YES... Yes because it is the same sport. What makes tennis different for men then it does for women? It is the exact same sport played with the exact same rules, and both men and women should get the exact same prizes and pay. There is no rationale that makes sense to say no to this, but people are discriminatory so that is why most people have voted no.
No... Longer games, higher quality, more public interest Men's matches go for longer for starters, since they're best of five rather than best of three. They also generate more money since they have a much bigger following. They hit the ball harder and matches are of a higher quality. If women want to get paid the same it should be a single tournament where they play the men.
YES... Both men and women are competing in equal events,they should receive equal pay. When both men and women are competing in the same tournament it is unfair that men or women should make more than each other. They both play equal numbers of games in the same environment, what makes one more difficult to require more money?
No... more people watch the mens tennis, more people = more money. Women and men play in different competitions and the men are better at tennis. They are at a higher level of skill which means they deserve more prize money. If they women want equal prize money, women should compete in the same competition as men! also, attendance at male mathces is higher which means more money is generated...
YES... I believe sports competitions such as Wimbledon should offer the same prize money amounts for men and women, because there is no reason not to. I can find no reason why the prize money amounts would be different in men's or women's sports. A placement is a placement, so if first place is worth $200,000, then both genders should get the same. By saying that one gender is worth more than the other, you are trivializing the sport, and the effort all contenders put into the competition.
No... Obvious answer The answer is simple and obvious. If men and women play the same game, then the prize money should be the same. But they don't! Men play the best of 5 sets; women play the best of 3 sets. That alone defines an obvious difference. It's not the same game when it's not the same effort. If it were equal, then they should play each other as well, in theory. But they can't and won't because there is no equally of strength, skill, and (apparently) stamina. Play 5 sets each, or 3 sets each, and the prize money can be equal. Otherwise, less pay for less effort. "Bully" Jean King was the force behind this crazy concept of "equality for women" in tennis. Where is the equality in an unequal effort?
YES... They show leadership and a huge inspiration Girls work just as hard as guys do and are very committed. Girls never get credit for all the things they do. Some of the worlds best athletes are girls. They deserve to get noticed. Its sexist to think that guys should get paid more. Even if they are injured they get paid more while us girls are working out everything we can.
No... Ridiculous If women want to win the same amount of prize money that men make, they can compete against men for that prize money. Since women really cannot compete against men and play at a much lower level of competition, they get a lower amount of prize money. That is what fair actually is.
YES... They both won Wimbledon! If you are a woman and you win Wimbledon you are still the best that you can possibly be in your category the same as men. They give the men's 100m sprint a gold medal and women get the same prize, why shouldn't this be the same for other sporting events?
No... Wimbledon and other sports competitions should not offer equal prize money for men and women, because the level of competition is different. Wimbledon and other sports competitions should not offer equal prize money for men and women, because they have a men's division and a women's division. The level of competition is different. The best resolution would be to eliminate the divisions, and have everyone play equally for the same prize. Billie Jean King dispelled the myth that men are better athletes long ago.
YES... Yes, because people should be fairly compensated, without regard to their gender. Men and women obviously have different strengths. But in any athletic competition, the rewards should be equal. On the other hand, if the sport has sponsors that determine the salaries or rewards, it would depend on the popularity of the sport, and how much the sponsors are willing to commit to.
No... Sports competitions should not be required to offer equal prize money to both men and women, as the sponsorship revenues are not equal for the two genders. Sporting events, such as Wimbledon, should not be required to offer equal prize money for men and women, as these prizes are generally tied to the ad revenue that the events are able to attract. This, in turn, is affected by the overall excitement and popularity of the event in question. Because members of the public feel that men's events are more exciting to watch than women's events, men should reap the monetary rewards of this preference.
YES... Sports competitions should have equal prizes for men and women, because there is no reason to not have them be equal. There is absolutely no reason or defensible rationale for paying the winner of a sports competition a different amount, based solely on their gender. The prize money should be equal to the winner of a tournament, regardless of their sex, since both participants have both won the exact same competition.
No... Sports competitions are private businesses and should not be regulated for gender equality. Amateur and educational-based sports, such as the NCAA, are fair game for Washington to regulate and say that women's sports get as many dollars as men's sports. Professional sports should be left alone, though. They are businesses and only make money if there is a large enough market. If Wimbledon were forced to give men prize money equal to the women, it would actually be reverse discrimination against the men.
YES... Just as Good Women's tennis is just as exciting to watch as the men's tennis. It is learned prejudices and historical precedent that prevents women from being paid the same as men in sport and workplaces. The arguments about men playing more sets is just plain sexist. We watch the spectacle, not the length of the match... Think of test cricket which is fading in popularity to the quicker and more exciting 20/20!
No... It is alright for men's and women's prizes to be different in sports, as men's competitions generally generate far more attention and revenue than women's competitions. It is a simple fact that men's sports competitions tend to draw much more interest, attendance, and revenue than women's sports competitions. It is, therefore, fair if a men's prize is more than a women's, since the prize is generated from revenues. To do otherwise would actually be unfair, as the men would actually be subsidizing the women.
YES... All sports competitions should offer equal prize money for men and women to help the world continue moving forward in making men and women equal. Women have been trying to become equal to men for many years. When men and women accomplish the same tasks, they should be awarded the same amount. Women's sports are just as exciting and competitive as men's sports, so there is no reason that they should not receive an equal prize.
No... They should offer whatever prize money they want to offer because they are private enterprises. There is no reason why the public should force a private enterprise like a sporting tournament to offer equal prize money for men and women. The main draw in these sporting tournaments that have both men's and women's competitions is always the men's competitions; that is why they receive a greater share of the prize money. Besides, the amount of the prize money for the women is definitely large enough that no one should be complaining on either side.
Please follow the instructions at the top of this article.
