles the strength of my argument. Seriously it may pain you to read on!

It took me two seconds to find out this information...what were you thinking dav?!

Just looked at wimbledon ticket prices it costs more to watch a men QF than a womens QF. Significantly more. Hahahaha. First page I went on I saw that straight away...so i havent done much research but enough to know men's tickets are dearer and therefore more revenue is created.

Sorry, everyone who voted yes but dav has just shot you guys in the foot. I would now say I am 100% right. It is not moral and LOGICAL to give the men more money!!!


Hehe, I had no idea...

Ticket prices might be higher, but I wonder why that might be...maybe so they can afford to pay the men higher ? That does not mean that men's tennis is more popular, and attracts more TV audiences or attention around the world.

Is men's tennis more enjoyable and liked by more people around the world?

I think that both should be paid equally as they both contribute to tennis becoming a great sport...


Yes, but yours and everyones primary point is now gone. The men's cost more because you will likely be in there for longer? Maybe...just a guess. They probably ARE more sought after slightly. More revenue created=More prize money! So many things are not equal between the two games, there is no way the prize money should be!


hmm that sounds like a good reason for higher ticket prices...


I would guess that women's tennis might be more sought after than men's as it is the premier Women's sport...

The fact is though...the other 3 slams have offered equal prize money, Wimbledon hasen't. It is always behind the other slams. I just hope they will see sense in a few years. The bottom line is that both women and men deserve equal prize money as they put more or less equal effort (yes I am repeating myself, but it is true).

I can understand your reasons for the men having higher pay, but why does Wimbledon have to be the odd one out. The rest have changed...
Gators-Rox

O.K. N_E_A so the ticket prices for the mens events are higher, does that still make it right . Just because one event and there promoters feels it is the correct thing to charge people more money to see men play the same sporting event so they can then pay them more in prize money is ridiculous. And if people are willing to pay extra to see men play over women well they are quite foolish as well, because they are the ones that are supporting the fact that Wimbledon is still doing this.

No matter how long people go back and forth on this issue though the only thing that will possibly re-enforce Wimbledon to pay players equally is if the people themselves take a stand a decide not to show up for the mens games.
x.doublea

Women should be receiving the same amount of prize money. Wimbledon not even giving the winners equal prize money is actually basically saying that females are the 'less' than men. Maybe this is correct in the 1930s, but I doubt it's right in today's society.

I never knew that they made men's ticket prices higher....
Not_Even_Amateur

stevos14 wrote:
I dont think dav shot us in the foot at all. Just because Wimbledon prices mens tickets higher, obviously it should because its giving men more money! If they charged the same then they'd look REALLY stupid. I still vote yes and I agree with dav's points. And theres no need to add all the HAHAHA's about it.


You contadict yourself beyond belief. I won't even respond to this post with a counter-argument.
Not_Even_Amateur

Gators-Rox wrote:
O.K. N_E_A so the ticket prices for the mens events are higher, does that still make it right . Just because one event and there promoters feels it is the correct thing to charge people more money to see men play the same sporting event so they can then pay them more in prize money is ridiculous. And if people are willing to pay extra to see men play over women well they are quite foolish as well, because they are the ones that are supporting the fact that Wimbledon is still doing this.

No matter how long people go back and forth on this issue though the only thing that will possibly re-enforce Wimbledon to pay players equally is if the people themselves take a stand a decide not to show up for the mens games.


Generally, men's tennis is more popular as a sport than women's. Surely you agree that that is the common perception? Over here women's tennis doesn't even get on the main broadcaster...only men's, that says it all.

You guys really now have no reason except "treat equally"...but they don't play equally so that is eradicated from the situation.

Please come up with some logical points...you guys are going round in circlees...there is eight of you, you must do better.
stevos14

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
I dont think dav shot us in the foot at all. Just because Wimbledon prices mens tickets higher, obviously it should because its giving men more money! If they charged the same then they'd look REALLY stupid. I still vote yes and I agree with dav's points. And theres no need to add all the HAHAHA's about it.


You contadict yourself beyond belief. I won't even respond to this post with a counter-argument.


Well, I'm probably going to get really embarassed after this, but I just don't see where I contradict myself beyond belief? What I was saying was if wimbledon is paying men more, then their ticket prices should be higher. How could they charge the same for ticket prices, and then pay the men more, when the fans paid the same amount to see it. So thats why if wimbledon charged the same for tickets, they'd probably have to pay each the same.
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Gators-Rox wrote:
O.K. N_E_A so the ticket prices for the mens events are higher, does that still make it right . Just because one event and there promoters feels it is the correct thing to charge people more money to see men play the same sporting event so they can then pay them more in prize money is ridiculous. And if people are willing to pay extra to see men play over women well they are quite foolish as well, because they are the ones that are supporting the fact that Wimbledon is still doing this.

No matter how long people go back and forth on this issue though the only thing that will possibly re-enforce Wimbledon to pay players equally is if the people themselves take a stand a decide not to show up for the mens games.


Generally, men's tennis is more popular as a sport than women's. Surely you agree that that is the common perception? Over here women's tennis doesn't even get on the main broadcaster...only men's, that says it all.

You guys really now have no reason except "treat equally"...but they don't play equally so that is eradicated from the situation.

Please come up with some logical points...you guys are going round in circlees...there is eight of you, you must do better.


Men's tennis might be percieved to be more exciting, but I'm not sure that is a good reason to be paying the more. Women's tennis can be even more, or less exciting than men's tennis. It isn't a gurantee at ay match that it will be good entertainment...

I also think it is bad that women's tennis isnt given as much attention than men's tennis, and that may be a reason for the perception that men's tennis is more popular...maybe the women would play better if they were getting equal prize money!

I am disappointed at Wimbledon for not giving equal prize money, the other slams have...
Gators-Rox

So what you are saying is you would must rather see and pay more for a mens final that ends in a result of 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 just because that is what the norm says is more exciting than to see a womens final that ends in a third round decision. I agree that there can be mens matches that are more exciting then women, but to say that is the norm is totally stupid.
dav6789

A good example is Wimbledon last year. I would definetely have payed more to see the women's final, or any of the SF matches, than any of the men's final or SF matches...

The women put on a fantastic display of tennis in that tournament, it was a great tournament...the men's tournaments wasen't near as exciting...
Not_Even_Amateur

Nobody can ever know...you guys are right, stating the obvious, but right. However, Gators_Rox...you bring in "you would rather see"...this has nothing to do with me, it is the paying public and tennis fans as a whole; the fact alone that men's prices are higher PROVES they are more in demand. Thereby, the men's game IS more sought after by the paying public. As easy as pie to understand that one, yes?

Good example dav6789, but again that was just one example. It is what the paying public are willing to pay...they pay more, so the men earn more money. It is common sense. Why should the revenue go elsewhere just to make women feel happy? It shouldn't. As we have seen so far, women and men are treated far from equally within tennis, in fact seemingly all the factors between the two games varie. It defies all logic, therefore, that women should be given the same prize money because they are equal...they clearly are not held in equal regard in every other respect.

dav6789, why should Wimbledon conform to all the other tournaments? Why should they all be the same? Why cannot one be different. If Wimbledon charge more money to watch men, it is only fair that the men get paid more. They spend more time on court and are therefore working longer, if this was a "normal" job...the men would indeed be earning more money.

stevos14...you basically say that they shouldn't be paid equal amounts because they charge more for men's tickets, when I first read your post I thought you were siding with me based on your reasoning, you then say you are still voting yes. It confused me and that is why I said your post was contradictory beyond belief.

