Roddick and Wertheim talk GENDER EQUALITY in TENNIS 

Thank you. The delusion exhibited by some tennis fans regarding who really "drives the action" is stunning.

One year the WTA finals held in China I believe had higher prize money than the men's ATP Finals

@@DaveOwen-vn6ie Very possible. And if so will not have reflected the commercial reality of revenues from the event and will have been a political move for whatever purposes the Chinese authorities had - maybe trying to attract more events to China, maybe just posturing to try and make China's sporting events look bigger and better etc. Show me a WTA event in a mature Western economy that isn't stuffed fun of vanity money a la China or some Saudi fund that pays better prize money than the equivalent men's event. You won't find one, because the men's events draw more sponsorship money, support higher ticket prices and attract more lucrative TV and streaming deals. Now, you could argue that the commercial appeal of the women's game is suppressed by various biases and prejudices and that without those things as many or even more people would want to watch women's tennis than men's. Or it could be that even in an entirely equitable market, more people would still want to watch the men's game. But as things stand, more people want to watch the men's game so it has greater commercial value. Like I said, you could still make a case for equal prize money at all event. But it wouldn't be a commercial argument and it would be very tricky to realise. If a given women's event does not have sufficient revenue to match the prize money at an equivalent men's events, who exactly is meant to fund that? Personally, I'm in favour of equal pay at the slams. But I don't like the misleading and disingenuous arguments made in favour of it. The reason to do it isn't fairness to the players. It's demonstrably unfair to pay the women the same prize money. The reason is that the prize money is so very visible and public and paying the women less sends such a terrible message to society and young people in particular about the value of women and gender relations that it's worth overlooking the question of fairness to the players involved.

So your argument is that women's fans have to be fans for the "right" reason? Anna Kournikova almost always outsold men's events, but she doesn't count because she's pretty? Serena fans were just there because she was going to retire? No one even likes Novak, people just went to his last major to see him break the record. See, I can do it, too.

Not nobody... but yeah, JW only pulled out ESPN data not worldwide viewership

@@Dan-vo7vc Almost outsold is not the same as outsold. Also pro tennis isn't a beauty contest, it's a professional sport - don't know if using Kournikova is the best argument for equality in women's sports.

I had exactly the same thought! Don't point the camera down!! LMFAO!

because he's on an airplane

...we already do pay them equally, at least at tournaments they have in common. The sky hasn't fallen.

@@Dan-vo7vc They are not paid equally in all mixed events (i.e. Cincy Open). The Grand Slams they are paid the same. I was more pointing to him using the Caitlin Clark phenomenon to make his point about "equal prize money arguments are stupid" in tennis.

Wertheim is a leftist conformist. You can see that also in his strident opinions regarding Djokovic and the covid vaccine.

To counter this: Men play best of 5 in 4 professional tournaments in the world. If you look at the total number of tournaments, including national level domestic tournaments, there are literally HUNDREDS of tournaments played every year. And you think what represents less than 1% of the tournaments in the world should be the standard setter? The grand slams are an exception, and exceptions do not make the rule. Personally, while I enjoy watching the mens game, I prefer watching the women play. Women are beautiful. Like a work of art. Men are utilitarian. Like a Jeep.

@@bigrobsydney you omitted the small matter of men generating more money. No money no sport

@@BOZ_11 Lets say your point is correct (and I'm not arguing it, by the way). The overall goal should be to grow the size of the pie. That way everyone gets more.

@@bigrobsydney Then tell women to sell more tickets

@@BOZ_11 Very simplistic thinking. Okay, I'm going to explain to you why you are one of the worlds biggest dopes. Tennis as a sport returns on average around 7% of its overall revenues to the players. That means 93% go to the administrators. When you look at the big US sports (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS, etc), what they did was to get together with the players unions and agree to a revenue split of 50/50. They were able to do this, because the diverse stakeholders came together with a single voice. Tennis is fractured. There are 7 stakeholders - the 4 GS's, ATP, WTA, and ITF. And there is no single players union either. Each group is only after their own interests and doesnt give a crap about the others. Wimbledon, for example, made around £160m in revenues, yet gives less than £40 m in prizemoney. That is a lot more than 7%, but is counterbalanced by so many other tournaments where the players get SFA. What needs to happen, is that the 7 stakeholders stop being saelfish, and come together with a single voice, and then market ALL of tennis to the big media companies, and sell it as a single package. That way, they can extract MAXIMUM revenue. Then they need to actually return 50% to the players. This way there is a bigger sized pie to begin with, AND the revenues would increase by at least 7 times on top of that. Everybody wins, except those with small brains...