Well, in my opinion, I would agree if tennis players are given the same prizes when they are winning in sports competition such as Wimbledon, either men or women. As you know, they have the same dignity. We are living in a modern generation, nor yet in the colonial era, so about dignity or odor is not relevant again to discuss. Even though they are playing for the different sets, which is women play for 3 sets, and men play for 5 sets, It just about a tradition that women have never played five sets in significant tournaments. Moreover, the strength between women and men totally different.
ReplyDelete“Women have between 70% and 75% of the lower body strength that men do. It’s because men have the greater number of muscle fibers. Thus, men are more advantage in terms of generating power quickly.” (cathe.com) Ergo, based on that fact, women best of 3 sets = men best of 5 sets because of their different capabilities. Last, I said that giving the same prizes to both men and women in tennis competition is a compulsive based on that argument.
First of all, lets put aside the feminist and sexist ways of thinking. I prefer to vote ‘No’ the Wimbledon shouldn’t offer the same prize to the winner of the competition because it is business. Sports are businesses. And the Wimbledon is a private company that holds a sport competition, which I believe shouldn’t apply for gender equality. They make more money when there are more interests in the market. On the other hand males and females games are totally different businesswise. The attendance are in higher numbers in males games, they result more advertisements and sponsors in males’ pool, and the males games in average are longer which provide more time on the TV and broadcasting medias which create more money. Both males and females games are competitive but at least for now people still tend to prefer watching men playing tennis. I don’t mean to discriminate but it is the fact, the level of competition is more intense in males games. So why should these private sports companies pay equal prize for both men and women winners when the market and profits are clearly stronger in males pool. The Wimbledon make more money in the men’s competition as of today. So I believe they shouldn’t offer equal prize to both men and women. Yes, we should credit women athletes for putting in strong efforts and some might work harder than some men athletes, but as people who does business, we need to think of a way that gives more profit. And as of now, we can’t align males and females games at the same height. If they want to give equal prize, then put both men and women on the same pool competing against each other. However since it is physically unfair, that’s why we make different pools. When the day comes where market values are equal for both men and women competition, then we can agree upon the argument. But in today’s business, we do know why there are different prizes for men and women athletes.
ReplyDeleteThere are some points that I have to agree according to the comment written by Paul. Sports competitions are and have always been aimed as the perfect platform to do business. Any brands, mostly related to sports, can promote their business by working together with athletes, sport competitions, and other sport activities. It is also about the revenue they could get by having more spectacles watching the game. Paul has described that people tend to be more interested in watching the tennis game played by men rather by the women. The result of this situation is that there is more money coming from the game of the men and. Therefore, when it comes to paying the players, the men get more. In my opinion, I view this as a fair thing since the women players are also paid with the amount of money based on the number of spectacle coming to watch. It is also a fair thing since no one can really control the number of the mass on each game. Nobody can control people’s personal desire too. In addition, there are rules that differentiate men and women based on their physical ability. This rule wasn’t aiming to lower the women but to actually be fair regarding to the women physical strength compared to the men. Besides, equal does not mean that everything has to be equivalent. Equal means fair and there are a lot of perspective to actualize that fairness.
DeleteIn my opinion, I would disagree if Wimbledon offers equal prize money to the men and women tennis players. It’s not about the gender quality, there are more important factors that make male tennis player have the bigger prize money than woman tennis player. First, women play fewer sets than man. Man have to play up to 5 sets to win and woman only play 3 sets to win the game. Although men have more capacity then woman, clearly men will more fatigue than the woman. Second, more people watch the men tennis and for the business industry more people means more money, this will affect the number of prize players get. The last factor why men tennis players get bigger prize money is they show higher quality and a more intense game that make the game more interesting. The audience is willing to buy an expensive ticket to see an interesting game, the sponsor also seeks a competition that has a massive watch time.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I will say “No”, I would disagree if women gets the same prize as women in Wimbledon. Not that I am being a feminist or something, I want to explain it with fair grounds. Wimbledon is a business based on ratings and viewers, and generally men attracts more viewers because of they have more powerful strike and their more attractive game. Men play a game that consists of 5 sets and women only play 3 sets. 5 sets means that you will have longer matches to watch and more advertisement money to earn for the promoter. Even though men athletes is paid more than women, it doesn’t mean that I discredit women athletes. They showed a very great effort and exciting game too, but typically men athletes have more viewers. If they want to have the same prizes, I think that they should play in the same pool, but that’s not fair because of men physical advantage. That’s why Wimbledon put them in different pool and give them different prize, because one could not outmatch the other. When both of them have the same number of spectators and sponsors thus making the income for Wimbledon equal, we must agree that the prize money should be the same. But, until the day come, the prize difference is solely based on the income of the promoters.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Wimbledon should pay the same prize to men and women tennis players. My opinion is base on some agreements in the passage that is because both are the same sports. Both also have an amazing sports player like Serena Williams and Rafael Nadal. If Wimbledon don’t pay the same price, it will cause a lot of tennis player to refuse the competition in the future. We can’t differentiate men and women nowadays, it is because now everyone of us are equal and not to be differentiate by gender. The impact if Wimbledon decrease the prize of the women tennis player is that, there will be a decreasing number in women professional tennis player in the future. It is a big mistake if we pay the women less just because they don’t have a strong power like men. I don’t agree that the level of competition of men and women is different. It is the way how they play of course we cannot expect women have the same power like men have.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I would agree if sports competitions should have equal prizes for men and women, because there is no reason to not have them be equal. Both men and women play the same game on the same field, and I do think both will give their best shot and give their best effort to win the game. And stated in other argument which is sports competitions such as Wimbledon should offer the same prize money amounts for men and women, because there is no reason to. I get that people tend to watch men’s game more rather that women’s, but I do think that’s not a reason to differentiate men and women prize money amount. Not to forget, men and women are equal and have the same rights. The men and women are competing in equal events, they should receive equal pay. I don’t agree if people think women must be paid less that men because they have play shorter game and their power is not as strong as men’s power, but as I said before both must put out their best to win. After all, I agree that men and women should have equal prizes in sports competitions.