Anything else?
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Nobody can ever know...you guys are right, stating the obvious, but right. However, Gators_Rox...you bring in "you would rather see"...this has nothing to do with me, it is the paying public and tennis fans as a whole; the fact alone that men's prices are higher PROVES they are more in demand. Thereby, the men's game IS more sought after by the paying public. As easy as pie to understand that one, yes?

Good example dav6789, but again that was just one example. It is what the paying public are willing to pay...they pay more, so the men earn more money. It is common sense. Why should the revenue go elsewhere just to make women feel happy? It shouldn't. As we have seen so far, women and men are treated far from equally within tennis, in fact seemingly all the factors between the two games varie. It defies all logic, therefore, that women should be given the same prize money because they are equal...they clearly are not held in equal regard in every other respect.

dav6789, why should Wimbledon conform to all the other tournaments? Why should they all be the same? Why cannot one be different. If Wimbledon charge more money to watch men, it is only fair that the men get paid more. They spend more time on court and are therefore working longer, if this was a "normal" job...the men would indeed be earning more money.

stevos14...you basically say that they shouldn't be paid equal amounts because they charge more for men's tickets, when I first read your post I thought you were siding with me based on your reasoning, you then say you are still voting yes. It confused me and that is why I said your post was contradictory beyond belief.

Anything else?


No, nothing else...I think we have covered most points...twice over!

Those are good points NEA for the prize money not to be equal, but I will never be happy with that.

In these days, I believe men and women should be paid the same amount of prize money. Yes, men's tennis may be more popular in general public opinion, but that is not the case for individuals.

Im sure Maria Sharapova, the Williams's are more in demand than Ivo Karlovic or Xavier Malisse...whoever...
This sounds stupid, but if they were going to base their prize money on popularity, then it should be individually...As for the spending more time on court, I don's agree with that. The men may generally spend more time on court, but that does not mean they are putting more effort.

Prize money should be equal at all other tournaments then...since they all play best of 3. At Wimbledon, I can understand your points, but I cant agree with them. I disagree with the difference in prize money.
Not_Even_Amateur

I know you can never agree with them, yet is clear my argument is far more fortified than all eight of yours. I would love to see more points for this massive voting in favour of yes!

The yes argument has near enough vanished; it is now a mere principle factor, a personal opinion that "women and men are equal"...that is far from enough to sway my vote.

On your points about individuals:

Following the pattern, it is not a great one. Ive Karlovic and Xavier Malisse won't win wimbledon and as of yet have not. The female players you mention have. They don't win the big prize money; I am sure that Sharapova and Williams sisters make more money than both of those players, therefore the point is made obsolete.
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I know you can never agree with them, yet is clear my argument is far more fortified than all eight of yours. I would love to see more points for this massive voting in favour of yes!

The yes argument has near enough vanished; it is now a mere principle factor, a personal opinion that "women and men are equal"...that is far from enough to sway my vote.

On your points about individuals:

Following the pattern, it is not a great one. Ive Karlovic and Xavier Malisse won't win wimbledon and as of yet have not. The female players you mention have. They don't win the big prize money; I am sure that Sharapova and Williams sisters make more money than both of those players, therefore the point is made obsolete.


OK, those were bad examples. Take Lleyton Hewitt or any top name...alot of top women's names are much more popular then the men's names. Maria Sharapova brings alot more attention to tennis than Ivan Ljubicic, who is a top name in the men's game...
Not_Even_Amateur

dav6789 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I know you can never agree with them, yet is clear my argument is far more fortified than all eight of yours. I would love to see more points for this massive voting in favour of yes!

The yes argument has near enough vanished; it is now a mere principle factor, a personal opinion that "women and men are equal"...that is far from enough to sway my vote.

On your points about individuals:

Following the pattern, it is not a great one. Ive Karlovic and Xavier Malisse won't win wimbledon and as of yet have not. The female players you mention have. They don't win the big prize money; I am sure that Sharapova and Williams sisters make more money than both of those players, therefore the point is made obsolete.


OK, those were bad examples. Take Lleyton Hewitt or any top name...alot of top women's names are much more popular then the men's names. Maria Sharapova brings alot more attention to tennis than Ivan Ljubicic, who is a top name in the men's game...


Ivan Ljubicic hasn't even won a Masters Cup, never mind wimbledon. Try using: Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, Rafeal Nadal and so on. Then your "argument" collapses.

Btw, everyone well done on this topic...this is the EXACT kind of discussion that will help to improve this forum. This is a good topic that could easily rival that of CP. Very good.
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I know you can never agree with them, yet is clear my argument is far more fortified than all eight of yours. I would love to see more points for this massive voting in favour of yes!

The yes argument has near enough vanished; it is now a mere principle factor, a personal opinion that "women and men are equal"...that is far from enough to sway my vote.

On your points about individuals:

Following the pattern, it is not a great one. Ive Karlovic and Xavier Malisse won't win wimbledon and as of yet have not. The female players you mention have. They don't win the big prize money; I am sure that Sharapova and Williams sisters make more money than both of those players, therefore the point is made obsolete.


OK, those were bad examples. Take Lleyton Hewitt or any top name...alot of top women's names are much more popular then the men's names. Maria Sharapova brings alot more attention to tennis than Ivan Ljubicic, who is a top name in the men's game...


Ivan Ljubicic hasn't even won a Masters Cup, never mind wimbledon. Try using: Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, Rafeal Nadal and so on. Then your "argument" collapses.

Btw, everyone well done on this topic...this is the EXACT kind of discussion that will help to improve this forum. This is a good topic that could easily rival that of CP. Very good.


Yes this has been quite a good discussion...

You at least get my point NEA? Any top name in the men's game isnt always more popular than a name in the women's game, reguardless of what they have won (Kournikova didnt even win a title but brought so much more attention to the game than any male player 5-10 years ago)
stevos14

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
I know you can never agree with them, yet is clear my argument is far more fortified than all eight of yours. I would love to see more points for this massive voting in favour of yes!

The yes argument has near enough vanished; it is now a mere principle factor, a personal opinion that "women and men are equal"...that is far from enough to sway my vote.

On your points about individuals:

Following the pattern, it is not a great one. Ive Karlovic and Xavier Malisse won't win wimbledon and as of yet have not. The female players you mention have. They don't win the big prize money; I am sure that Sharapova and Williams sisters make more money than both of those players, therefore the point is made obsolete.


OK, those were bad examples. Take Lleyton Hewitt or any top name...alot of top women's names are much more popular then the men's names. Maria Sharapova brings alot more attention to tennis than Ivan Ljubicic, who is a top name in the men's game...


Ivan Ljubicic hasn't even won a Masters Cup, never mind wimbledon. Try using: Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, Rafeal Nadal and so on. Then your "argument" collapses.