Indian Wells and Miami masters are best of 3 sets for both men and women so you are ok for equal pay then are you?

@@DaveOwen-vn6ie Yes I am.

Agreed. I am shocked by some of the comments here.

Don't confuse facts with sexism. I am a woman who has had to stand up for equal pay for equal work my whole life, but women in professional sports are selling a product for entertainment and it's not equal to the product men are selling. If men and women were equal in sports, they'd be playing against each other in the same leagues. Even Serena Williams, the GOAT of women's tennis, acknowledges that she wouldn't be able to beat the 700th ranked ATP player in her heyday. I'm sure you know all this already.

@@orchidpanda2253 I think you are missing the point here. Anyone interested in the “why” of the supposed higher entertainment value of mens sports (which is also debated in the podcast and I will not go further into this) can learn about the discriminatory practices against female athletes and reasons why, from the start, womens sports have not had equal opportunity to flourish with little or no funding. The least we can do now is to try to do better. And yes, it includes female athletes getting paid the same amout of prize money as their male counterparts at tennis majors, despite the number of sets they play.

Lol

​ @MelissaSiegelMigration Making logical, reasoned arguments in favor of men is not necessarily "sexism"

There's nothing more exciting in tennis than watching a 5th set -- Borg/McEnroe; Roger/Rafa; Novak/Rafa; Novak/Roger; Sinner/Alcaraz; Novak/Alcaraz; Novak/Tsitsipas; Sinner/Medvedev. The 3-setters in slams are the boring ones.

And in 2013 AO, Djokovic beat David Ferrer 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 I bet those fans were overjoyed at being present for such a lopsided match

You have no stake in this, other than the increased entertainment derived from having two flourishing and cross-pollinating tours rather than one. Yet you are so invested in the ideology of your perfect free market that you want to see the millionaires on the men's side paid even more and the women's tour defunded and made less viable. What does anyone stand to gain from this?

Agree. But “genteel”

Nobody wants to watch the best of 5 women's match, and that would be horrible for scheduling.

The women have offered to play best of 5 for decades in return for equal pay. They're not gonna make that change, because no one wants to watch a 5 hour tennis match on TV anymore, regardless of gender.

@@Dan-vo7vc You're kidding, right? "No one wants to watch a 5 hour tennis match?" Maybe you don't but plenty of people do. I just watched 4 straight days of Masters golf. I watch the Tour de France. People watch the Iron Man triathlon. You're calling for the dumbing down of a noble sport because you assume people won't watch. You're wrong. Furthermore, not all tennis matches go to 5 sets. Most will end in 3 to 4 sets. Conversely, watching a women's tennis match starting and finishing within an hour is ridiculous.

@@davidhunternyc1 your example aside, the ratings figures are the ratings figures.

It’s not a one off where the US Open is concerned its been over a decade 😂 yes because no male attention but facts speak for themselves. And sorry, so many of the mens slam finals the past decade have been crap / shorter than the women’s, and not sure what slow “moron” means- Saba one year was hitting harder forehands than that men were, hardly slow “moron”!!!!

Also that stat is for ESPN - it doesn't include Eurosport, BBC coverage in Europe - not to mention Asia and elsewhere in the world.

@@Petey8482 "And sorry, so many of the mens slam finals the past decade have been crap / shorter than the women’s" Um, which men's Grand Slam finals have been shorter than the women's?!?

