Women’s tennis: higher pay for weaker play, less work, less spectators, less advertising dollars

Women tennis players get  the same pay for less work (fewer shorter sets), lower performance (women are chanceless against any male top 500 player), less productivity (they have fewer spectators that pay less). In other words, women’s equal prize money gets subsidized  by the performance of the males.  Equal prize money actually leads to Wimbledon top 10 women getting higher pay then men. Women play shorter games, thus they have time to make extra money in more games, like doubles. Women also tend to get more sponsor money.  ESPN

venus-williams-dubai2Feminists manage to interfere in free market pricing of wages and prizes and enforce excessive pay for women.. Free market admission prices are lower for a spectator’s seat in women’s finals.

Venus Williams, the defending champion and three-time winner, said the women simply want to be treated equally.

"This is not just about women’s tennis but about women all over the world," she told BBC Radio before Wimbledon’s announcement. "At Wimbledon we would like to have equal prize money to prove that we are equal on all fronts." 2

The same Venus Williams that was annihilated by #203 in the men’s ranking!  Such demagoguery . If women are "equal on all fronts", why do women need separate categories? Let them play against men, and whoever wins gets the prize.

Human-Stupidity Analysis: women get same pay for lower productivity

We are absolutely dumbfounded how the world has been brainwashed that women should get the same money for lower productivity, less work, lower performance.

Feminist success is admirable. The suffragettes got the vote without the draft. Today women get quotas for executive jobs but no quotas for death row.And now. equal pay for less work. Women  world-wide receive about twice as much pension money as they deserve: they contribute less and receive more then men.

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) — After years of holding out against equal prize money, Wimbledon bowed to public pressure Thursday and agreed to pay women players as much as the men at the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament. 4

Anna Kournikova, spectator magnet

Feminists exert public pressure to get women  undeserved "equality" for unequal work.

We are stunned how undeniable, but politically in-correct, facts get covered up by academic research, politicians and the press. We had to search hard to find hard data on gender differences, on real competitions between men and women. 

Women: inferior players

One might perfectly say that a top class women tennis player should get the same money as an equally strong male player. Women’s #1 champions are chanceless against the Top 500 men. #203 ranked man totally annihilated both Williams sisters in one afternoon.   So why should the top ranked women be paid more then the male # 500 that plays better then she does, and who gets no prize whatsoever? ` When female player Chris Evert-Lloyd was at her peak, she said her brother who played low level college tennis beat her (authoritative source for this, anyone?)

We suspect that maybe women champions are chanceless against the top 10 000 male players. They are just to embarrassed to try. It sure would make an interesting project for college research or a TV series: Top 10 female Tennis Players against the #5 man of Stanford University.  It would be a serious blow to feminist equality claims, if the #1 ranked  woman champion loses against the #15 ranked man of an average College.  Political correctness has a vested interest to hide such facts.  Interestingly, women can not even compete with men in chess or snooker, where physical prowess is of no importance.

Women: shorter duration play

So if fewer spectators pay to see females play compared to the men, and broadcasters tolerate the women’s game rather than actively promote it, then how can they justify the equal prize money that some of them — most notably the Williams sisters — lobbied so forcefully for?  […]

Should women’s finals be according to the same rules as men’s finals?

Because as top female player Jelena Jankovic whined last week at the prospect of playing best of five: ‘What, you want to drive us into oblivion?’

So, we want the same money because we’re women. But we don’t want to do the same work. Because we are women.

But only a sexist pig would point out that absurdity, of course.”

Venus Williams feminist political message

I believe that athletes — especially female athletes in the world’s leading sport for women — should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message…. 5

In other words: If women, unjustly, get equal money for unequal work in sports, then it sends a message for women to get equal money for unequal work in the work place.

The pay gap lie

Similarly, the so called pay gap in the work place is a lie, which unfortunately is repeated even by the Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Warren Farrell has proved that the pay gap is due to women’s work choices and that, due to affirmative action, women earn MORE for same work.

70 year olds, children, midgets, featherweights, handicapped:  justice and equality for all

Let us get equal prize money for the children’s tennis champion, the over 70 year old master’s champions (they spent 60 years training, and thus should get bigger prizes), the handicapped people’s special Olympics champion. After all, they are all champions! One should not discriminate by age or handicap! And of course, the featherweight boxer should get the same prize money as the heavy weight champion of all categories. What about a midget category in basket ball? Why should midgets get paid less then Michael Jordan?