Btw, everyone well done on this topic...this is the EXACT kind of discussion that will help to improve this forum. This is a good topic that could easily rival that of CP. Very good.


I think you bring a lot of that good discussion! Yes the discussion has been good lately. And I guess what I was typing seemed contradictory but in my mind it made sense Laughing
Gators-Rox

You state that the fans and the paying public are the ones that are in control of why the mens players get paid more. WRONG, the fans have nothing to do with what the price of the tickets are for an event is that is determined and fixed by the promoters. And if you are a fan of tennis in general you are going to pay a huge most likely inflated price to see the sport you love regardless of what gender is playing. It happens in all sports(The World Series, Super Bowl, World Cup). If a person is a big enough fan they will pay to see the event. That is why the venues try to inflate the ticket prices because they know they can get away with it because there are enough people willing to pay the price to be entertained by the sport they love.
PSALT

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/...wertheim/04/26/mailbag/index.html

here. this is Jon Wertheims "mailbag". he talks about this issue. I think he can make a case much better than we can. also don't miss page three, it shows a survey in the French Tennis Magazine. their 'panal' put MAURESMO as #5 in their list of the best female tennis players in the last 20 years. ahead of Davenport, H-H, Clijsters, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Pierce, the Williams, and Martinez..... Rolling Eyes
Not_Even_Amateur

Gators-Rox wrote:
You state that the fans and the paying public are the ones that are in control of why the mens players get paid more. WRONG, the fans have nothing to do with what the price of the tickets are for an event is that is determined and fixed by the promoters. And if you are a fan of tennis in general you are going to pay a huge most likely inflated price to see the sport you love regardless of what gender is playing. It happens in all sports(The World Series, Super Bowl, World Cup). If a person is a big enough fan they will pay to see the event. That is why the venues try to inflate the ticket prices because they know they can get away with it because there are enough people willing to pay the price to be entertained by the sport they love.


Seriously, what is this? What is this point? It has no bearing on the argument what so ever. Have you not been keeping up?

I didn't "state tha fan and the paying public are the ones that are in control".

What I DID state is this:

The promoters...and the ones who fix the prices are going to get as much money as they can (normally). The fact that they charge higher prices DEMONSTRATES that the paying public are WILLING to pay more for a men's match than a women's match. COMMON SENSE. Really is COMMONS SENSE. You see it now?

PSALT...I am going away for weekend, going shortly have no time to read article. Will do when I get back; for now this discussion will be temporarily stopped (hopefully) as there is no-one to argue for the NO side while I am gone!
PSALT

even though NEA is gone for the weekend I want to show you guys this

http://www.tennisnews.com/exclusive.php?pID=11284
Gators-Rox

Well that shows that not everyone feels that womens tennis is inferior to mens tennis.
beachjm

The women should get the same prize $ at Wimbledon as the men. The other 3 slams do it right, so Wimbledon looks pretty odd not following in their footsteps. I used to think it wasn't that big of a deal if the women's champ got like 98% of what the men's winner got, since the women often play so much less than the men and the depth in the game has often been atrocious (although it's getting a bit better recently), but the big picture is it's the 21st C. and the tournament directors should get with the program. Also, women's tennis often gets equal or better ratings than the men so it's not like people don't like women's tennis at all. It's one of the few if only sport that's on a pretty much equal footing with the men. You certainly couldn't say that about basktball, soccer, etc. I bet in the next 3-5 yrs. Wimbledon will do the right thing, but sadly most people thought it wouldn't have taken this long.
x.doublea

I think they're not doing it mainly because of 'tradition'. I think traditions have to sometimes go....
Not_Even_Amateur

Right I am back and am ready to get started with this debate again.

I will set out my response in two stages, firstly a response to the first article that PSALT posted and secondly a significantly shorter (for obvious reasons) response to BeachJM's "argument". I AM missing out PSALT's second article, it is a group of people who believe in equality between sexes and are opting to do something about it...end of, no further point is being explored in that article. Ok here we go...

THE ARTICLE:

It is set out in a series of counter-arguments, I hasten to add that this fact alone demonstrates that this writer cannot argue why Wimbledon SHOULD give equal pay but only dismiss the arguments of why the SHOULDN'T. Defensive straight away. I will set it out similar to him, label 1, 2 and so on in relations to his bullet points and the counter argument he adresses. It will be a counter of a counter-argument, if you like.

1.) The paying fans pay more to see men play tennis than they do to see women play tennis at Wimbledon. Thereby, an accurate conclusion can be made that they probably (as whole) enjoy, or at least WANT to see men play more than women. The idea about both tours being unpredictable is 100% correct, however, we are talking generally; what the paying public expect, and quite clearly, based on television rights AND ticket prices, the men are expected to attract more attention!

2.) "Shabby logic"? Ok then, let us apply his logic to another scenario. Hey, I am going to higher two construction workers: one is a woman and one is a man. The man, based on his superior physicality, is going to work 40% more hours (on average, this depends on how quick he gets his work done (notice the accurate analogy) ) than the woman. We will pay them equal because they are equal.

He goes on to suggest paying exactly 40% higher. So, hang on then, the issue is NOT the fact that men are being paid higher...it is merely the amount they are being paid higher. He blatantly contradicts himself and his argument falls apart. The 40% can never be 100% accurate and the prize money is probably based on revenue. Wooo. Who hires these SI writers?

3.) The men are better players, yet I agree, this doesn't play a part. However, they do spend more time on court unlike other sports! Golf, for example, could spend equal amount between the two sexes, as could football. Tennis, however, clearly forces the men to play more. The fact that he looks to some barely comparable sport to strengthen his argument shows his naivety in terms of tennis; tennis is an individual sport, do not compare it to basketball fool.

He really doesn't offer any other arguments. He says that tennis is one of the few sports that put women and men on equal footing, yes you are right, that is why men play best of 5 and women play best of 3. That is why women tennis cannot get on Sky Sports over here, but men's tennis can. That is why that, in England at least, most people are only into men's tennis; the real tennis fans are into both of course, however, all those on the bandwagon come Wimbledon talk only of the men's. It COMPLETELY overshadows the women's tennis over here. Of course, being American this SI writer would not know that. He seems to assume an awful lot. A clue would be nice.

BEACHJM:

Firstly, the other 3 slams do it, yes I believe they do. Yet, that great journalist did mention something about the "hommes at the French Federation"...PSALT, what is he referring to there? Now, this logic is shabby, as with nearly all of this post: "They all did that so so am I." Wow great individuality.

Next, it is the 21st Century and tournament directors need to get with the program. What program would that be? Women and men are equal? Ok, then, women...you are now playing best out of 5 sets. No? Ok then, no equal pay. Also, creating an argument based around the fact that it is the 21st Century means nothing...rubbish.

Next, women's tennis gets better or equal ratings. Generalisation. Enough said. Give me some stats. Do not just state that. Who by? Women? Men? Nothing just a total generalisation.

I addressed the equal footing earlier in the post, if you have bothered to read it.

That should be all for now...

Wink
dav6789

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Right I am back and am ready to get started with this debate again.

