Women Ride Coattails Of Men In Tennis

[Big Guy]

Chief executive of Indian Wells, Raymond Moore, speaking ahead of the BNP Paribas Final between Victoria Azarenka and Serena Williams, said the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) was a "lucky organisation" which "rides on the coattails" of the men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3502300/Novak-Djokovic-says-men-prize-money-WTA-row.html

Moore added: "If I was a lady player, I'd go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport. They really have."

And world number one Novak Djokovic believes men should be awarded more prize money than women.

Some women players are upset and vocal about the idea. The logic from the mens side seems to be that since they draw more spectators and their games are longer that they should receive more in prize money.

Is this a legitimate concern by the men players or a misogynist attitude by the men?

[Guest]

Regardless of gender, if one group of athletes is in higher demand and generates more revenue then of course it deserves a greater share of the prize money.

[Boges]

One could argue that the appeal of the woman's game is the sex appeal of the players.

I actually think the woman's game isn't so bad as the lack of overpowering serves leads to more rallies and best of three set matches are a lot easier to consume for the casual fan.

[ReeferMadness]

The amount of money and fame that elite sports players receive, for performing acts of no inherent value, constitutes mindless hero worship and a cult of spectacle. Elite sports detract from, rather than contribute to an active, healthy society by promoting and enabling a couch potato class of spectators. Meanwhile, the elite athletes themselves regularly suffer debilitating and sometimes life-shortening injuries. World sports events (like the Olympics and the World cup) promote a nationalistic, jingoistic view of the world that masks reality. Whatever positive aspects there are in elite sports, they are deluged by the negatives.

The fact that elite women athletes receive somewhat less pay for participating in these misguided ventures is worrisome in terms of its reflection of systemic societal undervaluing of the contributions of women. However, efforts to redress the women's issues are better directed towards the mainstream.

[Boges]

The amount of money and fame that elite sports players receive, for performing acts of no inherent value, constitutes mindless hero worship and a cult of spectacle. Elite sports detract from, rather than contribute to an active, healthy society by promoting and enabling a couch potato class of spectators. Meanwhile, the elite athletes themselves regularly suffer debilitating and sometimes life-shortening injuries. World sports events (like the Olympics and the World cup) promote a nationalistic, jingoistic view of the world that masks reality. Whatever positive aspects there are in elite sports, they are deluged by the negatives.

The fact that elite women athletes receive somewhat less pay for participating in these misguided ventures is worrisome in terms of its reflection of systemic societal undervaluing of the contributions of women. However, efforts to redress the women's issues are better directed towards the mainstream.

Well that's simply nonsense.

Almost all forms of entertainment, it can be argued, has no inherent value. People use it as an escape from their otherwise medial lives.

Sports at an elite level create the similar hero worship to say musicians at a professional level. People pay hundreds of dollars to see some dude play an instrument or sing.

I fail to see how the collective enjoyment of a team of millionaires playing baseball in Toronto last year can be seen as having no inherent value, especially when it provides a trickle down of economic activity to a variety of connected business.

The coach potato element can also be argued of any form of entertainment as well. (See the binge watching phenomena in TV). But many people play sports at a recreational level to achieve a level of fitness, so having the sport at an elite level to be shown as the pinnacle of achievement in those sports is not worthless.

I think the long-term medical problems by players are really only seen in a handful of contact sports (Football and Hockey) and most certainly not in the sport highlighted in the OP. I also don't notice baseball and basketball players dying early.

I think the compensation for women in sports is a direct reflection of their ability in said sport. No one wants to watch women's basketball or hockey at a professional level because it's so much less appealing than the male product. That's just reality and not sexism. Sports like tennis and volleyball do have some parity in how females are appreciated at the professional levels. Again though, that's more related to sex appeal and not because of parity of ability.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Boges

[ReeferMadness]

Almost all forms of entertainment, it can be argued, has no inherent value. People use it as an escape from their otherwise medial lives.