Equal Prize Money in Tennis – a Con Job.

Women tennis players secured equal prize money in the four Grand Slam tournaments on the back of political correctness without any logic. This has not been achieved in any other sport (except as jockeys, who compete on equal terms).

Obviously the men play longer. There has ben some call for women to play best of five sets (not from the the Women’s Tennis Association), but it is not reasonable in terms of physical endurance,

The men’s quality is better. Since Serena Williams was thrashed by a lowly ranked (about 250) man, there has been silence on that issue. At one time women’s tennis was different; there was emphasis on delicate placement, but  regrettably this went out when Martina Hingis could not withstand the hard hitting style of Serena Williams. Nowadays the styles are the same.

But these considerations are irrelevant. Professional tennis players are entertainers. The rule in entertainment is that you get paid according to how many bums you put on seats, irrespective of your gender. Since the men’s and women’s events are run concurrently the disparity in drawing power is masked to some extent. According to Paul McNamee (The Age 15 Jan 2011):

‘The charge for the women’s semifinals has had to be reduced. In 2009, there were 4000 unsold seats to the women’s final. Then in 2010, opening its coverage of the women’s final, the BBC commented that the tranches of empty seats were embarrassing. Which it was, when you consider the combatants were two greats of the modern era, Serena Williams and Justine Henin, but not altogether surprising when the price of a ticket was $289!

So this year the price has been frozen at $289, while the men’s final has risen $50 to $339. The men’s semis are $199, and the women’s semis $179.’

In 2011 all semifinals looked on TV to be sellouts, but the women’s was a double header, whereas the men’s was run in two sessions.



Are top female tennis players overpaid?

It may be two years since Wimbledon and the French Open joined the other major tournaments in offering women the same cash prize as men, but for some tennis fans the issue is far from resolved.

Women play shorter games, have less spectators, and are totally chanceless against top male players.  Amazingly, they managed to get the same pay

King hoped to put the matter to rest in 1973 when she took on self-proclaimed male chauvinist Bobby Riggs in now famous match known as "The Battle of the Sexes."

The most absurd situation: the top seeded woman wins against a sedentary fat old man that was world champion a few decades before. That is all they can do? This is supposed to prove anything? Only by female logic.

But amazingly, men swallow such ridiculous logic.

Had the situation been inverted and Billie Jean King, born 1943, played against the men’s top seeded player in 1997, at age 53, it would have been a very pitiful event. Anyone would bet on Billy Jean King 1997 against Boris Becker, Pete Sampras or André Agassi?  

King hoped to put the matter to rest in 1973 when she took on self-proclaimed male chauvinist Bobby Riggs in now famous match known as "The Battle of the Sexes."

Riggs, a former men’s number one, claimed the women’s game was so poor that even he, as a 55-year-old retiree from the sport, could beat the top female players.

King accepted the challenge and thrashed Riggs 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 in front of a television audience of millions.

Those who argue for lower pay for women’s tennis say they play fewer sets and attract a smaller television audience so they should receive less money.


"Right on the money. Women’s tennis is boring. Typical game. "Ugh. Grunt. Ugh. Grunt. Ugh. Grunt. Out. Love-Fifteen," one said.

Another added: "It’s about time someone said what everyone was thinking." More chimed in: "Everyone agrees, few will say it" and "totally agree. Women’s tennis is pathetic."


Billie Jean King has heard it all before. The former world number one has spent a good part of the last forty years campaigning for equal prize money, and equal status, for women.

The decision by the All England Tennis and Croquet Club in February 2007, and then the French Open one day later, to award equal prize money to women marked the end of a fight that started in 1968, the first year of Open tennis.

"When Rod Laver won Wimbledon, he got £2,000. And when I won Wimbledon in the same year, 1968, I got £750," she told CNN in an interview filmed for this month’s edition of "Revealed."


Women champions chanceless against men in Tennis

In 1998, 203rd ranked male player Karsten Braasch took on Venus Williams and beat her 6-2. He also played Serena Williams and won 6-1 after the Williams sisters, who were 17 and 16 at the time, said they could beat any man ranked 200 or worse. Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance" as he claimed he had played like someone ranked 600 in order to keep the game "fun."  Battles of the Sexes | Wikipedia

Boris Becker described Serena’s request [to play against men] as "a pretty good joke".