I will set out my response in two stages, firstly a response to the first article that PSALT posted and secondly a significantly shorter (for obvious reasons) response to BeachJM's "argument". I AM missing out PSALT's second article, it is a group of people who believe in equality between sexes and are opting to do something about it...end of, no further point is being explored in that article. Ok here we go...

THE ARTICLE:

It is set out in a series of counter-arguments, I hasten to add that this fact alone demonstrates that this writer cannot argue why Wimbledon SHOULD give equal pay but only dismiss the arguments of why the SHOULDN'T. Defensive straight away. I will set it out similar to him, label 1, 2 and so on in relations to his bullet points and the counter argument he adresses. It will be a counter of a counter-argument, if you like.

1.) The paying fans pay more to see men play tennis than they do to see women play tennis at Wimbledon. Thereby, an accurate conclusion can be made that they probably (as whole) enjoy, or at least WANT to see men play more than women. The idea about both tours being unpredictable is 100% correct, however, we are talking generally; what the paying public expect, and quite clearly, based on television rights AND ticket prices, the men are expected to attract more attention!

2.) "Shabby logic"? Ok then, let us apply his logic to another scenario. Hey, I am going to higher two construction workers: one is a woman and one is a man. The man, based on his superior physicality, is going to work 40% more hours (on average, this depends on how quick he gets his work done (notice the accurate analogy) ) than the woman. We will pay them equal because they are equal.

He goes on to suggest paying exactly 40% higher. So, hang on then, the issue is NOT the fact that men are being paid higher...it is merely the amount they are being paid higher. He blatantly contradicts himself and his argument falls apart. The 40% can never be 100% accurate and the prize money is probably based on revenue. Wooo. Who hires these SI writers?

3.) The men are better players, yet I agree, this doesn't play a part. However, they do spend more time on court unlike other sports! Golf, for example, could spend equal amount between the two sexes, as could football. Tennis, however, clearly forces the men to play more. The fact that he looks to some barely comparable sport to strengthen his argument shows his naivety in terms of tennis; tennis is an individual sport, do not compare it to basketball fool.

He really doesn't offer any other arguments. He says that tennis is one of the few sports that put women and men on equal footing, yes you are right, that is why men play best of 5 and women play best of 3. That is why women tennis cannot get on Sky Sports over here, but men's tennis can. That is why that, in England at least, most people are only into men's tennis; the real tennis fans are into both of course, however, all those on the bandwagon come Wimbledon talk only of the men's. It COMPLETELY overshadows the women's tennis over here. Of course, being American this SI writer would not know that. He seems to assume an awful lot. A clue would be nice.

BEACHJM:

Firstly, the other 3 slams do it, yes I believe they do. Yet, that great journalist did mention something about the "hommes at the French Federation"...PSALT, what is he referring to there? Now, this logic is shabby, as with nearly all of this post: "They all did that so so am I." Wow great individuality.

Next, it is the 21st Century and tournament directors need to get with the program. What program would that be? Women and men are equal? Ok, then, women...you are now playing best out of 5 sets. No? Ok then, no equal pay. Also, creating an argument based around the fact that it is the 21st Century means nothing...rubbish.

Next, women's tennis gets better or equal ratings. Generalisation. Enough said. Give me some stats. Do not just state that. Who by? Women? Men? Nothing just a total generalisation.

I addressed the equal footing earlier in the post, if you have bothered to read it.

That should be all for now...

Wink


Prize money at all other events excluding Grand Slams

There are alot of events on both tours that are not ATP/WTA combined.
The average prize money at an International Series event is $380,000.
International Series Gold have a bit more, and Masters Series have around at least $2,000,000.

WTA Tier events usually have at least $600,000. Tier 1 have at least $1,000,000. Most lower tier events have between $100,000 and $300,000. Most combined events have equal prize money now.

So, on the tour, the ATP generally has more prize money for their individual events, but the combined events have been changed to equal amounts. Althoughm the fact that the ATP has more prize money is because of their individual sponsors etc...

At Grand Slams, 3 of the 4 events have equal prize money. Now, here is where your 5 sets point does come into this debate. The men may someties spend more time on court, but that does not completely mean they are putting any more effort or intensity into their game.

It is a general view (here, anyway) that men's tennis is better than women's tennis. The men get more coverage on the TV than the women, maybe even more media attention. I think that if the women were showed on Sky etc. more often, then more people would see the greatness on the women's side aswell. Same with doubles. Doubles isn't held in a very high position to most people, but alot of time produces better tennis. Women's tennis needs to be advertised more to the outer-tennis public if it is to become more popular. It would be better for the tournament aswell, creating even more interest. At the moment, I don't think the women are given as fair a chance because their matches aren't shown as much on TV. This generelisation is quite unfair.
stevos14

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Right I am back and am ready to get started with this debate again.

I will set out my response in two stages, firstly a response to the first article that PSALT posted and secondly a significantly shorter (for obvious reasons) response to BeachJM's "argument". I AM missing out PSALT's second article, it is a group of people who believe in equality between sexes and are opting to do something about it...end of, no further point is being explored in that article. Ok here we go...

THE ARTICLE:

It is set out in a series of counter-arguments, I hasten to add that this fact alone demonstrates that this writer cannot argue why Wimbledon SHOULD give equal pay but only dismiss the arguments of why the SHOULDN'T. Defensive straight away. I will set it out similar to him, label 1, 2 and so on in relations to his bullet points and the counter argument he adresses. It will be a counter of a counter-argument, if you like.

1.) The paying fans pay more to see men play tennis than they do to see women play tennis at Wimbledon. Thereby, an accurate conclusion can be made that they probably (as whole) enjoy, or at least WANT to see men play more than women. The idea about both tours being unpredictable is 100% correct, however, we are talking generally; what the paying public expect, and quite clearly, based on television rights AND ticket prices, the men are expected to attract more attention!
2.) "Shabby logic"? Ok then, let us apply his logic to another scenario. Hey, I am going to higher two construction workers: one is a woman and one is a man. The man, based on his superior physicality, is going to work 40% more hours (on average, this depends on how quick he gets his work done (notice the accurate analogy) ) than the woman. We will pay them equal because they are equal.

He goes on to suggest paying exactly 40% higher. So, hang on then, the issue is NOT the fact that men are being paid higher...it is merely the amount they are being paid higher. He blatantly contradicts himself and his argument falls apart. The 40% can never be 100% accurate and the prize money is probably based on revenue. Wooo. Who hires these SI writers?

3.) The men are better players, yet I agree, this doesn't play a part. However, they do spend more time on court unlike other sports! Golf, for example, could spend equal amount between the two sexes, as could football. Tennis, however, clearly forces the men to play more. The fact that he looks to some barely comparable sport to strengthen his argument shows his naivety in terms of tennis; tennis is an individual sport, do not compare it to basketball fool.

He really doesn't offer any other arguments. He says that tennis is one of the few sports that put women and men on equal footing, yes you are right, that is why men play best of 5 and women play best of 3. That is why women tennis cannot get on Sky Sports over here, but men's tennis can. That is why that, in England at least, most people are only into men's tennis; the real tennis fans are into both of course, however, all those on the bandwagon come Wimbledon talk only of the men's. It COMPLETELY overshadows the women's tennis over here. Of course, being American this SI writer would not know that. He seems to assume an awful lot. A clue would be nice.

