McEnroe weighs in on Wimbledon
John McEnroe has come out in support of equal prize money for men and women at Wimbledon.
"There should be no argument when they are at the same event at the same time, that there should be equal pay," McEnroe said during a teleconference arranged by U.S. broadcaster NBC...."The opportunities that are being given to young girls and the thought that they can be in position where they can make as much money as a man, which doesn't really happen in any other sport, sends a good message," McEnroe said.
"I have to point to (former tennis champion, women's tour pioneer and equal-pay campaigner) Billie Jean King, because if it weren't for her, these girls wouldn't have that money in the first place."
I heart him.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: McEnroe weighs in on Wimbledon.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/3548
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Another good article on the subject is here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1806032,00.html
It answers a lot of the points brought up last time such as how many sets are played and how popular the games are...
Given the two games have different rules (3 vs. 5 sets) I think a difference in pay in favour of the more demanding game is legitimate.
The problem's not different amounts of money for different games it's sex segregation. There's no reason why tennis should be sex-segregated.
But the women want to play 5 sets......
It's like saying that women work less hours so should get paid less while forcing them to work part time......
Women and men don't play the same game so sex segregation is fair...
This is not an issue of three sets vs. five. No one cares how long or hard someone works. They care how much money someone's work generates. Go check out ticket prices for the men's final vs. the women's final and you will see why equal prize money is not fair.
rubbish!! does not equal pay for equal work not apply always?
Surely if the same amount of money was charged for both tickets people would still buy them. If the same council that sets prize money sets ticket prices then the same prejudices come in to play.
chem_fem - So you think they are charging less than they could for the women's event than they could? I have a feeling they know their market better than you do, and I doubt they would intentionally leave money on the table.
"rubbish!! does not equal pay for equal work not apply always?"
This is not an example of equal work. Men have to beat some of the best players in the world to win this tournament. Women only have to beat the some of the best women players. And if you really want to press the point, I guess we can bring back the 3 sets vs. 5 issue.
chem_fem - I find the "but the women want to play 5 sets" argument odd. Firstly, no-one's stopping anyone from starting up a 5-set women's competition. Secondly, should an organization be obliged to offer offer a competition and prize for one sex just because it does for the other? I don't think think that's practical.
The solution's to abolish sex segregation. There's no reason why women can't play men at tennis, and shouldn't be allowed to compete for the big prize money.
noname,
two things, if we were to get back to the 3v5 issue, the conversation would be in a straight up loop...
next, "Women only have to beat the some of the best women players." is absurd... billie jean king proved that women players can beat men players...
so, the flip side of that coin is that "Men only have to beat the some of the best men players."
so what?
Puck - Without arguing on any other point in this thread, Billie Jean King was much younger and in better playing shape when she played Bobby Riggs. While just about any woman who plays recreationally can kick my ass, I don't think the top elite women are strong enough to beat the top elite men (I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on that one).
hem_fem - So you think they are charging less than they could for the women's event than they could? I have a feeling they know their market better than you do, and I doubt they would intentionally leave money on the table.
Do you know how highly sought after these tickets are??? Of course poeople would pay an extra £6 see the match.
They could charge twice as much for both games if they wanted to and still sell out.
PS if you don't believe me in the ticket front check out ebay.co.uk......
I really can't believe you think that the women should play the men if they want the same prize money?? Would they be allowed to have the same testosterone levels before they play, because testosterone has not only been linked to extra stregth but fast reaction times and higher levels of competative behaviour. That isn't to say that women don't have this in spades but you can't compare men and women without this in mind. They have done small scale studies on testosterone levels in just men and the guys with the higher levels perform better (or at least higher exposure in the womb as predicted by finger height).
The womens game is often more popular because there are more rallies rather than the mens powerful service game, which is spectacular but not so entertaining.