"I doubt it very much if Serena could compete with the men. She is very masculine and very strong, but if you compare her game to the likes of Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi in all honesty you are talking about two different sports." 3

How to… beat both Williams sisters in one afternoon

Karsten Braasch is the German tennis player who did just that in 1998

It was the 1998 Australian Open and the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, had seen some of the male players practising. On the basis of what they saw, they were convinced that they could beat a man ranked around 200 in the world and wanted to set up a game. At the time I was ranked 203


On 25 September 1992, Martina Navratilova, 36, played Jimmy Connors, 40, at Caesars Palace, Las Vegas. Navratilova lost, 7-5, 6-2, in spite of being allowed two serves to her opponent’s one and hitting into a court four feet wider. 3




Women do earn more then men at Wimbledon

"Women’s tennis players are getting as many sponsors and media coverage as the men," Sharapova said. "I understand that our TV ratings at the Grand Slams are pretty much equal to and often better than the men. So I don’t understand the rationale for paying the men more than us."

Phillips said because top men rarely play in Grand Slam doubles events, they earn less overall than women. In addition, the men play best-of-five set matches while the women play best of three.

"It just doesn’t seem right to us that the lady players could play in three events and could take away significantly more than the men’s champion who battles away through these best-of-five matches," Phillips said. "We don’t see it as an equal rights issue."

With $53,600 difference in prize money between the men’s and women’s winners, Phillips said the issue was one of principle.

"Obviously, it’s something that could be done and we could respond to the pressure that we come under by doing something that we fundamentally don’t think would be fair on the men," he said. "We also would point that the top 10 ladies last year earned more from Wimbledon that the top 10 men did."   ESPN

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

26 thoughts on “Women’s tennis: higher pay for weaker play, less work, less spectators, less advertising dollars”

  1. @admin

    There are several reasons I mentioned copyright laws.

    Firstly, copyright laws are one of the biggest political excuses created to censor the internet.

    And it’s another area where punishments far exceeds the crime. I would not worry so much if someone who is caught downloading/uploading is made to pay some reasonable fine. Rather, I heard that they are often given long term sentences to rot in prison.

    And is there such a thing as perfect originality? Analysis of great musicians like Mozart shows that even Mozart was largely influenced by previous generations of musicians such as Bach.(Same goes for Bach himself)

    I would go so far as to say that if enforced too strictly, it’s even a violation of the freedom of expression. Some might have “expressed” something first, but what gives anyone the right to stop someone from “re-expressing” it?

    Studies done in Netherlands show that some tolerance for copying actually increases the production of creative works, they do not decrease it.

    And like you said, most of the money made do not even go to the creators, they actually go to the labels and the publishers – the “middle” people.
    Search for example what Stephen Fry has to say on it on youtube.

    And let’s not forget that watching a moving in the theater is always different from watching a downloaded version. Having a book that you can smell and hold and move around is different from an electronic version. I believe there will always be buyers.

    And yes, you are right about bringing down the electronic price. I hope you will someday write something on this topic.

  2. One more correction:
    I don’t really care about how much these women tennis players are paid, but I can see your point that it’s unfair.

  3. Oh spelling mistakes again, but I guess it’s legible.

    Regarding tennis, I don’t really care about how much these women are paid, but I can see

    I don’t think, however, that it’s as bad as #500 man being better than #1 woman. But probably #200 is better than #1. Not that it makes that much of a difference. When the Williams sisters were defeated , they were actually not the champion players. Venus was only top 10 and Serena not even that and the man was around 200.

    It’s not just with tennis, however. In chess , apart from one Judith Polgar(who was around 48 last time I checked), there isn’t anyone in top 100. Similarly, in the east-asian game of Go, all top 50 are men.
    Among highly significant math or physics papers, only about 1 in 50 are written by woman.

    I don’t think it’s so much about ability as it is the male nature to explore.

  4. @admin
    You know admin, although I do not agree with you completely(such as the race topic), I find some comfort here from time to time. Everyday in news and other media I see how men being demonized and hear about the victim women.
    I am just sick of it.
    Sometimes, you just want a place of your own, where you can be alone. Sometimes I just feel like going to another planet where I don’t have to hear the rants of “victim” feminists. If we are so bad the just leave us alone.

    Anyway, I think one “stupidity” law you can add is the one related to copyright laws and draconian punishments involved.

    1. Copyright law certainly has stupidity involved. On the one hand, intellectual property merits some protection.

      In the past there was a huge investment in making the masters for shellac records. Then to distribute them world wide, take back unslod records.

