Wimbledon to pay equal prize money
Posted by Peat
exactly. in the olympics, women don't run 70m while the men do 100m, or 150 when the men do the 200, so why should it be any different here? women don't run separate marathons of just 20 miles instead of 26.
they want equality in everything, which is fair enough and right, but to want the same money for not doing as much has swung it completely the other way from getting less for doing less. not only have we gone past equality, but gone into bias towards women, if they're gonna get the same as men for doing less.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
they want equality in everything, which is fair enough and right, but to want the same money for not doing as much has swung it completely the other way from getting less for doing less. not only have we gone past equality, but gone into bias towards women, if they're gonna get the same as men for doing less.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
good on them, women deserve equal money.
i only watch womens tennis, its far more "exciting" if you catch my drift.
i only watch womens tennis, its far more "exciting" if you catch my drift.
DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do less work, you earn less. Simple as that.
> Its not sexist, its common sense.
I would agree with this statement if the prize money for tennis tournaments was akin to wages paid on a pro rata basis, but it isn't.
This thread generally lacks the insight that women tennis players aren't being PAID the same as men for doing less work - they are being REWARDED for their achievements, which are EQUAL to those of the men (i.e. defeating 6 successive opponents in the tournament). Therefore equal prize money isn't positive discrimination.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do less work, you earn less. Simple as that.
> Its not sexist, its common sense.
I would agree with this statement if the prize money for tennis tournaments was akin to wages paid on a pro rata basis, but it isn't.
This thread generally lacks the insight that women tennis players aren't being PAID the same as men for doing less work - they are being REWARDED for their achievements, which are EQUAL to those of the men (i.e. defeating 6 successive opponents in the tournament). Therefore equal prize money isn't positive discrimination.
NeilPearson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i only watch womens tennis, its far more
> "exciting" if you catch my drift.
grrrrrr, im a red blooded hetro-male! I like my beer bitter and my steaks rare! grrrrr.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2007 01:58AM by Peat.
-------------------------------------------------------
> i only watch womens tennis, its far more
> "exciting" if you catch my drift.
grrrrrr, im a red blooded hetro-male! I like my beer bitter and my steaks rare! grrrrr.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2007 01:58AM by Peat.
Slasher wrote
-------------------------------------
Here's a challenge for you Locke Cole. Go to your boss in the morning and say,"Hey, you know how my co-worker Mrs Bloggs and i work the same hours and get paid the same, well how about from now on i work 10 hours a week LESS, but you REWARD, not pay, REWARD me for my achievements for working less hours for the same amount of money - GREAT IDEA HEY!!!"
What? That's just dumb - this is clearly an issue of pay, not reward. Tennis players receive wages outside of the prize money they earn, which is their pay, and I beleive that this should be equal. And of course prize money is taxed! It doesn't make it any less of a separate category of income... Since your rant appears to be over-reacting, I feel you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make in my post.
Either that, or you're simply a prick.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
-------------------------------------
Here's a challenge for you Locke Cole. Go to your boss in the morning and say,"Hey, you know how my co-worker Mrs Bloggs and i work the same hours and get paid the same, well how about from now on i work 10 hours a week LESS, but you REWARD, not pay, REWARD me for my achievements for working less hours for the same amount of money - GREAT IDEA HEY!!!"
What? That's just dumb - this is clearly an issue of pay, not reward. Tennis players receive wages outside of the prize money they earn, which is their pay, and I beleive that this should be equal. And of course prize money is taxed! It doesn't make it any less of a separate category of income... Since your rant appears to be over-reacting, I feel you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make in my post.
Either that, or you're simply a prick.
OK, I shall break it down for you.
PAY - This is a concept laid down in contemporary times by Article 141 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (EU) which advocates equal pay for work of equal value for men and for women.
Art 141 subsection 2 then goes on to define "pay" as "any remuneration, in cash or in kind, for work done in the course of employment, from an employer". I haven't searched for a link because I know EU equality law inside out, having a dissertation on it last year. I want you to feel comfortable with my definition so please feel free to search for Article 141 on the net, however.
PAY is therefore the standard remuneration received by an employer; in F1 terms, it's the driver's salary, because it is paid by the team (his employer). The team may choose to raise funds to pay this salary by external means such as personal sponsorship deals, but it nonetheless remains "remuneration ... from an employer".
REWARD is entirely different, since it does not constitute remuneration for work on 2 important counts:-
(i) It is not paid regularly or consistently and is therefore not a "wage"
(ii) It is not paid by an employer; it is paid by the competition organisers
Reward is thus nor classified as pay, because it falls outside the criteria. Again using F1 terms, it would be the individual Prize Money received for winning a race or Championship. If Reward were subject to the Article 141 principles of "Equal Pay", then one could legitimately argue that ALL F1 drivers should be paid exactly the same Prize Money, regardless of how well they perform, since they have all taken part in 17 races in a season.
Slasher, what it appears from your posts is that you believe pay and reward to be interchangeable terms, and this is - with respect - a complete and utter misconception.