I disagree. Good music makes me thoughtful and reflective. It can improve creativity and motor skills. Good films and books can teach you about life and cause you to re-examine core beliefs. You do have to sort through all of the dross to get to the good stuff but I challenge you to find the same values in even the best sports.

Sports at an elite level create the similar hero worship to say musicians at a professional level. People pay hundreds of dollars to see some dude play an instrument or sing.

That's true but that's more of an indictment of pop culture than a defence of sports.

I fail to see how the collective enjoyment of a team of millionaires playing baseball in Toronto last year can be seen as having no inherent value, especially when it provides a trickle down of economic activity to a variety of connected business.

And if that money weren't blown on millionaire players and billionaire owners, it might be directed somewhere where it could do good. This argument falls flat.

The coach potato element can also be argued of any form of entertainment as well. (See the binge watching phenomena in TV).

Again, an indictment of pop culture, not a defence of sports. But even there, I might occasionally binge watch when, say, Walking Dead shows up on Netflix. But that's nothing compared to the millions of guys who spend every weekend propped up in front of the TV watching football. There's only so much Walking Dead I can take but there seems to be no limit to sports. And many of those people watching sports all day are binge drinking as well.

But many people play sports at a recreational level to achieve a level of fitness, so having the sport at an elite level to be shown as the pinnacle of achievement in those sports is not worthless.

I've never seen any good evidence that watching sports has a significant motivational link to people actually playing sports on a friendly basis. However, I have witnessed first hand how children's sports leagues are caught up in tiering kids (even at the youngest ages) and thereby discouraging the kids that don't make the top tiers. And I do ascribe this to the corrosive influence of professional sports (where millions of parents think their kids are going to make the pros, even though almost all of them are wrong).

I think the long-term medical problems by players are really only seen in a handful of contact sports (Football and Hockey) and most certainly not in the sport highlighted in the OP. I also don't notice baseball and basketball players dying early.

Just because they don't die young doesn't mean there aren't debilitating injuries. Name me an elite athlete that hasn't been injured (probably multiple times) by their occupation. If this were happening to loggers or firemen or teachers, there would be a scandal and inquiries.

I think the compensation for women in sports is a direct reflection of their ability in said sport. No one wants to watch women's basketball or hockey at a professional level because it's so much less appealing than the male product. That's just reality and not sexism. Sports like tennis and volleyball do have some parity in how females are appreciated at the professional levels. Again though, that's more related to sex appeal and not because of parity of ability.

This is the whole hero worship thing again. People are convinced that watching the "top" players is more exciting. It's self-reinforcing.

ETA:

The one thing that distinguishes sports from other type of entertainment is the proclivity for fans to rush out of the stadium and engage in violence. From Stanley Cup riots to dart-throwing soccer hooligans. Not something you normally do after watching a movie.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ReeferMadness

[Smoke]

Name me an elite athlete that hasn't been injured (probably multiple times) by their occupation.

You're making a good argument for their high rate of pay.

[Smoke]

The one thing that distinguishes sports from other type of entertainment is the proclivity for fans to rush out of the stadium and engage in violence. From Stanley Cup riots to dart-throwing soccer hooligans. Not something you normally do after watching a movie.

Yeah, you're right....music fans usually trash the venue and engage in violence BEFORE going outside. Unless it's Woodstock II and III where the violence was in fact outdoors.

[ReeferMadness]

You're making a good argument for their high rate of pay.

No. I'm making a good argument for why it's a dumb idea to focus on pushing your body to the extreme, particularly when you are focusing on one activity.

[Boges]

I disagree. Good music makes me thoughtful and reflective. It can improve creativity and motor skills. Good films and books can teach you about life and cause you to re-examine core beliefs. You do have to sort through all of the dross to get to the good stuff but I challenge you to find the same values in even the best sports.

