TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Tournament director resigns, Djokovic apologise. But still, girls, it's not the Men's division, it's the Open division and you can enter it yourselves to compete for what they earn. See how that works out, Serena.

naturalheightgainer

March 24, 2016
150 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/serena-murray-blast-djokovic-on-level-prize-money-for-women/7269364
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Tournament director resigns, Djokovic apologise. But still, girls, it's not the Men's division, it's the Open division and you can enter it yourselves to compete for what they earn. See how that works out, Serena.
Author

naturalheightgainer

Upvotes 150
Comments 58
Date March 24, 2016 8:25 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4bqs1h/tournament_director_resigns_djokovic_apologise/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/tournament-director-resigns-djokovic-apologise-but.953378
https://theredarchive.com/post/953378
Top posts by naturalheightgainer

Rape is okay when you're a woman! (Asia Argento situation)

326 upvotes
August 22, 2018
/r/MensRights

No Cenk, having sex with a minor doesn't become okay as long as the victim is a 17 year old boy and the accused is a hot movie star.

293 upvotes
August 23, 2018
/r/MensRights

Rape is okay when you're a woman! (Asia Argento situation)

182 upvotes
August 22, 2018
/r/PussyPass

Stab boyfriend with knife: no jail for you

159 upvotes
May 19, 2017
/r/PussyPass

How to be a bluepill simp

78 upvotes
March 12, 2018
/r/MGTOW

Sara Riggs, 3/20/97-3/18/16... thought I'd post this here. Sara (and her boyfriend Dusty) were killed when a 16 year old crossed the centerline because she was texting. That teen was cleared of all charges. Her dad was the judge in the county where it happened, and her the superintendent. No justice

77 upvotes
August 23, 2018
/r/PussyPass

"I'm a good child. I really do go to school. I'm 19. I play soccer." Credit card thief PPD

73 upvotes
January 6, 2016
/r/PussyPassDenied

Woman swings first, man swings back

65 upvotes
July 31, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Comments

[–]Rooi_Aap 52 points53 points54 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

So men draw larger crowds and play more sets, yet the prize money is the same.... Thus one can say men has to work harder (more sets) to get equal pay.

Also larger crowds. So should a minor league player receive the same amount as a major league player, even if the minor league has less prestige?

[–]wanked_in_space 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also larger crowds. So should a minor league player receive the same amount as a major league player, even if the minor league has less prestige?

Only if the minor leaguer is a woman. Don't be an idiot. That's not how equality works.

[–]Halafax 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tennis is in a unique position (largely because of mixed doubles) to have control of both men's and women's tennis at the same time. It's the only reason why the prizes are equal.

A few female players have argued that the sets for men should be reduced, but they get very quiet when asked about the difference in draw between men's and women's games. They don't have an answer, so the public must be wrong.

[+]geniice -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

So men draw larger crowds and play more sets,

The more sets only covers a handful of tournaments. Most male ones are 3 sets.

Thus one can say men has to work harder (more sets) to get equal pay.

Its prize money not pay.

Also larger crowds.

Again varies. The driving factor for crowd size for the top games tends to be the number of seats.

[–]turn30left 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

But they still play more in the grand slams. The women should play 5 sets in slams.

[+]geniice -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Eh probably but the grandslams don't want them to. Either due to sexism or issues with court capacity.

[–]such-a-mensch 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Or the fact that viewers don't want to watch it. If there was an appetite for longer womens games you can bet your last pound Wimbeldon would find the court capacity.

[+]geniice -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not an issue. Wimbledon runs plenty of games that don't have much audience appeal. Any mixed doubles match that doesn't contain Jamie Murray for example.

If I had to bet I'd say its more conservatism than anything else.

[–]such-a-mensch 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure i'm understanding you properly... You're of the opinion that people don't watch womens tennis out of conservatism rather than personal preference?

[–]geniice -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No the reason that we don't see 5 set female matches at grandslams is due to conservatism by the people running them. They've done it the current way for decades why change?

[–]such-a-mensch 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Just so I'm clear, You’re saying that the people that run these tournaments are willing to forgo the additional advertising revenue the extra play time would generate out of conservatism?

[–]geniice -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In the case of Wimbledon yes. It governs pretty much everything else they do so no reason to expect it not to apply in this case.

[–]naturalheightgainer[S] 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The reactive ducking for cover after these two revealed what were their honest opinions infuriates me. World No.1 and such a weak act to immediately back down on this because of feminazt feels. smh

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He must have gotten an earful from his sponsors. That's the only explanation I can think of.

[–]SirSkeptic 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never apologise for telling the truth! What's wrong with that guy?

[–]cgwriter 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We've moved into a world where any criticisms of women are wholly unacceptable. I knew we were really fucked when they got that rocket scientist to tearfully apologize over a shirt, and a sea of dipshits threw an uproar over the CDC's recommendation to not drink while pregnant.

