Equal Prize Money

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by garinda

He was 55, and she was 29.

Still didn't stop him from mouthing off, and saying no woman could beat him.

Bit of an unfair match a 55 years old against a 29 years old.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Bit of an unfair match a 55 years old against a 29 years old.

He knew his age when he offered the challenge, that no woman could ever beat him.

[jambutty]

A clear case of American overconfidence in his own ability.

[grannyclaret]

[quote=garinda;387308]There are always exceptions, as I'm sure Martina Navratilova would agree.

quote]
I have always had a sneaking suspition she is realy a bloke

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by garinda

He knew his age when he offered the challenge, that no woman could ever beat him.

For Riggs, who was an exceptionally talented player in his prime (but had dropped from the limelight later), it was partly a publicity stunt, partly a chance to make some money. Let's not forget that this was done when the women's liberation movement was in full flower, so it got a huge amount of attention from the press. Clever folks who thought it up, in any case!

And let's not forget that Bobby also first challenged Margaret Court, then the top woman tennis player in the world, and beat her!

Here's a link if you are interested in reading more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Riggs

[Billcat]

Another thought - apparently, TV audiences for the women's finals have been larger than those for the men in most recent tennis Grand Slam events - and their audience is growing faster, too. Small wonder then, that the women are asking for, and getting, equal treatment.

In sports, players don't get paid for playing longer matches. You get paid for winning, and the entertainment that it provides to the audience, as measured by audience size.

[jambutty]

Actually someone (I’ve forgotten the name and can’t be bothered to switch on the TV and search for it) on either Ceefax or Teletext chucked a new point into the debate.

Gate receipts!

The claim is that if the spectators pay the same to watch a men’s match as they do for a ladies match then the lady players should have the same rewards.

Interesting point!

If that is the case then the spectators are getting ripped off. But! Hey! Since when has that been a new phenominum?

Having just had a peek at http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/pressreleases/prizemoney.html it reveals that this levelling off of prize money has been gathering pace for a number of years. To quote the site:

“Over the years, we have progressively increased the ladies’ prize money, so that last year Amélie Mauresmo, the Ladies’ Champion, received £625,000 – 95% of the money received by Roger Federer, the Men’s Champion.”

What a sneaky lot!!! The playing field has been being levelled amidst no publicity.

So far on Ceefax or Teletext every letter has been against equal prize money.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Billcat

Another thought - apparently, TV audiences for the women's finals have been larger than those for the men in most recent tennis Grand Slam events - and their audience is growing faster, too. Small wonder then, that the women are asking for, and getting, equal treatment.

In sports, players don't get paid for playing longer matches. You get paid for winning, and the entertainment that it provides to the audience, as measured by audience size.

In the UK a TV company buys the rights to televise a sport for a fixed fee, although I accept that some deals might include TV audiences. However audience viewing figures are always a guesstimate based on a few monitors so I can’t see a TV company agreeing to pay more if the sport attracts more than the expected viewers or less if fewer people view. I doubt if it is any different in the states. But then what do I now?

The only people who gain from large audiences are the advertisers and the TV company.

The players at Wimbledon get paid for being in a match and the winner of a match gets more. The entertainment value doesn’t come into the prize money equation.