The idea that all entertainment has to/should be profound is highly arrogant. Most music doesn't do the things you describe, ditto with literature. Where as sports provides a kind of entertainment than can unite a city or country. Now you describe that as jingoistic. But we as humans seem conditioned to be tribal in most things we do. Also there are plenty of examples of great literature or movies that use sports as its inspiration.

And if that money weren't blown on millionaire players and billionaire owners, it might be directed somewhere where it could do good. This argument falls flat.

Only if you assume that money would go somewhere "good". It's how people direct their discretional income. People make road trips to see their favourite team. People spend their money buying clothing with a team's logo on it. People spend their money going to a sports bar with friends to watch a game. Who's to say the money they saved not doing those things would go to a venue for public good?

Again, an indictment of pop culture, not a defence of sports. But even there, I might occasionally binge watch when, say, Walking Dead shows up on Netflix. But that's nothing compared to the millions of guys who spend every weekend propped up in front of the TV watching football. There's only so much Walking Dead I can take but there seems to be no limit to sports. And many of those people watching sports all day are binge drinking as well.

If they're not watching football, they may watch something else. Some of that droll pop culture you mention, there's no shortage of that.

I've never seen any good evidence that watching sports has a significant motivational link to people actually playing sports on a friendly basis. However, I have witnessed first hand how children's sports leagues are caught up in tiering kids (even at the youngest ages) and thereby discouraging the kids that don't make the top tiers. And I do ascribe this to the corrosive influence of professional sports (where millions of parents think their kids are going to make the pros, even though almost all of them are wrong).

Do you have any evidence that it does the opposite? I play a sport at a recreational level. I love sports. I guess it all depends on what type of person you are. It's highly speculative to think that people who spend an evening watching a baseball game wouldn't otherwise do something active. I often watch a Jays game after I come home from the gym. Sometimes I watch baseball while doing cardio.

Just because they don't die young doesn't mean there aren't debilitating injuries. Name me an elite athlete that hasn't been injured (probably multiple times) by their occupation. If this were happening to loggers or firemen or teachers, there would be a scandal and inquiries.

Your concern for pro athletes is amusing. They're doing just fine. No one forced them to damage their bodies.

By extension would you ban recreational sports because people face injuries doing that without the hefty compensation? There's always that argument that people who are obese should be forced to foot more of the bill for their healthcare because they cost the system more. The same could be said about the weekend warrior who spends his/her weekend playing hockey, volleyball, basketball, softball etc etc and is exposed to the chance of injury that could cost the healthcare system lots of money. What is a physical activity that doesn't come with the risk of injury?

This is the whole hero worship thing again. People are convinced that watching the "top" players is more exciting. It's self-reinforcing.

Why do you think soccer isn't big in North America? The top level of the sport isn't played here. People can hero worship politicians, musicians, actors etc etc etc. If this is a problem to you, it goes much deeper than an affections for sports.

ETA:

The one thing that distinguishes sports from other type of entertainment is the proclivity for fans to rush out of the stadium and engage in violence. From Stanley Cup riots to dart-throwing soccer hooligans. Not something you normally do after watching a movie.

I think that's more of an indictment of alcohol than anything. Places where people go listen/dance to music but also indulge in alcohol are places where law enforcement is often required. Of course we know what banning alcohol leads to.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Boges

[Big Guy]

In the USA in college sports, a few years ago the government passed Title IX. This was an attempt to create equal opportunity for females in intercollegiate sports.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

Essentially, it created a system where successful mens programs now had to subsidize womens programs that could not stand on their own. NCAA male basketball and football programs brought in $millions to the University and now they are forced to use these men sports generated funds to keep unpopular women's programs alive.

Is that "fair"?

[Boges]

In the USA in college sports, a few years ago the government passed Title IX. This was an attempt to create equal opportunity for females in intercollegiate sports.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

Essentially, it created a system where successful mens programs now had to subsidize womens programs that could not stand on their own. NCAA male basketball and football programs brought in $millions to the University and now they are forced to use these men sports generated funds to keep unpopular women's programs alive.