ReplyDeleteDiving in to this article, I found out that the problem itself is quite simple yet it is complicated to solve. Like every other discussion related to sexism it is always been about which one is more important, Quality or Effort. Quality is one of the most important things in terms of gaining profit and also maintaining the loyalty of the consumer or the audience. in this case making the idea of different prizemoney in a competition seemed acceptable. Effort can not be easly brushed off aswell. Women may not produce the same quality of matches, but they have the same amount of effort making them work as hard or even harder than men therefore it is not acceptable for them to gain less than what the men players make. Personally I believed that Wimbledon shouldn’t offer equal prize money for men and women because at the end of the day what people/audience can see isn’t how much effort given to the matches but the quality of matches displayed
ReplyDeleteI agree with this idea. What's crossed over my mind when the first time i read this article is gender equality. I think yes, we should equal the prize for both sexes. We're not in the old days where male was more respected than women. In the old days men had some kind of previlage that made mens level was higher than women. For example, in Indonesia, women couldn't have education. That was happened when there was still colonialism in Indonesia. But, in fact, men and women, both are humans. We can't just discriminate women like that. In this case, men and women, both are doing hard work to reach the target, which is be the number one champion in Wimbledon. Both compete against their opponent to be the number one. This is kne of the implementation of the theory of gender equality. Gender equality is already developed in this modern era. So, i think if the organizer of the wimbledon competition doesn't equal the prize money, it is a proof that the gender equality doesn't really work well like what people think.
ReplyDeleteThe three strongest YES arguments for this case are as follows: 1) It is the same sport with the exact same rules therefore men and women should get equal prizes. 2) It shows leadership and a huge inspiration for all the other girls out there. 3) Help the world continue moving forward in making men and women equal.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the three strongest NO arguments for this case are 1) The level of competition is different. 2) More people watched men’s tennis meaning the tennis industry generates more revenue from men tennis players. 3) Sports competitions are private businesses and should not be regulated for gender equality.
Overall, I believe Wimbledon should offer equal prize money for men and women tennis player because this difference highlights the fact that in the world we live in today, there are still so many people out there who are sexist and this emphasize the lack of gender equality in this era. By giving an equal prize for men and women tennis player, Wimbledon will be making a huge contribution in gender equality and this will surely improve their brand image.
We are still living in an era where gender equality isn’t talked about enough. It is now the 21st century but somehow there are still a lot of people out there who don’t want to bring equality towards both genders or even talk about it. When you offer the same prize to both women and men, you are bringing light to women athletes. You are giving them hope and equality which they clearly deserve after everything they've been through.
ReplyDeleteThe article has stated, “They show leadership and a huge inspiration Girls work just as hard as guys do and are very committed. Girls never get credit for all the things they do. Some of the world’s best athletes are girls. They deserve to get noticed. Its sexist to think that guys should get paid more.” I agree a hundred percent with this statement. It is sexist to think women don’t deserve as much credit as guys do. Because both genders deserve credits.
“All sports competitions should offer equal prize money for men and women to help the world continue moving forward in making men and women equal. Women have been trying to become equal to men for many years.“ Like what I have previously stated, gender equality isn’t talked about enough, women have struggled for years trying to gain equality since there has been a lot of discrimination towards women ever since the very beginning.
The last statement that really stood up to me was “I believe sports competitions such as Wimbledon should offer the same prize money amounts for men and women, because there is no reason not to.” Exactly. There is no reason not to. If you have the power to change something for the better, why shouldn’t you?
M Hassya S- Thursday Class
ReplyDeleteUpon my examination of the article above, I have come to the decision to say that equal prizes should not be awarded between men and women in Wimbledon tennis. I am able to support this statement with the fact that both gender play a different amount of sets. To clarify this debate, it is logical to say that the more sets you play, the more effort you will need to give. And in that sense it only makes sense that you give reward according to the effort that was given. So as if to apply the reason of emancipation it really is unfair. In my point of view if we would want to make the prize even, then the amount of sets women play should be elevated to 5 sets. This has to be take into account that both events whether men or women, make the same amount of money from sponsors, ticketing and other sources of income.
We are born as humans and we are all the same. We need to change our mindsets that female and male should be treated equal in status and value. But I do not agree about the equalization of how much a tennis athlete earn because of gender. In my opinion, we should equalize the earnings of tennis players if there is a controversy of discrimination in that sport. In this context, the earnings of a tennis player are calculated from how much they attract viewers so see his game. For example, a tennis player could have different earnings in their sponsorship. From one tennis player to another might receive different earnings because they attract people in different ways. It is a fact that people prefer men’s tennis game rather than women’s tennis game. I reflect it to myself that I also prefer men’s tennis games. I don’t think that it is good to equalize men and women’s earning in the competition of tennis.
ReplyDeleteWell if its regarding to morale and gender equality I would answer definitely yes, there should be no difference in terms of prize, since it would be a shame if we appreciate less of our athlete only because of gender factor. Yet, after reading more about the issue I understand that the price for the male tennis branch offers more price due to its popularity. And you guessed it people, more popularity equals to more sponsors and more money. So if we look it from an economical point of view, it would be reasonable to offer more reward for the more popular branch of a competition, not because of they are sexist but because they do have the resource to do that. But the paradigm is the more popular branch will only become more interesting due to the incentive, and more interesting means more popular. I very much appreciate all the female athletes who still work very hard to achieve give their fans their best performance despite of the equality.
ReplyDeleteYes, all sports competitions should offer equal amount of prize for both men and women to help the world continue moving forward in making men and women equal. Yes, because women's tennis is just as exciting to watch as men's tennis. Yes, because theres no reason not to. But I agree to this statement if both men and women play within the same amount of time and sets. I don't know much about Wimbledon or any other sports competitions to be honest but since we are know talking about the Wimbledon, I don't agree with this idea. No, since women only play 3 sets, they dont offer the same efforts as men who, on the other hand, play 5 sets. No, because in Wimbledon, men and women play at a different stage of level. No, because this is the best condition for everyone, I believe this is what it's called justice for both men and women. Again I would like to say that I do agree with this idea if both men and women play in the same amount of sets, so they make the same amount of effort.
