• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Tennis Thread

benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And I mean ****, it's not even about the amount of people who watch. Telecasters have far more earning potential in a mens match than a females match. So much more time for ads etc. Look at the Australian Open female final. It was a disgrace.

Honestly don't know a single argument for having equal prize money.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
benchmark00 said:
And I mean ****, it's not even about the amount of people who watch. Telecasters have far more earning potential in a mens match than a females match. So much more time for ads etc. Look at the Australian Open female final. It was a disgrace.

Honestly don't know a single argument for having equal prize money.
Click to expand...
Zip it, ****
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
benchmark00 said:
Nah that's ridiculous.

No other workplace in the world would two people get equal money when one does less work AND pulls in less money for the company.

More people may watch Sharapova than Simon, but that's because Sharapova is better in comparison, which means she's more likely to progress further into tournaments because she's playing weaker opponents. Winning a female slam should be worth more than the prize money afforded to finishing in the 3rd round in the mens. But how many people consistently watch the players in the females game who get knocked out in the 3rd or so round? Ridiculous argument.

If Gilles Simon plays Nadal in a final, I'm pretty sure more people will be watching Simon than they would be watching a Sharapova vs Kvitova or whoever final.
Click to expand...
benchmark00 said:
And I mean ****, it's not even about the amount of people who watch. Telecasters have far more earning potential in a mens match than a females match. So much more time for ads etc. Look at the Australian Open female final. It was a disgrace.

Honestly don't know a single argument for having equal prize money.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with the point regarding length of time on court, but the men are specifically arguing that its not about time, but ratings.

Sharapova and Williams bring in huge TV ratings. I think if those two faced off in the final they'd be pushing a Simon vs. Nadal final tbh.

But overall I agree with you.
 
S

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
benchmark00 said:
Nah that's ridiculous.

No other workplace in the world would two people get equal money when one does less work AND pulls in less money for the company.

More people may watch Sharapova than Simon, but that's because Sharapova is better in comparison, which means she's more likely to progress further into tournaments because she's playing weaker opponents. Winning a female slam should be worth more than the prize money afforded to finishing in the 3rd round in the mens. But how many people consistently watch the players in the females game who get knocked out in the 3rd or so round? Ridiculous argument.

If Gilles Simon plays Nadal in a final, I'm pretty sure more people will be watching Simon than they would be watching a Sharapova vs Kvitova or whoever final.
Click to expand...
Doesnt happen in tennis either - average female match attracts higher ratings/more ad revenue than a men's match
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top