BEACHJM:

Firstly, the other 3 slams do it, yes I believe they do. Yet, that great journalist did mention something about the "hommes at the French Federation"...PSALT, what is he referring to there? Now, this logic is shabby, as with nearly all of this post: "They all did that so so am I." Wow great individuality.

Next, it is the 21st Century and tournament directors need to get with the program. What program would that be? Women and men are equal? Ok, then, women...you are now playing best out of 5 sets. No? Ok then, no equal pay. Also, creating an argument based around the fact that it is the 21st Century means nothing...rubbish.

Next, women's tennis gets better or equal ratings. Generalisation. Enough said. Give me some stats. Do not just state that. Who by? Women? Men? Nothing just a total generalisation.

I addressed the equal footing earlier in the post, if you have bothered to read it.

That should be all for now...

Wink



It is not the paying publics fault that wimbledon charges more to see mens tennis. THe stadiums are usually full for both types. Im sure the public would pay the same amount, they dont decide how much it costs.

And just so you know in north america womens tennis IS as popular as mens tennis, as far as I know, it may not be that way in the UK but it is here. Maybe the UK is just a little behind Wink
Not_Even_Amateur

dav6789 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
Right I am back and am ready to get started with this debate again.

I will set out my response in two stages, firstly a response to the first article that PSALT posted and secondly a significantly shorter (for obvious reasons) response to BeachJM's "argument". I AM missing out PSALT's second article, it is a group of people who believe in equality between sexes and are opting to do something about it...end of, no further point is being explored in that article. Ok here we go...

THE ARTICLE:

It is set out in a series of counter-arguments, I hasten to add that this fact alone demonstrates that this writer cannot argue why Wimbledon SHOULD give equal pay but only dismiss the arguments of why the SHOULDN'T. Defensive straight away. I will set it out similar to him, label 1, 2 and so on in relations to his bullet points and the counter argument he adresses. It will be a counter of a counter-argument, if you like.

1.) The paying fans pay more to see men play tennis than they do to see women play tennis at Wimbledon. Thereby, an accurate conclusion can be made that they probably (as whole) enjoy, or at least WANT to see men play more than women. The idea about both tours being unpredictable is 100% correct, however, we are talking generally; what the paying public expect, and quite clearly, based on television rights AND ticket prices, the men are expected to attract more attention!

2.) "Shabby logic"? Ok then, let us apply his logic to another scenario. Hey, I am going to higher two construction workers: one is a woman and one is a man. The man, based on his superior physicality, is going to work 40% more hours (on average, this depends on how quick he gets his work done (notice the accurate analogy) ) than the woman. We will pay them equal because they are equal.

He goes on to suggest paying exactly 40% higher. So, hang on then, the issue is NOT the fact that men are being paid higher...it is merely the amount they are being paid higher. He blatantly contradicts himself and his argument falls apart. The 40% can never be 100% accurate and the prize money is probably based on revenue. Wooo. Who hires these SI writers?

3.) The men are better players, yet I agree, this doesn't play a part. However, they do spend more time on court unlike other sports! Golf, for example, could spend equal amount between the two sexes, as could football. Tennis, however, clearly forces the men to play more. The fact that he looks to some barely comparable sport to strengthen his argument shows his naivety in terms of tennis; tennis is an individual sport, do not compare it to basketball fool.

He really doesn't offer any other arguments. He says that tennis is one of the few sports that put women and men on equal footing, yes you are right, that is why men play best of 5 and women play best of 3. That is why women tennis cannot get on Sky Sports over here, but men's tennis can. That is why that, in England at least, most people are only into men's tennis; the real tennis fans are into both of course, however, all those on the bandwagon come Wimbledon talk only of the men's. It COMPLETELY overshadows the women's tennis over here. Of course, being American this SI writer would not know that. He seems to assume an awful lot. A clue would be nice.

BEACHJM:

Firstly, the other 3 slams do it, yes I believe they do. Yet, that great journalist did mention something about the "hommes at the French Federation"...PSALT, what is he referring to there? Now, this logic is shabby, as with nearly all of this post: "They all did that so so am I." Wow great individuality.

Next, it is the 21st Century and tournament directors need to get with the program. What program would that be? Women and men are equal? Ok, then, women...you are now playing best out of 5 sets. No? Ok then, no equal pay. Also, creating an argument based around the fact that it is the 21st Century means nothing...rubbish.

Next, women's tennis gets better or equal ratings. Generalisation. Enough said. Give me some stats. Do not just state that. Who by? Women? Men? Nothing just a total generalisation.

I addressed the equal footing earlier in the post, if you have bothered to read it.

That should be all for now...

Wink


Prize money at all other events excluding Grand Slams

There are alot of events on both tours that are not ATP/WTA combined.
The average prize money at an International Series event is $380,000.
International Series Gold have a bit more, and Masters Series have around at least $2,000,000.

WTA Tier events usually have at least $600,000. Tier 1 have at least $1,000,000. Most lower tier events have between $100,000 and $300,000. Most combined events have equal prize money now.

So, on the tour, the ATP generally has more prize money for their individual events, but the combined events have been changed to equal amounts. Althoughm the fact that the ATP has more prize money is because of their individual sponsors etc...

At Grand Slams, 3 of the 4 events have equal prize money. Now, here is where your 5 sets point does come into this debate. The men may someties spend more time on court, but that does not completely mean they are putting any more effort or intensity into their game.

It is a general view (here, anyway) that men's tennis is better than women's tennis. The men get more coverage on the TV than the women, maybe even more media attention. I think that if the women were showed on Sky etc. more often, then more people would see the greatness on the women's side aswell. Same with doubles. Doubles isn't held in a very high position to most people, but alot of time produces better tennis. Women's tennis needs to be advertised more to the outer-tennis public if it is to become more popular. It would be better for the tournament aswell, creating even more interest. At the moment, I don't think the women are given as fair a chance because their matches aren't shown as much on TV. This generelisation is quite unfair.


5 sets=more work=more pay. Simple logic.

If Sky thought that it would be worthwhile putting women's tennis on TV, they would dav. They only have men's for a reason; more people watch it, simple as that.

Stevos: do you still not see? Wimbledon directors sit down and discuss how much to charge for tickets. They want to make as much money as possible. They come to the conclusion that the public value men's tennis more and will therefore pay more to see it, this clear thinking pattern is demonstrated by the more expensive ticket prices. Get it now?

We may be behind, or perhaps we are more educated! It could go either way, I am glad you just spoke for a whole nation btw. At least I can prove my statement by backing it up with Sky TV. What have you got?
stevos14

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:

We may be behind, or perhaps we are more educated! It could go either way, I am glad you just spoke for a whole nation btw. At least I can prove my statement by backing it up with Sky TV. What have you got?