ReplyDeletePersonally, i do not agree that women should be paid the same amount of prizes as much as men. First reason is that men’s tennis requires more athleticism than women’ tennis so that means that man’s tennis is at a higher of competitions than women’s. I didn’t mean to disrespect women, because i support feminism as well, but the fact is men’s tennis attracts more viewers than women’s , which interns means that men’s tennis generates more money and revenue towards the tennis industry which would make more sense if the men receives a higher pay than women athletes. I watched tennis before on television and to be honest i am more interested to watch men’s tennis than women’s, because athletes such as Andy Murray, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and others plays in a level which is very entertaining and more interesting than the women’s. But i also have a lot of respect toward women’s tennis as well because i believe they also play in a high level, occasionaly there are some interesting match between women’s athlete, especially when the top players are playing. But at the end i respect people’s opinion about this topic.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read this article, I personally think that Wimbledon should pay women the same amount of prizes as men. The reason women play less sets is not because they want to but because that is all they could do. So the effort is equal eventhough there is a difference in quantity. I don't see any reason to pay women less. I do realize though from the article above that maybe some people prefer to watch the men competition over women but that does not mean that women should be paid less.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is a comment that said "They give the men's 100m sprint a gold medal and women get the same prize, why shouldn't this be the same for other sporting events?" which makes me even more sure about giving the same amount of prizes to women. This is all just my personal thought so feel free to disagree. Thank you.
There are a few strong arguments on each side of the topic in which possesses a certain amount of faulty. Those who support equal prize money for each gender tend to argue vaguely, and not to mention emotionally, about the likeness of the sport, sexism, and male chauvinism. The contrasting side however, tend to argue factually about the different levels of competition and their also the level of interest they attract. In my opinion, equality of payment within sports is a vaguely argued topic in which many aspects are often underestimated. Realistically, women will never be able to compete like men as they are physically unable to, which is why they are divided into two categories. Thus, arguing that women should play against men if they want equal payment is ignorant in nature. On the other hand, arguing that women should receive the same amount of money as men just because it is sexist and unequal is downright oblivious. We have to understand that athletes get paid for doing the sport at a fixed price for the amount of money (mainly from the audience) they can gather. Furthermore, sponsorship and bonus plays a role when these athletes win a medal. So arguing about equality in terms of athlete payment can’t be one sided, but a lot of factors actually play in determining the current condition that they are in now. It is fairly hard to stay in one side, but in my opinion men and women athletes should be paid in accordance to their abilities.
ReplyDeleteI would vote no because of the quality of the men’s game. The tension and the suspense of the rally are the factors that draws audience to cheer on. More visitors watching gives more income to the venue, which yields the larger portion of the prize pool. The distinguishable difference between the two is how the game is played and how many sets are played. this does not mean that women are inadequate when compared to men, but rather giving proof that men played harder and longer. The fact that men competed a lengthier game shows that the spectators can enjoy a more extensive play. A longer screenplay gives more time for advertisements to be squeezed in between the breaks, as there are more on the men’s match, which adds compensation to be accumulated then on the pool. Overall, these evidences grant arguments that both genders should have differentiated, unequal pay.
ReplyDeleteLets talk about this based on the difference between the men and the women game , actually the games its not much different from one another as the difference is only the way how the men and women play the game actually. Most of the people might think that men tennis more attractive to see rather than women, because it is seen more powerful and competitive. But actually I think that women’ s tennis is more attractive as it can be technical or also powerful, so the athlete can be technical or more powerful in playing the game. For example Serena Williams seen as a powerful tennis player as Maria Sharapova more to the technical side, so in fact there are more twists in the women’ s game rather than the men’ s tennis as it focuses more on powerful game, explosive type of tennis game, that is for me is too monotone compared to the women’ s tennis game. So I think the prize should be equal between men an women, despite the gender equality which is apparent nowadays. The game have their own characteristics for both men and women tennis.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's as simple as that. The Wimbledon or sport associations in general are still a business and as businesses should always do is look for the most profit that they can get. If Serena Williams brings in as much money as say Novak Djokovic then, yes their payment should be equal but as it stands the men's play in sets of 5 while the women's only play in sets of 3. I'm not saying you should make the stakes equal as it would have devastating consequences for both sides that'll change the game's overall rules, either women will be more exhausted after a match or men will dominate the court. John McEnroe, one of the former greatest tennis player in history, ranked Serena Williams as number one in the women's league but said if men were in on the equation then she would be ranked in the low 700th. So my opinion on this matter is neither options, as there is still much to consider in this topic.