      It is immoral to charge the same amount for downloaded music. 99% of cost have disappeared. 80% of proceeds should go to the artists. We don’t charge for newspapers and books what it cost when books were copied by handwriting, or by chiseling them into stone! Still, Amazon kindle charges almost the prices it costs for a book on paper.

      So there should be ways to protect the producers and artists so they get FAIR rewards.

  5. Sorry, lots of spelling mistakes in a hurry.
    Men may be protectors and providers by instinct, but NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has the right to FORCE that upon me just because I am a a man. td9red should not just decide on behalf of all men.

    I can do great sacrifices for someone who loves me. I am not going to do that just because she is a woman. Men want love too, not just women.

  6. @td9red
    You said: “But, with those gifts he also intended men to be protectors, providers and to care for women (yes, is has to be true). MRAs argue against the protector/provider role while also seeking to benefit from their biological advantages”…
    I am a husband and father and very proud to be a man that fulfils the role God intended of me to: protect, provide and care for my woman and our children.
    In fact I have often unashamedly deprived myself (due to occasional financial hardship) to ensure they do not suffer.
    I am also a devout MRA (my wife endorses and supports my views in this too) and I have never argued against the protector / provider role whilst seeking to benefit from my biological advantages, that you suggest MRA’s do.
    There may well be some that do so, but true MRA’s – true MEN would not support that idea at all. (I also recognise that many MRA’s are only ‘wannabes’ thus only pick out bits of our ‘dogma’ that suits them and disregard or don’t understand what we really believe in). Many so called MRA’s are not really that: many of them carry a chip on their shoulder or have an axe to grind, thus often see only part of the picture (the area in MRA that has directly affected them), rather than the entire picture of MR Activism.
    Basically, we just want to be men and not be controlled by some of the draconian and even psychotic laws that mainstream feminism has in recent years, been instrumental in creating thence successfully convincing governemnts to enact.
    From our perspective it is blatantly obvious that they have demonized and now: criminalized normal male sexuality.
    That is the biggest issue we are opposed to now.
    Personally: I agree with your views about women’s sport and don’t really care whether they are paid the same as men or not…
    It’s nice to read your post, as it is written sensibly, objectively and without the bias and malice that most women commenters convey here. And yes, I did note your point that you do not call yourself a feminist.

    1. Men be protectors and providers by instinct, but nobody has the right to FORCE that upon all men.
      It is not a rule the MUST be obeyed and criminalized if not.
      I don’t believe in god or that he/she has made us with some purpose.

      I can sacrifice even my life for someone, but I am not going to do it for someone who doesn’t love me or care for me.
      It is not just women who are entitled to be be loved. Men want love too. Men want care too. Women have some responsibility too.

  7. This is a really silly article. Especially for an MRA, when MRAs constantly complain about the Feminist argument that men and women are the same. The only point of concern you raise, if it is in fact true, is that women should not earn the same prize money if they have fewer viewers. I’ve never heard that there was a problem with viewership of women’s tennis, but if that is in fact the case than women should be paid less b/c they bring in less money. The remainder of the article is soo foolish b/c men are much stronger, faster, and have more stamina than women. So to suggest that women tennis players are subpar b/c they can’t beat men is silly. The top women tennis players are better than other women tennis players. Women should not be compared to men. No one wants to watch women play men anymore than anyone wants to watch a heavyweight boxer fight a light weight boxer or a grown up compete against a child. Women deserve prize money equal to what the men get b/c the 3 sets that women play provides the equivalent challenge on the body that 5 sets provides for men. There is widespread mysandry, laws in every country that are clearly unfair to men, and lots of other issues regarding the treatment of men that need to be addressed. But, suggesting female athletes are subpar b/c they can’t compete with men is just silly.

    1. Imagine we had a children’s, older people and handicapped championships at Wimbledon? Then they would justly demand the same pay as the top ranked male world champion, for being the best one-legged tennis player in the world, or the winner of the 90 year and over women’s section.

      Children, old Master’s athletes and special Olympics athletes with physical deficiencies work just as hard. They defeat their peer to become champions, and don’t earn as much as their able bodied colleages at the top performing age. It is foolish to argue they should get less just because 25 year old men defeat them. They top Master’s players are better then all other masters players their age class. Seniors should not be compared to 20 somethings. And 80 year olds should just play one set, because 1 set to an 80 year old provides equal challenge then 5 sets provide to a 25 year old. Thus they should get the same pay?!