Okay, sure. On ESPN I've seen far more womens matches then mens. On sportscentre, they talk about women as much or more than men. In the news, on the television. THere you go. And you also spoke for your whole nation!? dont be so hypocritical.
Not_Even_Amateur

stevos14 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:

We may be behind, or perhaps we are more educated! It could go either way, I am glad you just spoke for a whole nation btw. At least I can prove my statement by backing it up with Sky TV. What have you got?


Okay, sure. On ESPN I've seen far more womens matches then mens. On sportscentre, they talk about women as much or more than men. In the news, on the television. THere you go. And you also spoke for your whole nation!? dont be so hypocritical.


Hahaha! How old are you stevos? Seriously...NAIVE PERSONIFIED.

"I've seen" "They talk about". You do not get it do you? I said THIS to PROVE my point:

Sky NEVER plays women's tennis, they do not get the rights for it. ONLY men's. Get it? This is PROOF, EVIDENCE. 100% to back up my point. You, once again being the naive guy that you are, are using what YOU have seen and only taking YOUR WORD.

You are really, really silly to try this stevos.

I didn't speak for my nation alone, dav6789 corrobarated all of the things I said. That is two of us. I have no doubt that the likes of PSALT will agree with you, but as of yet, they haven't. So, you are speaking for a nation on your own, I, on the other hand, have someone from the other side of the argument agreeing. Woohoo. Did someone say hypocritical? Naive, naive, naive.

Please, try better next time, you might actually get somewhere.
dav6789

I think that women's tennis should be put on Sky TV though, maybe as an experiment just to see if the popularity of women's tennis would increase. I don't think it is fair that the men have more coverage. Yes the may be more popular in general, but when was that last decided? Women's tennis changes all the time, it is different. Maybe if Sky TV or whoever would put on more women's tennis, then more people would take notice. Tennis is one of the few sports that women are noticed. Very few watch women's football. I think if women's tennis was put on TV more then more people would like women's tennis.
Not_Even_Amateur

dav6789 wrote:
I think that women's tennis should be put on Sky TV though, maybe as an experiment just to see if the popularity of women's tennis would increase. I don't think it is fair that the men have more coverage. Yes the may be more popular in general, but when was that last decided? Women's tennis changes all the time, it is different. Maybe if Sky TV or whoever would put on more women's tennis, then more people would take notice. Tennis is one of the few sports that women are noticed. Very few watch women's football. I think if women's tennis was put on TV more then more people would like women's tennis.


More people would watch women's tennis, for sure. Yet, Sky do not "hit and hope" as it were, if they want to put women's Tennis on TV they will have to pay for the broadcasting license and set up a certain amount of tournaments, it is NEVER short-term.

They do not put things on at random and hope people will like them more because they are there. They do "would you prefer this"/"would you watch this" type surveys. Continuous research. They decide that men's tennis fits the bill, not women's. This is no coincidence it is another factor of many that makes my argument all the more stronger.
PSALT

could the reason why SKY isn't showing womens tennis be because they don't have any good womens tennis players? I don't think the UK has a womens tennis player in the top 100. I'm sure if the UK had a Sharapova or a Clijsters they would be showing some womens matches.
Not_Even_Amateur

PSALT wrote:
could the reason why SKY isn't showing womens tennis be because they don't have any good womens tennis players? I don't think the UK has a womens tennis player in the top 100. I'm sure if the UK had a Sharapova or a Clijsters they would be showing some womens matches.


Many tournaments are shown that contain no British players on the men's side, they still show them. The British men rarely get far (we are talking Masters Series, here) but they are still broadcast. The fact that British men play is merely a plus, or at least it would seem that way.

While you COULD be right...I find it extremely hard to believe. Women's tennis is either popular or not, regardless of the state of it for a certain Country. Granted, a huge British player would raise the profile and such but I still highly doubt Sky would take on women's tennis, they have shown no sign of doing so far.
PSALT

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
PSALT wrote:
could the reason why SKY isn't showing womens tennis be because they don't have any good womens tennis players? I don't think the UK has a womens tennis player in the top 100. I'm sure if the UK had a Sharapova or a Clijsters they would be showing some womens matches.


Many tournaments are shown that contain no British players on the men's side, they still show them. The British men rarely get far (we are talking Masters Series, here) but they are still broadcast. The fact that British men play is merely a plus, or at least it would seem that way.

While you COULD be right...I find it extremely hard to believe. Women's tennis is either popular or not, regardless of the state of it for a certain Country. Granted, a huge British player would raise the profile and such but I still highly doubt Sky would take on women's tennis, they have shown no sign of doing so far.



it doesn't matter if any Brits are playing in a certain tournamant, there have been top British players that have helped popularize mens tennis in Britain. Henman's grand slam SF's (and almost Wimbledon F) had to have made people enjoy mens tennis. Look at Russia, I'm sure womens tennis is becoming popular there because they have at least one women threatening to win every slam. It has in the long run raised awareness of tournaments that Russians don't do well in (RG 2005, only one Russian made a deep run). The same has to hold true for Britain.

I disagree. Take the US for example, womens tennis is very popular among tennis fans here (and because of the Williams popular among non-tennis fans to an extent). I have a hard time believing it would have so many fans if the US didn't have Martina, or Monica, or Lindsay, or the Williams. If Britain had a top womens player that was making deep runs at slams people would want to see her. By watching her it would be very likely that at least some would start to enjoy womens tennis.
PSALT

oops, make that two Russians made deep runs at 05 RG. I forgot about Petrova....
Not_Even_Amateur

True, true. However, if there were women's tennis fans in Britain, the nationality of the players would really not matter. What you say has some bearing; but still it is hypothetical and you are generally guessing.

Facts are facts and women's tennis is not popular enough to get on Sky. Simple as that as of now.
PSALT

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
True, true. However, if there were women's tennis fans in Britain, the nationality of the players would really not matter. What you say has some bearing; but still it is hypothetical and you are generally guessing.

Facts are facts and women's tennis is not popular enough to get on Sky. Simple as that as of now.



fans can be made. when I was younger I hated men's grand slam matches. I got bored watching matches drag on for three hours over the course of 5 sets. Just because there are only a small number of fans now doesn't mean it will always be that way. Look at you and Dave, you both seem to like womens tennis.

I understand, I was just taking a guess as of why that is.
Not_Even_Amateur

PSALT wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
True, true. However, if there were women's tennis fans in Britain, the nationality of the players would really not matter. What you say has some bearing; but still it is hypothetical and you are generally guessing.

Facts are facts and women's tennis is not popular enough to get on Sky. Simple as that as of now.



fans can be made. when I was younger I hated men's grand slam matches. I got bored watching matches drag on for three hours over the course of 5 sets. Just because there are only a small number of fans now doesn't mean it will always be that way. Look at you and Dave, you both seem to like womens tennis.

I understand, I was just taking a guess as of why that is.


Very true. Yet, I feel we are getting sidetracked from the real issue (btw, I LOVE women's tennis, lol, quite contradictory...I know!).

The way we got onto this is to say that women's tennis is less popular and therefore is less sought after and therefore the prices are lower (in Britain).