ReplyDeleteI will choose to disagree with the statement that men and women should get the same prize for the Wimbledon competition. The first reason for me to diagree is because they don’t play the same and don’t give the same effort to the game they play. Men plays five match whether women only plays 3. Well it’s not that women asks to play only 3 match, but it’s already set and adjusted for the women. Men give more energy and effort since they play 5 match rather than 3 match. The second reason is that because Wimbledon is an independent business that attracts viewers and attention. And we cannot resist that Men do get more viewers and attention than women. So it’s fair for men to get more than women itself. We don’t talk about sexist or something similar here, but we talk about the fairness of the tennis business industry.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, men and women should not given the equal prize at the tournament because based on the game itself men play for 5 sets and women play for 3 sets, because men have more stamina than women. That actually defined the amount of the hardwork, training, the athletes worked for, beside that, the prize amount of the tournament were based on sponsorship, ticket, and pay per view, and people tend to like men games rather than women, because people think that men’s games more exciting, intense, and fun, and well known profesional top tenis athletes most of them were men, so in this case men’s games attracted more people and sponsorship than women’s games, it means the tournament gets higher profit that affected the prize pool on men games than women games. So for me there is many factor why men and women should not given the equal prize at the tournament
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic when you mentioned the title in class. In my opinion, I disagree if the Wimbledon give different prize to the men’s winner and the women’s winner of the match. But this can be considered as gender inequality. However, if we take a look on which match that attracts more audiences, which is the men’s match, then I agree if the Wimbledon give more money to the men’s match winner. More audience means receiving more money, and also the men play more sets, which means the men play the match longer and give more effort for the game. This should be appreciated for their bigger effort for the men’s match, and I think to apricate them is by giving them more prize for the winner. More sets mean there are more people who help and take care of the athlete before, during and after the match, and the athlete should pay them. That is why it is fine if the Wimbledon offer more prize for the men tennis players.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I agree that Wimbledon should offer an equal price pool for both men and women tennis players. I am convinced by three arguments from the article. First, it is because both athletes are playing the same sports with the same effort. Although we are aware a counter-argument for this can be that men struggle more, we can say that women are experiencing the same thing. The struggles of an athlete cannot be determined by the gender, because the capabilities of men and women differ. Wimbledon should implement gender equality for that. The second statement would be " By having different price pool shows plain sexist act". Over time, we should erase that mindset of sexism. This would be a negative effect towards our future generation if we keep on having a sexist mindset. The last statement that I agree on is "All sports competitions should offer equal prize money for men and women to help the world continue moving forward in making men and women equal. When men and women accomplish the same tasks, they should be awarded the same amount. " This way of thinking needs to be implemented to all human beings because this can change our future.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, lets set aside all negative thinking such as sexism and radical feminism because this is 2018. My main arguments against Wimbledon offering equal prize money for men and women tennis players are: more people watch the mens tennis compared to the womens tennis, sport competitions shouldn’t be obligated to offer equal prize money to both men and women since the sponsorship revenues aren’t equal for the two genders and unless men and woman play the same game, against each other, then the prize money should be the same. People need to understand that sport competitions are a business at the end of the day. There are more audience for the mens game in comparison to the womens game which means these competitions generate more money from the mens game. The prize pool comes from all the audience ticket sales, sponsors and food & beverage sales which is then used to allocate the prize money for the winners. The reason why male tennis players earn more than female tennis players is equivalent to why female models earn more than male models (female models earn up to 148% more on average). It all comes down to the audience, whether the majority is dominated by male or female. http://fortune.com/2015/07/15/male-models-pay/
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, my main arguments for Wimbledon offering equal prize money for men and women tennis players are; it is the same sport which means there’s no difference for men and women, both are winners of the same title and all competitions should offer equal prize money to both men and women to help the world continue moving forward in making men and women equal. For many years, women have been working hard to earn equal rights and opportunities as men. Being able to win the Wimbledon is a huge achievement which earns both the men and women lots of recognition and SHOULD earn them both the same amount of reward.
In my opinion, the issue here is about gender equality. Objectively speaking, there are various points of view about the debate and it is not certain yet which is true and which is not. The first out of the three arguments that really stood out to me that suggested that women’s tennis should get equal rewards with men’s tennis were the arguments that said men and women are competing in the same sport, therefore have the right to equal pay. Another argument is that the players should be compensated without regard to their gender. The last argument suggested that a women’s tennis match is just as exciting as a men’s tennis match. However, there were also arguments refuting the idea that were fairly convincing. The first idea argued that more people watch men’s tennis matches and those matches, in term, make more money. Another idea is that men and women don’t play at the same competition level, hence they don’t deserve to have equal prizes. Finally, the last argument states that women play shorter games, hence telling us that women don’t give as much effort compared to male athletes. In my personal opinion, I don’t think that women deserve to get equal prizes as men. This is solely based on economic and regulatory conditions, since they don’t play as much sets as male athletes. Although women do deserve the right to gender equality, they really do play less games, so it would be unfair to the male athletes if they get the same prizes.
ReplyDeleteI choose to disagree with the statement that Wimbledon should offer equal prize money for men and women tennis players. The reason is because knowing that Wimbledon, like any other sporting events, earn its revenue through sponsorships and advertisements, equalizing the prize money for both men and women tennis players would create less room for Wimbledon to earn profit as no matter how low the revenue it earns from its women championship tournaments compared to its men counterparts, Wimbledon would be forced to always allocate a fixed value from its total gross revenue to the prize money for its women tennis players. Thus, what would happen if one day, the revenue Wimbledon earned from its women tournaments went below that fixed value? Wimbledon would have to take some portion of its assets to compensate this problem. No matter how people look at it, if Wimbledon were to implement this course of action into one of its ways of running a company, then surely we knew what would happen next. Meanwhile, regarding the opposite argument which basically discussed how it was sexist to have men play more sets than women (YES’s eighth argument), here’s something to think about. What if the reason behind why men got to play more sets compared to women in tennis tournaments wasn’t because men had more endurance than women, but because Wimbledon took the opportunity to have men play 5 sets based on the fact that most tennis enthusiasts showed more interest in watching men tennis players play than watching the women? This question however, is only a hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, the title might actually provoke judgements about gender equality and sexism in which to an extent I do agree with, however, after reading the article, it is made clear that women and men tennis athletes actually deserve to receive different amounts of prize money due to the different duration and sets of matches played. Men tennis athletes competes in 5-set matches while women tennis athletes competes in 3-set matches, this proves that men tennis athletes devotes extra time, energy and effort for longer matches and faces the risk of considerable damage to their muscles and joints in which, severe cases of it could end their career in a blink of an eye. Due to this, I believe that they should be rewarded accordingly. I’m not saying that women tennis athletes do not train as hard, perform as good or are just not as strong and capable of playing in longer matches as their men counterparts. However, the fact is, for some tournaments, namely the Grand Slams of the Australian Open, the French Open, and the US Open, only men are challenged to play sets of five. Now this is the real issue, and I do agree that this disparity upholds the belief that women are weaker than men and therefore should not be given the chance to participate in longer matches, which is a sexist way of thinking. I think that this idea, in the modern world should be eradicated and that men and women tennis athletes should be given equal opportunities so that they could achieve the well-deserved equality in prize money as well.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it’s not about gender equality but rather equality of revenue. I don’t really understand tennis since I don’t really watch sport in general. But after reading the article, seeing how men tennis have a longer game than women’s, it makes me thinking that offering equal prize money for men and woman tennis players would not be acceptable. We should all consider the screen time for the game. Men tennis has longer screen time, which resulted in bigger income. It also has a much more intense gameplay which of course resulted in bigger audience. Women tennis have less screen time and could not attract bigger audience compare to men tennis. I’m not saying that women tennis is boring or less interesting than men tennis. I’m saying that the results have different revenues. Therefore, the different prize between men and women tennis players is fair and not considered as discrimination.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree that Wimbledon should offer equal prize money for men and women. If you think women and men shouldn’t have the same amount of salary or in this case prize money then think about these:
ReplyDelete1.Women have more needs considering there are certain conditions that occurred to woman only, such as having periods (means we need to buy tampons/ pads), giving birth (means we need supplements beforehand and afterwards), etc. So we technically need more money in order for us to fulfill our needs;
2.Although women only play 3 sets of the game while men play 5 doesn’t necessarily mean that they give less effort, because those are based on the limit of each individuals or in this case gender. It is also stated in the article that men have more advantages physically, and that’s exactly the reason why they have to play more sets, they tend to have more stamina.
