You could make that argument however it wouldn't be an accurate one. Male players down the chain play in tournaments and matches that don't involve the top three all the time and often draw large audiences.

They are underpaid because the pot is shared with the women.

Both should be paid in relation to the interest generated from their matches.

I'm not that great a tennis fan. The point still remains. The tournament prize is set. No one is putting a gun to the male player's heads and saying take a pay cut. Again, Federer against a nobody in the semi final, by your logic,should be paid more, but the prize money is the prize money, if they want to give bonuses for viewership, great.

Originally posted by Jway89

You conflate the amount paid for participation with ability and watchability. The top top players will get the best sponsorships. So the tournament prize money is a basic fee, almost for attending and rewarding progression.

There is no conflation.....The best squash players in the world get paid peanuts precisely because less people watch them....Your wages should relate to your economic value.I'm not interested in sponsorships. That's a function of the outside market and can do what it wants.

Yes, but the prize money is the prize money for the tournament, so if there were bigger audiences for women's squash games, they should be paid more?

That's why the tax system is different for both.

Absolutely, the only problem is that the they aren't the same, are they?

As I said, equality of opportunity is 'mostly' what you want. The realities of nature mean that isn't possible

Equality of outcome is anti meritocratic......and while I agree with the successful providing safety nets I bulk at the idea that flat structures are desirable or even possible.

We are not all equal.....I believe the strong should help the weak but I don't believe in hampering the strong just because they are strong.

Who is hampering the top male tennis players? No one is saying to lower their earnings,in fact prize money has been going up every year.

Yes, nature deals out inequality, but, that is nowhere near the determinant factor in a person's ability to get a on and be paid on par with their peers. Life for the vast majority isn't playing tennis. The funny thing about the entertainment business is that it is probably the only sector that is heavily unionised, that no one wants to take down.

Yup.
We could sit at our desks whilst you get our tea and bacon rolls.
L'amour oui x

I agree

Sport is commercial let the market sort it out. If the public want to watch they will pay the going rate. Same with the sponsors and the advertisers.

Yes, but, in the case of the major tournaments, it is sold as a package, men and women. Your argument is that men bring in more, but mine is that the top seeds bring in more.

This is normal in all tournaments. So, if Palace win the league, is it fair they earn more than Man City, who have had more viewers and more advert money come in for their games? I say yes, because it's a package.

Once you have separate tournaments with just men and women, then they will earn what they bring in.

So, whilst men may be more athletic than women, women seem to be naturally smarter in this case. They have seen men earn more and they don't want men to earn less, they want to earn more, to be on par. Strategically, they have outsmarted men. Is it fair, maybe not, but they've made their own luck.

Again, the entertainment industry isn't real life.

Well I tried....it's like talking a different language.

The ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other and the future isn't going to go well.

I'm always more than willing to have my mind changed, because if i am the smartest man on the forum, we are all in serious trouble.

I'm an optimistic pessimist

Only if you interpret the statement as not being the smartest as wrong