@@lflagr you clearly don’t watch tennis or know much about it do you? Bless you. Lots or recents but just like to give a little history lesson (if you can comprehend it) as it’s the thirty year anniverary at Wimbledon- the women’s final was longer than the men’s. Suggest you do some research before you embarrass yourself 😘

@@Petey8482 I've been watching tennis since the late 80s. It would seem to me that men's finals are generally longer than women's finals, the occasional exception notwithstanding. Especially when Nadal or Djokovic are involved in a final lol

Then make Jessica Pegula and Emma Navarro pay to play.

@@GhostofGerulaitis The Navarro family is to Charleston 500 what Ellison is to Indian Wells & what Pegula is for Miami.

@@got2bjosh Yeah, we normies call them oligarchs.

I generally agree but there was a golden era of women's tennis during the first decade of this century when there were a lot of big stars competing at the same time e.g., Hingis, Henin, Capriati, Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Clijsters, Seles, Mauresmo, Safina, Dementieva, Jankovic, Ivanovic,

​I remember and adore those women, particularly Monica Seles whose full potential was tragically cut short by the knife attack. But even then, with that list of talented players, would you say they "drove the action" (of tour profits)? ​@@chucklumb3500

How’s that disingenuous when it’s true? So many examples where the women’s events (at slams) have had more viewers than the men’s. 😊 Happy to quote examples, and I don’t have a maths degree 😂

@@chucklumb3500(and I’m not saying the men’s tour isn’t more popular on the whole, which it is, but his statement wasn’t inaccurate)

​​@@Petey8482You're moving the goalposts. We're not talking about viewers; we're talking about "market attention," as in paying customers of a product. ATP revenues are, year after year, much higher than they are for the WTA.

I am born in Soviet union and it is fascinating to observe.

D.E.I is a plague to the world. Meritocracy should be the standard. Earn what you get, not based on your race or anything else

You overuse the word "moreover" and you can't even spell it.

@@jeblmknctmabtaldlr assume less drugs mate... Moreover gfy😉

Try #1 woman losing to #1000 atp

I think it's fine for the slams because there they can create similar interest (especially now that the women's game has become equally deep) and they work very and make huge sacrifices (family planning) behind the stage as well. Besides, Grand Slams make shitloads of money and can afford this even if just as a symbolic gesture.

@@al1976-v7m GS WTA gets a similar (but still lower) attention than ATP GS, just because they happen in the same period. But each time that a M1000 is done in different weeks, you'll see half of public and interest for WTA compared to ATP, this happens basically for all m1000 tournaments not done in the same weeks for women and men. This is undeniable, women tennis is clearly a minor sport compared to men tennis

Lol So then the majority of professional tennis players shouldn't get paid at all! There is no iteration of "luck egalitarianism" that can justify redistributing wealth to women like, for instance, Jessica Pegula or Emma Navarro based solely on the unluckiness of their gender or the morality of their individual choices. It's amazing how far you country club feminists will go to ignore class politics.

Accepting the reality that men are in general faster and stronger and better at professional sports is not opposing gender equality, it's accepting truth. Women are equal or better at a lot of other things.

@@orchidpanda2253 Luck egalitarianism holds that those sorts of unchosen differences should not factor into what one is compensated because one did not choose whether to be born male or female. If the pay is unequal, then men are being rewarded for the luck of being born male. And regardless, women tend to be paid less across the board. You know that.

It's the room he's in.

So you're admitting women deserve less pay than men because they are different physically

Exactly, it's absurd that women don't play the best of 5 sets. It's only 4 times a year! If their conditioning isn't up to par, it's their fault.

we don't want equality, we want equity; fairness

@@BOZ_11 explain how fair is 2 sets paid the same vs. men playing 4-5 sets..

@@angel91485 It's not fair! If women sell 30% of tickets, they should get 30% of prize money

Is Shelton big in Europe and Asia? I don't think Monfils outsells tickets or viewership to Tsitsipas right now. Where are you getting your data? Are gymnastics and ice skating professional sports?

Then you really don't know anything about tennis.

Your loss

Grand Slam champions: Swiatek, Sabalenka, Rybakina, & Gauff, duh.

hint: name ends in -ina or -ova