In this era, people are more likely to put aside gender equality just because the majority of men tend to think that they are superior. So this is the best momentum to build awareness of gender equality.
My three most-likely YES comments based on my opinions are the 5th paragraph, the 7th paragraph, and the 9th paragraph. The reason of the 5th paragraph is because it has a strong argument since it is talking about the unequal position of gender if having such different amount of winning prize in tennis. Moving on to the 7th paragraph, the reason is because it declares that some of famous athletes also came from women, meaning that women suppose to be pay in the same amount as men’s player. Meanwhile the reason for the third article is because the argument straightly compare to the other type of sports, which then it does making more sense. If one type of sport giving the same amount of prize for both women and men players, then it suppose to be apply as well in the tennis game.
ReplyDeleteNext, the three most-likely NO comments based on my opinions are the 4th paragraph, the 6th paragraph, and lastly the 16th paragraph. The reason of the 4th paragraph is because the argument is supporting with a logical reason. Since there are more people watch the men’s tournament cause it’s more attractive, then it means that the men’s tournament suppose to earn more money than the women’s player. Moving on, the reason for the 6th paragraph is because it clearly explained that the stamina, skills, and also strength were certainly differently performed by the women and the men tennis player. By that, it is suppose to be fair if the man is receiving higher amount of prize compare to the women because they required more stamina, skills, and strength. Lastly, the reason for the 16th paragraph is because the argument highly supported by business theory of which the tournament that is more chosen by the customer is the one that will have higher payment since it is the one that making more revenue (according to business).
Personally I consider that men on women should be on equal terms in some cases. But, there are things that are just different between men and women. Thus, I didn’t believe in the idea of a complete equality between men and women. When I read the title “Should Wimbledon offer equal prize money for men and women tennis players?”, my initial thought is “sure, it is the same sports afterall”. But, honestly I didn’t know much about tennis, more so Women's Tennis. But, after I read all the arguments that supports and discourages this equal prize money, I found some arguments that caught my attention. It is stated that both Men and Woman compete on the same tournaments, yet they didn’t receive the same prize money. While it is true that both men and women play at the same events, They actually had a different set of rules. In these same tournaments, Men played five sets of games, Yet women only played three games. This is such a huge difference, two match may not seem a lot to most people. But, we do have to remember that this is a highly competitive ‘Two match’ which is absolutely takes a lot more effort. Thus, it would not be fair to give equal prizes to both gender. Next is, Wimbledon is a sports company that is hosting these events in order to gain profits. According to the article, more People watch Men’s Tennis which means that it brings more revenue to the company compared to the women’s Tennis. By having the fact that the men’s Tennis brings more provit to the company, more audience, and more sets played I think that it is natural for men’s tennis to be given higher prize for their effort and the revenue they bring to the company.
ReplyDeleteThe strongest YES arguments about giving the same amount of prize for men and women tennis athletes are: they are playing the same sport, they also competing on the same event and they show leadership and a huge inspiration. Girls work just as hard as guys do and are very committed. It is okay for the committee of the sport competition to give different prize if the sports are different. On the other side, the strongest NO arguments are: more people watch the men's tennis, men play the best of 5 sets; women play the best of 3 sets, and sport competitions are private businesses and should not be regulated for gender equality. By having more people watching competitions means there will be more profit produced from the competition due to advertising, journalism and more. In my opinion, Wimbledon tournament should give the same amount of for men and women athletes. Because all that matters is the performance on the court.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the three strongest YES arguments are those that touch the topic of placement. It makes sense that when you are awarded, let’s say $400,000, for first place, both genders should be able to get the same. However, the three strongest NO arguments are the ones that talk about how both genders do not play the same. What they essentially mean is that although both genders play the sport tennis, the duration in which they are playing are different. Men play the best of 5 sets while women only play 3. In my opinion, I don't think that Wimbledon should offer equal prize money IF the sets that they are playing are different. It would make sense that the more sets you play, the more you get paid. If Wimbledon changed the regulation of how many sets were played for both genders to make them the same, only then I would agree on equal rewards.
ReplyDeleteWell, I do not agree if Wimbledon offers the same prize money to the women and men tennis players. For me, it seems weird if some people consider this rule as discrimination, because I think there is no relation at all between this rule and the gender inequality. Because the fact is that the men tennis players play longer than the women do and so they deserve to get higher prize since they need to maintain their stamina and put more effort to be the winner of the game which is not a very easy thing to do. So, it will be unfair if they play in the different duration, different number of sets but get the same amounts. Other than that, I personally also think that the tournament which is played by the men is way more interesting than the women because men are more skillful at playing tennis compared to the women, so more people would like to watch men’s sports competition instead of women’s. For that reason, men’s sports competitions tend to earn more revenue because they get more attendance. So, giving different prize is the actual fairness.
