What makes tennis different for men then it does for women? It is the exact same sport played with the exact same rules, and both men and women should get the exact same prizes and pay. There is no rationale that makes sense to say no to this, but people are discriminatory so that is why most people have voted no.
When both men and women are competing in the same tournament it is unfair that men or women should make more than each other. They both play equal numbers of games in the same environment, what makes one more difficult to require more money?
I can find no reason why the prize money amounts would be different in men's or women's sports. A placement is a placement, so if first place is worth $200,000, then both genders should get the same. By saying that one gender is worth more than the other, you are trivializing the sport, and the effort all contenders put into the competition.
There is absolutely no reason or defensible rationale for paying the winner of a sports competition a different amount, based solely on their gender. The prize money should be equal to the winner of a tournament, regardless of their sex, since both participants have both won the exact same competition.
Girls work just as hard as guys do and are very committed. Girls never get credit for all the things they do. Some of the worlds best athletes are girls. They deserve to get noticed. Its sexist to think that guys should get paid more. Even if they are injured they get paid more while us girls are working out everything we can.
If you are a woman and you win Wimbledon you are still the best that you can possibly be in your category the same as men. They give the men's 100m sprint a gold medal and women get the same prize, why shouldn't this be the same for other sporting events?
Men and women obviously have different strengths. But in any athletic competition, the rewards should be equal. On the other hand, if the sport has sponsors that determine the salaries or rewards, it would depend on the popularity of the sport, and how much the sponsors are willing to commit to.
Women have been trying to become equal to men for many years. When men and women accomplish the same tasks, they should be awarded the same amount. Women's sports are just as exciting and competitive as men's sports, so there is no reason that they should not receive an equal prize.
Women's prize money/wages in sport
In sport, there are huge inequalities between Men and Woman, for a start, prize money, in football world cup, Men get 22 million, and women only get 630 thousand.
In my opinion, I think that the inequalities are terrible, they shouldn’t happen, a lot of the time they are very big differences in prize money, however, they still play the same sport, even if it is a woman, what difference does it make? They are still doing the same thing, and sometimes, it may be even harder for them to do what they do, but they can still win, so there should maybe even more money if it’s a sport that’s harder for them to play, that is why I think that the prize money should be the same.
Here’s a few examples of prize money bias in sport:
1. Football premier league; Men get 24 million, however women get absolutely nothing, not a single penny for winning.
2. Snooker world champs; Men 300 thousand however woman only get 1,500
Some people say that woman are a minority and that they shouldn’t get anything for any sport, which really, is very sexist, what difference is there between men and woman?
A debate on the website debate.Org, has a very heavily biased opinion on the topic, There are 79% of votes swinging towards Women not getting the same amount of money, they say this as many believe that in Wimbledon, the prize money should be difference, as woman play 3 sets instead on 5, however, what difference does it make? They are still the best in their league, so why should it be any different?
To the people who are saying men have more 'skill' and are 'better' than women so they should get paid more, it is to do with body structure and power. The way the body is built is different for a man and woman.
There is higher attendance for men because men in sport receive more exposure and media coverage.
Men's matches go for longer for starters, since they're best of five rather than best of three. They also generate more money since they have a much bigger following. They hit the ball harder and matches are of a higher quality. If women want to get paid the same it should be a single tournament where they play the men.
Women and men play in different competitions and the men are better at tennis. They are at a higher level of skill which means they deserve more prize money. If they women want equal prize money, women should compete in the same competition as men! also, attendance at male mathces is higher which means more money is generated...
The answer is simple and obvious. If men and women play the same game, then the prize money should be the same. But they don't! Men play the best of 5 sets; women play the best of 3 sets. That alone defines an obvious difference. It's not the same game when it's not the same effort. If it were equal, then they should play each other as well, in theory. But they can't and won't because there is no equally of strength, skill, and (apparently) stamina. Play 5 sets each, or 3 sets each, and the prize money can be equal. Otherwise, less pay for less effort. "Bully" Jean King was the force behind this crazy concept of "equality for women" in tennis. Where is the equality in an unequal effort?
If women want to win the same amount of prize money that men make, they can compete against men for that prize money. Since women really cannot compete against men and play at a much lower level of competition, they get a lower amount of prize money. That is what fair actually is.
Wimbledon and other sports competitions should not offer equal prize money for men and women, because they have a men's division and a women's division. The level of competition is different. The best resolution would be to eliminate the divisions, and have everyone play equally for the same prize. Billie Jean King dispelled the myth that men are better athletes long ago.
Sporting events, such as Wimbledon, should not be required to offer equal prize money for men and women, as these prizes are generally tied to the ad revenue that the events are able to attract. This, in turn, is affected by the overall excitement and popularity of the event in question. Because members of the public feel that men's events are more exciting to watch than women's events, men should reap the monetary rewards of this preference.
Amateur and educational-based sports, such as the NCAA, are fair game for Washington to regulate and say that women's sports get as many dollars as men's sports. Professional sports should be left alone, though. They are businesses and only make money if there is a large enough market. If Wimbledon were forced to give men prize money equal to the women, it would actually be reverse discrimination against the men.
It is a simple fact that men's sports competitions tend to draw much more interest, attendance, and revenue than women's sports competitions. It is, therefore, fair if a men's prize is more than a women's, since the prize is generated from revenues. To do otherwise would actually be unfair, as the men would actually be subsidizing the women.
There is no reason why the public should force a private enterprise like a sporting tournament to offer equal prize money for men and women. The main draw in these sporting tournaments that have both men's and women's competitions is always the men's competitions; that is why they receive a greater share of the prize money. Besides, the amount of the prize money for the women is definitely large enough that no one should be complaining on either side.
In sports like tennis, women should not be paid the same amount as men. Men have to play a much longer game (5 sets to 3 sets) than women play. When the amount of work is equal, then, and only then, should the pay be equal. Many do not agree with this, and I do not understand why.