Does the reason for this change THAT much? Not really. But yes, valid points...best discussion from the yes side so far!
dav6789

At the Kremlin Cup (Russia's biggest event), the women get $1,340,000, while the men get $975,000. So that could back up PSALT's point that the popularity changes in different countries. Russia has alot of great women and men players, but the women are clearly dominating the tour. Britain has 3 men players and no women players that make headlines all year round.
Not_Even_Amateur

HONESTLY, my point has OFFICIALLY just been proved. It really, really has. dav you just brought up another point that backs me up and contradicts everything you guys say. The women get paid more in Russia, why aren't you guys making a big deal of this?

Ok: In different Countries there is different popularity. Apparently women's is more popular in Russia, so they pay more for Kremlin Cup: fair enough, you guys seem to say.

Wimbledon pay more to men. Men are more popular in England. Wimbledon is in England. Therefore, this is also fair enough!

Just because in America they are equal does not mean you have to force this view on the rest of the world.

I thankyou dav for shedding this light! I would now say for every one point in favour of giving equal money to men and women I have at least four not in favour. And, for every argument you have, I have a counter-argument.

My points are also stronger, you agree with a lot of the things in principle (Kremlin Cup), yet still vote "yes". I don't understand this. Are you guys afraid to be politically incorrect? Or, does it simply come down to a matter of principle: you feel men and women are equal and it is IMMORAL to award men more prize money upon the basis that they are superior? I think it is more the latter than the former, and this is something I completely disregard and let the evidence do the talking.

Good job Wimbledon for sticking to your guns; don't become Americanized!

You can see my un-bias, btw, by noting I say this: Keep going Russia; pay women more money if it is more popular over there!

It all makes sense, my argument follows logic; yours does not. End of? It should be.
dav6789

I have made a small mistake...the WTA Kremlin Cup is a top tier 1 event, the ATP Kremlin Cup is an international series event (I missed this). That might have an effect on the prize money there. Wimbledon is a grand slam for both women and men.
Not_Even_Amateur

dav6789 wrote:
I have made a small mistake...the WTA Kremlin Cup is a top tier 1 event, the ATP Kremlin Cup is an international series event (I missed this). That might have an effect on the prize money there. Wimbledon is a grand slam for both women and men.


I thought that would be the case. But even so, I am not going to edit my post. It stands. I think this discussion is over...you guys have ran out.

Really, based on the points at hand: the votes should become Yes: 0 No:10
PSALT

what Dave said doesn't prove your point. The Kremlin Cup for women is a Tier I, while the mens is an International Series. The womens is supposed to get more money, it is a bigger tournament. If they were the same size and the women got more your point would have been proven. That is not the case, the discussion is not over.
x.doublea

I would have to agree....the only reason why the women receive equal money is because the tournament is bigger for the women than the men. That being said, this is the 21st century, and women are generally treated the same (although this is not the case in some countries or governments).
PSALT

X-Doublea, women actually get more money at the Kremlin Cup. not equal.....
x.doublea

Sorry, I meant more. I mean, the women should be receiving the same amount as the men do if both Kremlin tournaments are just as big.
stevos14

Not_Even_Amateur wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Not_Even_Amateur wrote:

We may be behind, or perhaps we are more educated! It could go either way, I am glad you just spoke for a whole nation btw. At least I can prove my statement by backing it up with Sky TV. What have you got?


Okay, sure. On ESPN I've seen far more womens matches then mens. On sportscentre, they talk about women as much or more than men. In the news, on the television. THere you go. And you also spoke for your whole nation!? dont be so hypocritical.


Hahaha! How old are you stevos? Seriously...NAIVE PERSONIFIED.

"I've seen" "They talk about". You do not get it do you? I said THIS to PROVE my point:

Sky NEVER plays women's tennis, they do not get the rights for it. ONLY men's. Get it? This is PROOF, EVIDENCE. 100% to back up my point. You, once again being the naive guy that you are, are using what YOU have seen and only taking YOUR WORD.

You are really, really silly to try this stevos.

I didn't speak for my nation alone, dav6789 corrobarated all of the things I said. That is two of us. I have no doubt that the likes of PSALT will agree with you, but as of yet, they haven't. So, you are speaking for a nation on your own, I, on the other hand, have someone from the other side of the argument agreeing. Woohoo. Did someone say hypocritical? Naive, naive, naive.

Please, try better next time, you might actually get somewhere.


Seriously, I dont know what your problem is but is this how you talk to people in real life? Your posts, mostly towards me and towards others I have seen, come across so condescending and arrogant. How do you complain saying new members are intimidated by the amount of personal posts, when you respond to someone like this? I still dont understand where your response is in this post. Its basically just insults towards me. And good for you, ONE other person agreed with you, from a nation of millions? And as other people have stated in this post, the womens tennis on TV in North America gets better ratings.
x.doublea

I guess we have conflicting ideas here. In NA, there are equal number of men's and women's matches shown. Not sure what is in Europe, but in Canada, that's the way it is.

As well, let's try not to get personal with each other. I don't want this forum to become a CP forum where there are virtually 'wars' going on. Like, come on...we're just discussing about prize money.
stevos14

x.doublea wrote:
I guess we have conflicting ideas here. In NA, there are equal number of men's and women's matches shown. Not sure what is in Europe, but in Canada, that's the way it is.

As well, let's try not to get personal with each other. I don't want this forum to become a CP forum where there are virtually 'wars' going on. Like, come on...we're just discussing about prize money.


I wasnt originally trying to be personal but he was the one who was basically insulting me, so I just thought he should know that it doesnt come across very well, especially because Im a pretty new member and I feel uncomfortable posting in this topic because I feel like I'm going to get thrashed.
Gators-Rox

I agree, there is no place for personal comments that are starting to show up in these posts. You can make your point without putting down others.
Not_Even_Amateur

"don't be so hypocritical"...stevos, you upped the ante so I responded by telling you you were naive. I will not have someone say that to me, simple as that. If you cannot handle it do not dish it out. Now go and cry somewhere else; I have no time for your pathetic little whining when you started the personal conversation.

PSALT...I know dav got it wrong, but like I said; the "no" points outweigh the "yes" points it is clear for all to see. Btw, it would seem the discussion is over, I say no more points coming from the yes "side".

stevos, btw, one agreeing with me is one more than you have. And I was only saying it because you said I spoke for my Country ON MY OWN and then called me hypocritical. You were so wrong.

If you are to get personal, prepare for people to be personal back. Yes, I do go on about the personal discussion (I meant inclusive discussion, as in it excludes others)...my posts at this forum have largely been substantial, can the same be said for you?
Gators-Rox

O.K. enough is enough. The prize money topic is starting to turn into personal attacks against one another and is it really worth it? I think not. N_E_A you are suppose to be a part of the council of this site. Do you really think with posts like the ones you have recently posted that this is helping the site in any way. You should be one of the people on this site that are trying to stop this type of thing not participating in it.
Not_Even_Amateur

Gators-Rox wrote:
O.K. enough is enough. The prize money topic is starting to turn into personal attacks against one another and is it really worth it? I think not. N_E_A you are suppose to be a part of the council of this site. Do you really think with posts like the ones you have recently posted that this is helping the site in any way. You should be one of the people on this site that are trying to stop this type of thing not participating in it.