ReplyDeleteHello sir, I’m Fikri from your Friday Class.
ReplyDeleteI actually agree about the idea about both men and women should get the equal prize of money, as they were doing the same sport afterall. YES it is sexist to judge about how men are “stronger” than women. Both are humans, both played the same sport, and both played with the same way and rules. Being a woman doesn’t mean that you’re being less paid than the men, they work as hard as the men. I’ll take an example from my mom. My mom works as hard as her fellow co-workers, and as far as i know, they got the equal amount of wage, except their bosses, they obviously paid more. So the point is (YES), if both men and women got the same placement in a competition or in a working environment, they should be paid equally. The last opinion that i agree with is, by giving equal prizes in a competition for both men and women, we can help to continue the struggle to make men and women equal in every aspects in life.
From the arguments given, objectively, I would have to side with the NO side, solely because of two statements that made very good points: “…men sports competition tends to draw much more interest, attendance, and revenue than women’s sports competitions.” It is true, that private sponsors only invest in things that seems to generate the most profit which, unfortunately, means they see men tennis matches are more popular than women.
ReplyDeleteThe second point is “Men play the best of 5 sets; women play the best of 3 sets.” Objectively, it would be seen as unfair to those whom had played more to see the person who played much less than they did to get the same pay as they did. It is the same kind of inequality that CEOs and doctors would experience if they were given the same pay as janitors or security guards.
Despite of those arguments, I personally still believe that Wimbledon should offer equal prize money for women. Women are just as capable as men are, so there’s no reason for not extending women’s tennis sets from 3 to 5 so that they may be able to get the same prize money as men tennis players do. And by giving larger sums of prize money, women tennis players will become more motivated to work hard and attract more fans and revenues, thus more investors.
At first, I believe that man and women should get the amount of price equally. But after I read the article and thinking about the argument, I change my opinion. Although I change my opinion, I still admire and believe that women athlete should be respected and appreciate especially in event this big. But in tennis women division has lower amount of sets, only for the best of three not the best of five. That means man competitor need to work harder and longer than women. Other different is the amount of money the man division and women division generate. Because man division has more match than women and has more fan base that willing to buy a ticket to the match the amount of many generate is bigger than women. With all that reason, is just illogical to anyone that hold the event to give equal amount of prize money to both man and women. I am not saying that we should respect and appreciate women athlete less, but I saying that we should consider the financial aspect and the challenge that these athletes must face to be a winner.
ReplyDeleteI would say that men and women should get the same amount of prize money in most cases, but not on this one. I believe that people should get something based on what they’ve done. It means that if they play tennis with a particular amount of sets, then they should get the prize money based on how many sets that they have played. The problem here is that men and women both have different numbers of sets. Men play the best of 5 sets; women play the best of 3 sets. The fact that men and women have different amount of sets is why this is a NO for me. It is not about sexism from the beginning. What matters is the effort (in this case: number of sets) that is affecting their reward. If women also play the best of 5 sets, then I would agree if they got the prize money equal to men.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the number of money that players recieve isn't a component of their skills. Rather, it is in coordinate connection with their market request. This can be comprehended by the basic idea of free market activity in financial aspects. The item which has higher request in the market, is valued higher. So also, fans at grand commodity competitions are all the more ready to pay additional to observe the matches of men's singles. The same can be confirmed in different games too. Test coordinate cricketers do not recieve higher compensation than one-day or cricketers since they play for 5 days insted of 1. Fans will dependably pay by the diversion esteem that they recieve and not by the endeavors put in by the athelelte and that additionally reflects in their pay rates. All in all, I think it is normal and of course there is nothing wrong in woman atheletes being paid lesser when contrasted with the male athletes.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the arguments, all I see was an argument either men should be paid more compared to women or equal for both women and men, rather than should athletes be paid equally between both genders or not. What i'm trying to say is on one side, they’re only arguing that men should be paid more where women could actually be paid more. I believe that athletes should be paid based on their effort and fame. How much effort they put in the sport can show how skillful they are and they’re dedication in the sport, meaning that they will continue to grow in skill and stick in the game for years which would increase their fame. Now fame will determine how many people will come and watch the sport which would benefit the sport event. If the argument is whether both gender, male and female, should be given the same value of prize, I would go against it, I would say that it should be determined by how dedicated they are, how much effort they put into it, and how much fame they achieve.
