Hornet's Nest

LONDON--You've got to at least give Gilles Simon credit for not turtling.

The new president of the ATP players council stirred the pot early this week by questioning equal pay for men and women in tennis, and after being eliminated at Wimbledon today by Xavier Malisse in straight sets, the Frenchman didn't back off or claim misquote.

"My point of view was just about ‑ it's a difficult topic ‑ but it was just about the entertainment.  If you just watch how it is working in every other, like, sport, but even for the singers, for everything, you're just paid by the public directly," he said. "My point was that I have the feeling that men's tennis is actually more interesting than women's tennis.  As in any business or anything, you just have to be paid just about that.  It's not because we play five sets and they are playing three."

No less a figure than Maria Sharapova, No. 1 on the women's tour and the richest female athlete in history, took umbrage with Simon's point of view.

"We women have fought so long to get equal prize money," said Sharapova. "It was a big challenge and nobody really supported us.  It's been a few years since we've gotten that.  We're all really proud of it, and we continue to build the sport and make it bigger. 

"No matter what anyone says, or the criticisms that we get, despite everything else, I mean, I'm sure there are a few more people that watch my matches than (Simon's), so..."

Ouch. Simon tried to stick to the larger issue in response, and said he believes the vast majority of players on the men's tour agree with him.

"It's not about me, one player, or another one.  Maria is more famous than me.  I know it.  She deserves to win more money than me.  That is not the problem," he said. "Just check the price of the ticket from the men's final and the woman's final for example.  It's not about me anymore, it's about the tennis.  That's the way it works in life and everything. 

". . .entertainment is not about being a man or woman.  It's just about, as I said, public coming to watch you or not.  It's not about how hard you work.  You can work hard and be a very famous singer.  You can work hard and just sing in your bathroom.  That's the way it works.  It's maybe sad, but this is the way it works."

One one point Simon is bang on. At Wimbledon, the top price for the men's final is 120 pounds ($192 CAN). For the women's, 105 pounds ($168 CAN).

Let the debate continue.

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Tabber]

Gilles, I wouldn't pay a cent to watch you play. To watch Maria or many other women players, I would pay, not the amount of the tickets Cox quotes, but something. You're the president of the ATP. Stick to that, and keep your nose out of that which is none of your business, the WTA. Until you get a position with the WTA, you have no opinion that matters on the WTA. My opinion, as a consumer, is that you should have to pay me to watch you play. That is at least as valid as your opinion on pay for the women, probably more, since I am a consumer. Now fork out some $$$ to get me to watch you lose. Until that happens, I'll turn the channel when you appear. Remember, the customer is always right! Good luck with your marketing studies post-career - which should come real soon.

[Mardeee]

@tabber

again, nothing to do with gilles vs. maria. it has to do with the fact that ratings, ticket prices and attendance is higher for the men's tour.

[Robert]

agree with @Mardeee. If ratings, ticket prices and attendance were higher for women's tour, then they should get paid more. An alterantive would be not to separate men's and women's sports and have them compete against each other - then I would agree that they should be paid the same.

[Tyrone]

You know there was a period, maybe just at the turn of the new millenium...that aside from Roger Federer no one cared about men's tennis...bu there was rising of the Williams sisters, Hingis, Kournikova etc and it was more popular than men's tennis. Its one of the reasons US Open Women's Final got moved to primetime. These things go in cycles and men's tennis hasn't ALWAYS been the most popular...only when Nadal and Djokovic came along did we really see a surge in men's tennis' popularity.

[Vikz]

In the big picture, all the tennis players on tour need to be paid more. Only 15% of revenue generated at tennis events go towards the players. In contrast, NBA players get approximately 50%.

[R Jackson]

I have no problem if the women's players get equal pay to the men but then they must also do equal work and that means playing five set matches and not three

[Daniel]

Prize money is for playing tennis. Both the men and the women play seven matches to win the tournament, so I feel their prize money should be equal.

Are there differences between men's and women's tennis? Sure. But showing up, playing the game, and winning - both the men and the women do that. That's why it should be equally rewarded. If Roger Federer makes way more money in endorsements, etc. than the equally-ranked woman's player, Agnieszka Radwanska, that's fine. Because that reflects something happening OUTSIDE of the actual tennis.

It's true there are also differences in the physicality of men's and women's tennis, which is reflected in the number of sets they play. However, length of match still varies wildly. For example, Federer won 4 games against Nadal in the 2008 French Open final. Dinara Safina won 7 against Ana Ivanovic in the same year. John Isnner-Nicolas Mahut BOTH won more games than a player might win in an entire tournament! I don't think we should adjust prize money based on that, despite the extreme differences in length.