Wimbledon
Thursday 22nd February, 2007 13:27 Comments: 3
The Wimbledon Championships will hand women and men equal prize money for the first time at this year's tournament. The announcement by the All England Club brings the tournament into line with other Grand Slams following criticism from officials and players. They had previously defended the difference by saying that women had best-of-three-set matches while the men had best-of-five contests.
I''m all for equality, and I'm glad to see that the women can win as much money as the men. However, I don't think it's fair that men should have to play best-of-five when women only have to play best-of-three. Surely this means that men have to work harder in order to win as much money as the women? If I was a professional tennis player, I'd start a campaign for a reduction in the number of sets for men.
One way to balance things out would be to make both the number of sets and the prize money equal. If the number of sets were the same, you could even merge the Men's and Ladies' singles, assuming that the sexes really are equal, but it's probably best to change one thing at a time, otherwise it might ruin the game. If the Ladies' singles were increased to five sets, that might stop the technical female players from beating the powerful women with plenty of stamina (typically the butch looking ones). And if we reduced the men's to three, all our British players would be out, instead of keeping us on the edge of our seats as we watch a determined and gritty comeback before they inevitably lose the match. So that leaves me with two other suggestions:
1) Pay players by the hour. Longer matches (e.g. 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4) tend to be far more exciting to watch than the short ones (6-0, 6-0, 6-0) and require more effort from the players that should be rewarded. The downside is that players might somehow drag things out, but football (or soccer, if you're not from around here) will book you for timewasting, so I'm sure you could award faults instead, at the umpire's discretion. It also means that everyone gets paid something for turning up. The further you progress the longer you play. If you want to give the top performer a bonus then that's also possible. It also means that second place could potentially earn more money than the winner, depending on who they meet along the way and how big that "bonus" is at the end. Besides, we all know the real money comes from advertising and the occasional book deal.
2) Don't call things "professional sport" anymore. If people can't earn a living from playing a sport then they should choose another way to make money. If the organisers or sponsors want to pay more or less money to men or women, let them do so.
I''m all for equality, and I'm glad to see that the women can win as much money as the men. However, I don't think it's fair that men should have to play best-of-five when women only have to play best-of-three. Surely this means that men have to work harder in order to win as much money as the women? If I was a professional tennis player, I'd start a campaign for a reduction in the number of sets for men.
One way to balance things out would be to make both the number of sets and the prize money equal. If the number of sets were the same, you could even merge the Men's and Ladies' singles, assuming that the sexes really are equal, but it's probably best to change one thing at a time, otherwise it might ruin the game. If the Ladies' singles were increased to five sets, that might stop the technical female players from beating the powerful women with plenty of stamina (typically the butch looking ones). And if we reduced the men's to three, all our British players would be out, instead of keeping us on the edge of our seats as we watch a determined and gritty comeback before they inevitably lose the match. So that leaves me with two other suggestions:
1) Pay players by the hour. Longer matches (e.g. 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4) tend to be far more exciting to watch than the short ones (6-0, 6-0, 6-0) and require more effort from the players that should be rewarded. The downside is that players might somehow drag things out, but football (or soccer, if you're not from around here) will book you for timewasting, so I'm sure you could award faults instead, at the umpire's discretion. It also means that everyone gets paid something for turning up. The further you progress the longer you play. If you want to give the top performer a bonus then that's also possible. It also means that second place could potentially earn more money than the winner, depending on who they meet along the way and how big that "bonus" is at the end. Besides, we all know the real money comes from advertising and the occasional book deal.
2) Don't call things "professional sport" anymore. If people can't earn a living from playing a sport then they should choose another way to make money. If the organisers or sponsors want to pay more or less money to men or women, let them do so.
Fab - Thursday 22nd February, 2007 15:05 I think the professional sport label should stay in. It differentiates the amateur level (in terms of commitment not necessarily ability) and correctly labels those people whose livelihoods depend on their sport rather than it being something they do. You can still play a top level sport without necessarily earning a living from it. This used to be true of rugby up to a few years ago.
You 'cannot' pay a sportsperson by the hour unless you are a club!
You 'cannot' pay a sportsperson by the hour unless you are a club!
correctly labels those people whose livelihoods depend on their sport rather than it being something they do
I appreciate that the distinction is useful in determing those that don't/can't commit to playing the sport regularly, but your livelihood should never solely depend on a sport. There are other career paths, other opportunities, and there's always benefits if you're truly incapable of anything else in life. Once you call sport a profession, people concentrate on the financial side of things (as that's the only distiction between professional and amateur in the sporting world). You'll find some people will want to play purely for the money, rather than the satisfaction of beating peers or doing well.
Professional sport should be about sportspeople that are so talented and commited that they don't have to perform another job in their spare time. There shouldn't be demands for equal prize money for inequal numbers of sets. If men and women are truly equal, there shouldn't be a need for separate competitions for Men's singles and Ladies' singles. If professional sportspeople are allowed separate competitions and prize money based on gender, why not allow other professions to discriminate based on gender? Perhaps I could get a bonus based on the performance of myself against my white colleagues? Perhaps that "one legged black lesbian" can demand that her bonus is equal to the amount of the top bonus in every other bonus scheme, even if there are no other one legged black lesbians in the company to compare her performance against. If you don't treat sport as a profession, you can avoid all these potential problems. If only they'd chosen a better name for sportspeople that are paid.
You 'cannot' pay a sportsperson by the hour unless you are a club!
A club has a team of players; a singles player (or any other individual sportsperson, like a golfer) doesn't need a team, they just need themselves and someone they can earn money from. Professional tennis players (or golf players etc.) would be their own self-employed/freelance sportsperson, paid by the hour (by the same tournament organisers that currently offer prize money) for their work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional
A professional can be either a person in a profession (certain types of skilled work requiring formal training / education) or in sports (a sportsman / sportwoman doing sports for payment).
It has been suggested that the crude, all or nothing categories, of professional or amateur should be reconsidered. A historical shift is occurring with the rise of Pro-Ams, a new category of people that are pursuing amateur activities to professional standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_sports
My brother pointed out that if two players, e.g. the Williams sisters, decided to have a long rally, simply knocking the ball back and forth across the net for hours on end, which player would the umpire award the fault to? His suggestion was you award players by progressing to the next round, or for the number of games/sets they win.