Is that "fair"?

If you believe that college sports should be fully amateur. . . then yes.

Only a few dozen college and basketball football programs make big money. But the real debate is that the athletes should be paid. But should we only pay the athletes that play for a program that makes money?

It's a lively debate with strong opinions on both sides.

What Title 9 does do, is it allows athletes to pursue training in less popular sports with a realistic goal of a scholarship. Canadians that excel in certain sports benefit from this all the time.

It's not like the University is taking money away from the class room. Sports actually helps subsidize the classroom because they're so popular.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Boges

[Guest]

Yes that is fair as it is simply about the opportunity to play amateur sports. Again, this isn't gender specific as only a handful of collegiate sports, regardless of sex, generate positive cash flow. The athletes aren't paid, professionals and the money still isn't shared equally. The top drawing sports are still far better equipped than the field hockey or rugby team.

[kimmy]

Sounds like Mr Moore is now polishing up his resume.

Regarding his comments... Federer and Nadal might be the two biggest names in tennis, but I imagine the third biggest name in tennis is Serena Williams, not Novak Djokovic. When the three of them have retired, tennis is going to have a real shortage of recognizable names to put on the marquee.

-k

[Boges]

Sounds like Mr Moore is now polishing up his resume.

Regarding his comments... Federer and Nadal might be the two biggest names in tennis, but I imagine the third biggest name in tennis is Serena Williams, not Novak Djokovic. When the three of them have retired, tennis is going to have a real shortage of recognizable names to put on the marquee.

-k

Before she tested positive for a PED, Maria Sharapova was actually the biggest earning female tennis player. Mostly because of endorsements and stuff.

New names will come up. Djokovic will have competition from the likes of Canadian Milos Raonic or Stan Warinka. The women's side has many up and comers too.

[Big Guy]

For example: At a concert in New York, the opening band for the Rolling Stones is the BIg Guy Boogies. Should both bands be payed the same?

[Boges]

For example: At a concert in New York, the opening band for the Rolling Stones is the BIg Guy Boogies. Should both bands be payed the same?

No. They aren't amateurs though.

[Smoke]

No. I'm making a good argument for why it's a dumb idea to focus on pushing your body to the extreme, particularly when you are focusing on one activity.

Save your breath pal.....go preach to some athlete making a million a year.

[ReeferMadness]

The idea that all entertainment has to/should be profound is highly arrogant.

So, I challenged you to produce an example of even the best sports that would match up with the benefits of good music, art of literature. You respond by implying I'm arrogant. I'll take that as your charming way of conceding the point.

Where as sports provides a kind of entertainment than can unite a city or country.

Oh, yeah. Cuz nothing unites a city like a bunch of overpaid jocks who have no real connection with the place performing actions of no inherent value while wearing jerseys with the city's name on it. Sports really appeal to the intelligent side of people.

But we as humans seem conditioned to be tribal in most things we do.

Yes, humans are naturally tribal. And selfish. And violent. And xenophobic. And lots of other unattractive things. Most intelligent people are capable of rising above their baser instincts, though.

Only if you assume that money would go somewhere "good". It's how people direct their discretional income. People make road trips to see their favourite team. People spend their money buying clothing with a team's logo on it. People spend their money going to a sports bar with friends to watch a game. Who's to say the money they saved not doing those things would go to a venue for public good?

You're the one who claimed that wasting money on millionaires and billionaires was a plus for sports. I'm sure people could do dumber things with their money but they'd probably have to work at it.

If they're not watching football, they may watch something else. Some of that droll pop culture you mention, there's no shortage of that.

At least people who watch "Friends" aren't known for running out and smashing up the city in booze-fuelled mobs.

Your concern for pro athletes is amusing. They're doing just fine. No one forced them to damage their bodies.