Tennis players receive their pay from the ITA (International Tennis Association) or the WTA (Womens' Tennis Association) in the form of an annual salary based on the number of torunaments they compete (i.e. how often they work). This is raised from TV revenue, licensing and sponsorship. In addition to this, they may also receive additional reward from the particular competition they take part in. In the case of Wimbledon, this is the All-England Tennis Club.
I hope you can now understand the difference, because I've made it painstakingly obvious in my attempts to explain what is actually a rather simple concept. Pay and reward are different things.
Furthermore, I was a little put out you reacted to my first post, which was extremely civil in nature, in a very inappropriate manner. I would implore that you write your next post with a calmer head, and fewer exclamation/question marks. Thanks.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
PAY - This is a concept laid down in contemporary times by Article 141 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (EU) which advocates equal pay for work of equal value for men and for women.
Art 141 subsection 2 then goes on to define "pay" as "any remuneration, in cash or in kind, for work done in the course of employment, from an employer". I haven't searched for a link because I know EU equality law inside out, having a dissertation on it last year. I want you to feel comfortable with my definition so please feel free to search for Article 141 on the net, however.
PAY is therefore the standard remuneration received by an employer; in F1 terms, it's the driver's salary, because it is paid by the team (his employer). The team may choose to raise funds to pay this salary by external means such as personal sponsorship deals, but it nonetheless remains "remuneration ... from an employer".
REWARD is entirely different, since it does not constitute remuneration for work on 2 important counts:-
(i) It is not paid regularly or consistently and is therefore not a "wage"
(ii) It is not paid by an employer; it is paid by the competition organisers
Reward is thus nor classified as pay, because it falls outside the criteria. Again using F1 terms, it would be the individual Prize Money received for winning a race or Championship. If Reward were subject to the Article 141 principles of "Equal Pay", then one could legitimately argue that ALL F1 drivers should be paid exactly the same Prize Money, regardless of how well they perform, since they have all taken part in 17 races in a season.
Slasher, what it appears from your posts is that you believe pay and reward to be interchangeable terms, and this is - with respect - a complete and utter misconception.
Tennis players receive their pay from the ITA (International Tennis Association) or the WTA (Womens' Tennis Association) in the form of an annual salary based on the number of torunaments they compete (i.e. how often they work). This is raised from TV revenue, licensing and sponsorship. In addition to this, they may also receive additional reward from the particular competition they take part in. In the case of Wimbledon, this is the All-England Tennis Club.
I hope you can now understand the difference, because I've made it painstakingly obvious in my attempts to explain what is actually a rather simple concept. Pay and reward are different things.
Furthermore, I was a little put out you reacted to my first post, which was extremely civil in nature, in a very inappropriate manner. I would implore that you write your next post with a calmer head, and fewer exclamation/question marks. Thanks.
jeepers
In football, should a team who wins the Champions' League receive more prize money if they are forced to play extra time or penalties?
Should a team who wins the FA Cup receive more prize money if they have to replay a match in the knockout stages?
In motorsport, (as has been suggested here), should a driver who wins at Monza be rewarded with fewer points than a driver who wins at Silverstone, because he has covered less distance?
And even in tennis, should a male player who wins their match 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 be paid less than a comparative male player who wins 7-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-7, 7-6? Clearly in this circumstance, the first player has done MUCH less work, but I highly doubt that there would be any complaints that he, as a male player, deserves the same prize money as the second player.
The answer to all the above is a resounding NO.
I don't believe that the posts in this thread are sexist. But I DO think that "womens' equality" has such a negative connotation nowadays that people are all too eager to react negatively when they see a claim for equal rights. Even if we are to ignore the distinction between pay and reward, it is evident by comparison to the examples above that the mere fact that a person plays fewer sets cannot in any way relate to the proportion of prize money that they are entitled to receive.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
Should a team who wins the FA Cup receive more prize money if they have to replay a match in the knockout stages?
In motorsport, (as has been suggested here), should a driver who wins at Monza be rewarded with fewer points than a driver who wins at Silverstone, because he has covered less distance?
And even in tennis, should a male player who wins their match 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 be paid less than a comparative male player who wins 7-6, 7-6, 6-7, 6-7, 7-6? Clearly in this circumstance, the first player has done MUCH less work, but I highly doubt that there would be any complaints that he, as a male player, deserves the same prize money as the second player.
The answer to all the above is a resounding NO.
I don't believe that the posts in this thread are sexist. But I DO think that "womens' equality" has such a negative connotation nowadays that people are all too eager to react negatively when they see a claim for equal rights. Even if we are to ignore the distinction between pay and reward, it is evident by comparison to the examples above that the mere fact that a person plays fewer sets cannot in any way relate to the proportion of prize money that they are entitled to receive.
What is less work?
Should manual labour be paid more than a desk job?
They do work "harder", right?
Should i earn less if i come up with an advertising concept faster than the other guy who stayed up all night?
He did work "harder", you know.
Should manual labour be paid more than a desk job?
They do work "harder", right?
Should i earn less if i come up with an advertising concept faster than the other guy who stayed up all night?
He did work "harder", you know.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.