ReplyDeleteI believe all competitions should offer an equal proportion of prize for women and men. Because the fact is that women's tennis is just as exciting and thrilling to see as men's tennis. Surely there are no reason not to. I also agree to this equality if women and men both play in a comparative proportion of time and sets. Since we are talking about the Wimbledon, I don't agree with this idea. No because women simply play for 3 sets, they don’t offer the same treatment as men who, of course, play 5 sets. I also disagree with Wimbledon because in Wimbledon women and men play at a different period of level. I don’t agree with Wimbledon because I believe in gender equality, sadly gender equality is not often talked about and when it is, the topic is not being seriously handled.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the money that female and male get should not be the same. It depends on the views that they get. There are more people that watch male sport. The more people that are watching, the more money that they will get. Many female athletes complained that they do not get paid enough because of their gender. I think that this is wrong! If people watch female athletes more, they will also be paid more. There are also female athletes that complained about their salary being lower than a male athlete that is a bench warmer. This example is taken from basketball. Also, I agree with the article saying that one of the reasons as to why males are being paid more is because they play more sets and is more tiring. If female can do more or equal set, than they might get paid more but the biggest factor is still the views.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this article is very relevant nowadays, noting that woman emancipation is on its rise. There are some points in this article that I strongly agree with which are male athletes have longer games, higher quality, and more public interest, and sports competitions should not be required to offer equal prize money. I believe that men and women have different capabilities, for example women might be better at synchronized swimming while men might be better at playing tennis. If both men and women participated in synchronized swimming and the women’s synchronized swimming is rated better, then I really don’t mind if the women’s synchronized swimming offer more prize money, and the same goes for tennis competitions. We should really compare the competitive advantage of each category of participants so that we can decide how much prize money we should offer to the winner. Women emancipation is one thing, but we should also learn to be more rational and equitable.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the name of the article, I thought that yes, Wimbledon should offer the same money prizes to men and women. I think that if women and men do exactly the same job, they deserve the same wage. But after reading the article some arguments in favor of “no” made me think. I really believe in gender equality and I think that, in every job, is it not normal for a woman to be paid about 20% less than a man just because of her gender. But it is true that the men’s tournament attracts a bigger audience than the women’s one. Therefore, Wimbledon gets more sponsors for men than women, so they make more money with men matches. Then, we can think that this is normal that Wimbledon redistributes the money in the same proportion as they earned it. So, I think that instead of blaming Wimbledon for giving a bigger amount of money to men than to women, we should blame the sponsors for not supporting equally both genders.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the article about whether men or women should get the same equal prize for a tennis competition matches, I was thinking that it will be a nice long talk about some kind of a debate with rules of no-insult to both genders. But it turns out the opposite of that. In the article, the ‘Yes’ lecturer lectured more of equality for women in tennis, that because it’s the same sport as the men’s, but in a theory, men do have the upper-hand on physics, muscle, and energy for a higher competition. But the ‘No’ lecturer lectured about what men has about themselves that women don’t, in the fact that both argued about the same sport they liked. Yes, maybe women are in kind of bad-ranks against men, they should’ve got more prizes but still not equal to men. And men shouldn’t compete with women on gender basis, it’s not appropriate for women to be treated that way.
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, I would agree that tennis should equalize the salary of their sportsmen and sportswomen because from a viewer perspective it does look like both men and women tennis player worked hard in training and obviously, they have sacrificed a lot to get that far and to think that women tennis player earns less money is mind-boggling, if it is something like football or rugby then yes, it is more logical to pay women less than men. Tennis is a sport of high intensity and both men and women tennis player always put on a show when they play and it is a sight to see. People tend to admire men players rather than women because they think men plays more aggressively but in terms of intensity, matches between men and women are no different. Hopefully in the future men and women tennis players have equal wages to compensate for their hard work and dedication for the sport.
ReplyDeletePersonally it’s difficult to make man and woman’s matches are similar in terms of rules and rewarding systems since if it would be benefitted for man it’s considered as unequal for woman and vice versa. So it would actually be better if the Wimbledon stays as it is with just a small change in regulation of the rewarding system so that it would satisfy both sexes and people will be fine with it since if the committee are trying to make man and woman’s matches equal, it would be difficult and people would still complaining about it especially the SJW’s and many organisations . As well as physical differences and the amount of viewers both on TV or on the court as well as sponsorships available for female and male tennis players are different which resulted in the inability for the Wimbledon’s matches for man and woman are resulting to the games cannot having the similar regulation as well as rewarding systems since man’s matches take longer and sometimes are more intense and in terms of the total of viewers, man’s tennis watched more by people compared with woman’s tennis which explains why this differences in terms of rewarding systems are different for both sexes.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, equal Wimbledon prize for both men and women has to be equal. Being a big international sports competition, Wimbledon has the stage and the spotlight to do what is right. Both men and women athletes has work equally hard to achieve success, and if someone wins the Wimbledon no matter what the circumstances is, the prize should be the same for all winners. Based on the article, some spectators said that men's are more entertaining to watch than the women's, I think maybe that's a little bit true but men and women has different capabilities in playing such a demanding sports. The argument that men's viewers are bigger than women's so the prize for the men's are also bigger are absolutely making no sense at all, the Wimbledon has to allocate the same amount of profit they make in order to make prize for men and women equal.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the three best “YES” arguments are first, it is the same sport. Second, people should be fairly compensated, without regard to their gender. Third, the situation is if you are a woman and you win Wimbledon you are still the best that you can possibly be in your category the same as men. While the three strongest “NO” arguments are first, men play the best of 5 sets; women play the best of 3 sets. Second, the sponsorship revenues are not equal for the two genders, and third, sports competitions are private businesses and should not be regulated for gender equality. After reading these arguments, I feel like the “NO” ones are more relevant. People should see this in a business point of view, we all know that people’s desire to watch what they want cannot be controlled. Moreover, fact shows that viewers are more likely to watch the men’s competition. Also, the fact that men play more sets than women. So, by paying the men’s athletes bigger, it doesn’t mean that it is based on the “sexist” perception. Let’s once see this problem from the logical and real facts that happen in the field.
ReplyDeleteHello Mr. Adrian and fellow student.
ReplyDeleteWimbledon, one of the most highly paid sport. The difference between the prize whose accepted by man and woman is due to a certain condition that stated above. For me, the condition that affecting the prize is very logical and acceptable. I hate to say it but there are some factor proving that woman is sometime not as capable as a man on a certain job. Its not about equality or something like that. Its more about how and who can give Wimbledon more money and the one who can make a better money/income is deserved to take more money. That’s the true equality. I think before Wimbledon make their decision, they already doing research and development, they consider many aspect not only gender but also the crowd, the income and so on. Maybe after the woman making more money and people start to change their focus from man to woman, they will starting to raise the prize for the woman. But before that such things happens, it seems impossible. Thank you, Have a great day.
I do believe that men and women should have the same right and chances. From this case, we can see that men and women are being paid differently, although they play the same sport which is tennis, probably trained at the same level, and put the same effort. I choose to disagree with the fact that they are paid and treated differently. Although they say that men brings more attention and money than women does, that cannot be the base of the paying rules. From my point of view, I can see that men have more matches than women, which is set by the Wimbledon. When men tend to have more matches than women, of course they do have more fans and attention, since people see them more than the women. However, if Wimbledon could set the matches to be even, I believe that women will have the same attention as men does. And when this happens, there are no other reasons for men to be paid higher than women do.
ReplyDelete