Gators...you fail to see the bigger picture. This topic is BY FAR the best discussion EVER on this forum. When I say by far, I mean 100% better than any other topic. No doubt about it. In the last couple of pages, it has gotten personal...but can I remind you:

CP currently destroys in terms of discussions. These kind of "personal" attacks go on all the time, they are quickly forgotten about and WOULD NOT be overshadowing this discussion if it wasn't for you and stevos making such a big deal out of them.

Yes, I am a member of the council...and in my defense I have worked with Percy on a number of occasions, and in my humble opinion, have put the most effort to improve the discussion on this board. That is why I am on the council. This topic would have been another boring "yes, I agree" topic with the same conversation going round in circles if it wasn't for me...and gators I had THIS in mind when I chose to vote "no". I have constantly DELIBERATELY provoked response from you guys to better this discussion. This topic is the EXACT kind of conversation this forum needs, this is a really good topic and is typical of something over at CP.

Gators, you make quick-snappy judgements about me, yet you fail to see that everything I have said in this topic is for the good of the forum. If it wasn't for me this topic would be boring...simple as that. A difference of opinion is what makes a forum so interesting.

Every decision I have made, including the "personal attacks" was aimed at making this forum have better discussion, and in my opinion this topic is a huge success.

You judge my methods without knowing why I am doing this...you have let yourself down, very presumptuous! I am always working to make this forum better and this topic, for me, is a stepping stone...a HUGE STEPPING STONE. Really good discussion, I would like to thank:

dav
PSALT
x.doublea
stevos to a lesser extent

for their great contribution on this topic. I would also like to thank you gators, you made this topic good. But your last post is out of order; everything I have said in this topic is DELIBERATE and is designed to make better discussion...it has clearly done so! Think about it.
x.doublea

Wow...some scheme you had up your sleeves! I see your point about this now...come to think about it, this has been a very interesting conversation.
Gators-Rox

I agree that your comments on the topic of Why Men should recieve higher pay has been good discussion even though I disagree with some of your statements it does however make for good discussion. What I am talking about is the personal attacks that is not what good discussions are all about in my opinion.
x.doublea

True. I guess we should be able to have good discussions without 'personal' attacks.
Not_Even_Amateur

Agreed...but it would also be good to remember they mirror CP and they have a significantly better discussion than us as of now. But, point taken.
stevos14

NEA, I have never questioned wether your posts have been substantial. I even told xdoublea I thought you were very important to this forum and I respect your opinions often, however I felt I was getting attacked and got defensive. Did not mean to overreact, but I dont really think when I do Very Happy Anyway I'm glad the personal comments can stop now and we can go back to discussing this topic. And its true if you hadnt said no this topic would have been boring. However, now that you have said that, do you really think they deserve inequal prize money, or were you just saying that to start good conversation? Just curious Smile
Not_Even_Amateur

stevos14 wrote:
NEA, I have never questioned wether your posts have been substantial. I even told xdoublea I thought you were very important to this forum and I respect your opinions often, however I felt I was getting attacked and got defensive. Did not mean to overreact, but I dont really think when I do Very Happy Anyway I'm glad the personal comments can stop now and we can go back to discussing this topic. And its true if you hadnt said no this topic would have been boring. However, now that you have said that, do you really think they deserve inequal prize money, or were you just saying that to start good conversation? Just curious Smile


Good, good.

But, yes the things I said I do actually believe (mostly). Although, I would never have projected them so strongly had I not been trying to make good discussion! It is not an issue I feel strongly on, which may seem surprising!
J-man

i have to admit good duscussion.
leftys_rock

it made for great reading! thanks to everybody who participated in this especially NEA for being the the sole "no" and creating a good discussion....NEA do you take debate? you are INCREDIBLE at arguing your side of issues.......
Not_Even_Amateur

leftys_rock wrote:
it made for great reading! thanks to everybody who participated in this especially NEA for being the the sole "no" and creating a good discussion....NEA do you take debate? you are INCREDIBLE at arguing your side of issues.......


No, I don't. I have always been good at debating...I have literally no idea why. God-given "gift", I suppose...using the term ever so loosely.
x.doublea

I know that you (rightfully) discourage the discussion on politics on a tennis forum, but I think you would make a great politician. (Seriously)
leftys_rock

thats a great point! you should be like one of those people on meet the press on sunday mornings.... Laughing ....sorry if that was the last thing you wanted to be compared to........
x.doublea

Sorry, but are you talking to me or N_E_A?
leftys_rock

NEA, sorry forgot to specify... Embarassed
x.doublea

I think any politician would want N_E_A on their side...he's so good at defending their arguments and platforms....

Now, back on topic. Embarassed
Galina

I think in this day and age women should be looked as equal to men in all fields. For example in the workplace: women of today are just as educated, but still have to fight for equal pay for the same job a man applies for with the same education. In reply to some of the earlier posts about the women only playing 2 out of 3 sets and the men playing 3 out of 5 sets. In my opinion it is the quality of the match not the quanity. Also in response to the paying public paying more to see a mens match then a womens match because that is what they prefer. The paying customer is going to pay whatever the ticket price is because people of this world love to be entertained. It doesn't matter if it's men,women,horses,bulls, etc...
The territory does have somewhat to do with the ticket prices for different venues and maybe this is why Wimbledon continues to have inflated prices because this is what interested the English, but it is definetly not worldwide and not in Russia.
x.doublea

Yes...the only reason why men play five sets is because it would be too difficult for the female body to withstand that much playing time. Some of the female matches are just as good as the men's matches.
J-man

Galina wrote:
I think in this day and age women should be looked as equal to men in all fields. For example in the workplace: women of today are just as educated, but still have to fight for equal pay for the same job a man applies for with the same education. In reply to some of the earlier posts about the women only playing 2 out of 3 sets and the men playing 3 out of 5 sets. In my opinion it is the quality of the match not the quanity. Also in response to the paying public paying more to see a mens match then a womens match because that is what they prefer. The paying customer is going to pay whatever the ticket price is because people of this world love to be entertained. It doesn't matter if it's men,women,horses,bulls, etc...
The territory does have somewhat to do with the ticket prices for different venues and maybe this is why Wimbledon continues to have inflated prices because this is what interested the English, but it is definetly not worldwide and not in Russia.
nice post. i like the bit about qulaity not quantity.
Not_Even_Amateur

I don't think I need to respond directly to that post...if you read the previous 6 pages all of your points are answered.

       Percy896's Tennis Forum Forum Index -> General Tennis and Player Polls Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
This is a growing tennis discussion forum to discuss all aspects of professional tennis, ATP and WTA players, tournaments, results, equipment, or anything personal about tennis you wish to discuss. With polls to answer and create, topics and threads to reply and respond to, and even a new Fantasy Tennis League, you will never run out of things to do and talk about! So come join Percy's Tennis Forum and enjoy! If you want to search for this site on Google, you can try keywords such as: tennis forum, tennis forums, tennis polls, percy896, percy's tennis, fantasy tennis, fantasy tennis league, tennis discussion, tennis talk, discuss tennis, tennis discussion board, tennis message boards, tennis, myfreeforum, or others you wish to try.

Visit Top10Links to see if we're ranked!