      You also omitted that Wimbledon women actually get HIGHER pay then men, because they have enough energy to play in doubles to earn extra cash, and because pretty women get more sponsor money (from Sports Illustrated, for example). I suggest Sports Illustrated should be required to pay equal cash to a swim trunk shoot of the male top athletes.

      1. Wimbledon does have a boys champion, a girls champion, and I think an over 50 champion (this one maybe an exhibition, not sure). If the boys and girls championships bring in the sponsers and people will pay the high ticket prices for this event than they should be paid the big bucks. Professional sports is all about money. As I indicated above, if the women’s game is not filling the seats and bringing in the spondorship money than the women should be paid less. The sponsorship money and ticket prices they can get tends to shift from year to year depending on how competitive the mens and womens games are at a given point.

        But, suggesting they should be paid less b/c they play fewer sets is silly. There are obvious physical differences b/t men and women. In essence you are arguing women should be paid less simply b/c they are women and are naturally weaker. I would not be opposed to having men play 3 sets. I don’t think women would be able to play 5 sets

        1. it is very simple. Feminists are interfering in free market mechanisms. And only when it behooves them, when they see a disadvantage.

          No interference in the top model market, the swimsuit model market, where women, tennis players or not, make lots more money then men. Obviously, Sports Illustrated conspires to discriminate against men as they have no male swimsuit edition and world wide, male swimsuit models are paid less then female. Who fights for equal rights for male models? Pure discrimination of the evil matriarchy.

          An yes, women need quota in parliament and in management, but not in jails, death row, draft, coal mining, work deaths, suicide and homelessness. It always has been raisin picking where feminists want big brother interfere in free markets in their favor. Men also heavily subsidize women’s retirement pensions.

          The tennis women demanded equal money because they were playing at the same event. Just have the over 50 play at the same event, and by that logic they would deserve the same money. And it is silly to suggest that over 50 people should receive less because they are naturally weaker.

        2. “No interference in the top model market, the swimsuit model market, where women, tennis players or not, make lots more money then men.”

          Interesting you mention modeling, which is one of the very few industries in which women earn more than men. Top male actors earn more than top female actors. The earnings of men and women in most professional sports are not comparable. Look at the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, MLB, NASCAR, golf,on, on , on, …. Again, its interesting that you wrote an article to complain about women earning equal prize money in tennis (one of the few sports where the salaries of men and women are comparable). It’s not enough that men’s salaries far exceed women’s salaries in nearly every sport. No, tennis needs to be added to the men’s column so their total domination can be complete. (joking)

          I live in the US. There are no quotas in government representation or management. MRAs like to complain about the fact that men work in dangerous jobs and die on those jobs. I always find this to be a poor argument. We choose our jobs! B/c of the superior strength and abundance of confidence (women tend to be very aware of their physical limitation) that men possess they are willing to perform dangerous jobs and therefore have far more employment oppurtunities to choose from. The ability to perform these dangerous jobs which often pay well is a plus for men, not a minus.

          “Men also heavily subsidize women’s retirement pensions.”

          This is often b/c families choose to have one parent (the women) stay home, out of the workforce. Therefore, she does not earn a pension. When MRAs argue that women should not be entitled to any of their husband’s pension or govt social security, they are saying that “this family long ago made a decision that mom was going to stay home w/ the kids and not earn a pension, now that they have divorced mom is going to take the fall for they’re decision all on her own.” That’s fair?

          I am not a feminist. I don’t believe that actual equality can be achieved b/t the sexes. I think that the best we can do is try to treat the sexes fairly under the law understanding their diffferences and strengths and weaknesses. However, I believe that the reason our maker (not religious) gave men superior strength, agility, confidence, the desire to act upon the world was b/c he intended men to be leaders. But, with those gifts he also intended men to be protectors, providers and to care for women (yes, is has to be true). MRAs argue against the protector/provider role while also seeking to benefit from their biological advantages. In a society formed based upon the MRA point of view women would be second class citizens.

  8. @jewamongyou
    Yes you’re absolutely right: If those female players wore the same outfits as the men (i.e. did not wear those super short dresses / skirts), no men would bother to watch them at all. There would only be their immediate families and a handful of female tennis enthusiasts seated in the grandstands at Wimbledon and similar arenas. International tennis organizers would then have to collect the money needed to pay them (the same as men) from the ticket sales and TV sports channels etc. from the men’s events. Now that would be INequality!

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.