You seem a little defensive that these people are wrecking their health for your entertainment. Personally, I find it disturbing how many sports fans are frankly bloodthirsty when it comes to games and seem to think that somehow normal rules don't apply when it comes to sports. tbh, they deserve much of the blame when it comes to disgusting events that result in player injury.

[WestCoastRunner]

So, I challenged you to produce an example of even the best sports that would match up with the benefits of good music, art of literature.

Not everyone is born a natural musician, author, or some type of artist. Some people are natural athletes who love their chosen sport to excel it. And of a chosen few can make millions on the process then so what. They understand they could get injuries, musicians can also suffer hearing loss or premature deaths.

Pro sports teams do immense work for charities in their home cities. Thousands of jobs are dependent on these teams, and yes some of them even prove to be great role models for kids by encouraging physical activity, team work, goal setting etc when these kids enroll on sporys.

[Bryan]

Federer and Nadal might be the two biggest names in tennis, but I imagine the third biggest name in tennis is Serena Williams, not Novak Djokovic. When the three of them have retired, tennis is going to have a real shortage of recognizable names to put on the marquee.

People said the same things about Agassi and Sampras. Before that, Borg and Connors. Others too, I'm sure (Graf, Navratilova....)

[Smoke]

One of my favorite sports is MMA. That's "mixed martial arts" for the uninformed. Lot's of blood. And now even more women are taking part in the several new divisions for women that the UFC has created. It's the fastest growing sport in North America. Man I love sports.

[WestCoastRunner]

Something to note: At last year's U.S. Open, the women's final sold out before the men's for the first time. Williams was chasing a calendar-year grand slam, which hadn't been accomplished since 1988.

[Boges]

Something to note: At last year's U.S. Open, the women's final sold out before the men's for the first time. Williams was chasing a calendar-year grand slam, which hadn't been accomplished since 1988.

And she didn't make the final. That fact is somewhat irrelevant.

[Boges]

So, I challenged you to produce an example of even the best sports that would match up with the benefits of good music, art of literature. You respond by implying I'm arrogant. I'll take that as your charming way of conceding the point.

I think your bias is on display here. There's a level of creativity involved in sports, it's just irrelevant to people who don't like sports. I could argue the same about music. Now as for art and literature, some very good art and literature has been inspired by sports.

http://www.si.com/vault/2002/12/16/334173/the-top-100-sports-books-of-all-time

Oh, yeah. Cuz nothing unites a city like a bunch of overpaid jocks who have no real connection with the place performing actions of no inherent value while wearing jerseys with the city's name on it. Sports really appeal to the intelligent side of people. :lol:Yes, humans are naturally tribal. And selfish. And violent. And xenophobic. And lots of other unattractive things. Most intelligent people are capable of rising above their baser instincts, though.

Yeah the millions of people that got excited about the Jays last year were just being unintelligent.

You're the one who claimed that wasting money on millionaires and billionaires was a plus for sports. I'm sure people could do dumber things with their money but they'd probably have to work at it.

I never said wasted. It's what people do during their leisure time. It's about experience. You calling it dumb, doesn't make it dumb. Not using a lot of critical thought there.

At least people who watch "Friends" aren't known for running out and smashing up the city in booze-fuelled mobs.

I think we've already established that live events serving alcohol can always cause violence.

You seem a little defensive that these people are wrecking their health for your entertainment. Personally, I find it disturbing how many sports fans are frankly bloodthirsty when it comes to games and seem to think that somehow normal rules don't apply when it comes to sports. tbh, they deserve much of the blame when it comes to disgusting events that result in player injury.

I just don't know why the potential injury from sports is an argument against sports. If it was then any physical activity where injury is possible is an unworthy venture. I think you're just opposed to the human urge to compete with other humans. Yeah yeah I get it, it's just a baser instinct. We should only be enlightened enough to want to smoke pot and eat snacks.