[–]Sleeze1 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I wouldn't say my son deserved more money than my daughter because he's a man. It would be shocking."

Yeah you're right, that WOULD be shocking. Luckily thats not even close to what djokovic said.

[–]tugbenson1 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Serena already tried.

From Wikipedia:

"Another event dubbed a 'Battle of the Sexes' took place during the 1998 Australian Open between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams, aged 17 and 16 respectively, had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as 'a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager' ...after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two beers. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2. Braasch said afterwards, '500 and above, no chance.' He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game 'fun.' Braasch said the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier, and that men put spin on the ball that the women can't handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

An 18 year old 4th ranked Serena Williams claimed she could compete with men in professional sport; the US Open champion believing she could take on and beat the best players in the men's game. Nothing ever came to be from this claim."

[–]jdksn5 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The Williams sisters have probably made WAY more money than that guy in their career despite being much worse players. Women tennis players have the privilege of getting much more pay than a man of equal skill.

[–]LarryBeard 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Link](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19980127&id=kqJjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mggGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3506,5011601&hl=fr)

It is fun to see 16yo Serena wanting to be on the men's tour by 17yo

[–]abacabbmk 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol. What a joke.

Can't explain it to his daughter? "The fans enjoy watching men more, there's higher prize pools for men because of that."

Pretty simple I don't know how you can argue against those facts

[–]jdksn5 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's how it works in all of sports. Why should a professional basketball player be paid more than a professional bowler? ...because more people will pay to watch the professional basketball player.

[–]dungone 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

That aroused the ire of Williams, who has won 21 Grand Slam singles crowns to 11 for Serbia's Djokovic.

You can guess how even-handed the remainder of the article is.

If they want the same money, maybe they should enter in the men's tour and see how far they can get. The bottom line is that it is hugely unfair for the men's tour to generate money only to give up huge portions of it to the women's tour.

[edit:] It's also really ironic that Williams, playing fewer matches against a far less competitive field of opponents, managed to win more Grand Slams. But yet this doesn't count as her getting paid more overall? Shouldn't she share her winnings with the men who only managed to win half the number of Grand Slams?

[–]geniice -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's also really ironic that Williams, playing fewer matches against a far less competitive field of opponents

Williams's opponents include people using PEDs. Which of the top male tennis players are you accusing?

But yet this doesn't count as her getting paid more overall?

Well no because the real money at that level is in sponsorship. The top men are doing much better.

If you want a real pay issue in tennis I'd be more concered about the mid and lower level players.

[–]dungone 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Williams's opponents include people using PEDs. Which of the top male tennis players are you accusing?

Not sure what you're talking about, but it's got nothing to do with the competitiveness of women's tennis or the lack thereof. Williams was able to beat the best female tennis players from when she was 14 all the way through her mid 30's. This would literally be impossible if women's tennis was as competitive as men's. Men perform at the peak of what is humanly possible, which makes it physically impossible for a 14 year old or a 30-something to beat a top male player.

Let's assume that Williams is a female oddity who has actually achieved the pinnacle for what a human female can perform. If her field was competitive, then there would be 10 other women just like her rising through the ranks every single year. Doesn't matter if they all take PED's or none of them do. Her career would have never lasted 20 years in a legitimately competitive field. In spite of the meaningless platitudes spouted off by female players about working just as hard, it just isn't true.

Well no because the real money at that level is in sponsorship. The top men are doing much better.

Which has shit-all to do with the prize money handed out by tournaments. Regardless, Williams has been playing professionally for over 20 years. That's 20 years' worth of sponsorship money. Unless she actually sells more product than the men, why should they turn any of their sponsorship money over to her?

[–]geniice -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Men perform at the peak of what is humanly possible, which makes it physically impossible for a 14 year old or a 30-something to beat a top male player.

Pete Sampras won the US Open at 31. Roger Federer is currently ranked as the world number 3 at the age of 34.

Men hit pubity later but Becker and Chang both won grandslams at 17 the same age Serena won her first.

Her career would have never lasted 20 years in a legitimately competitive field. In spite of the meaningless platitudes spouted off by female players about working just as hard, it just isn't true.

She's a couple of months younger than Roger Federer the guy who made it to 2 grand slam finals last year.

Which has shit-all to do with the prize money handed out by tournaments. Regardless, Williams has been playing professionally for over 20 years. That's 20 years' worth of sponsorship money. Unless she actually sells more product than the men, why should they turn any of their sponsorship money over to her?

I'm not suggesting they should but Federer in particular will have been paid more overall.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

You can always find outliers but it doesn't change the big picture. It's women who have the records for youngest wins, and longest careers, with plenty of wins at both ends of the spectrum. Not so men.

You do have a point about men sometimes winning in their early 30's, but most of those examples are from the 1970's. Since then, the average age of winners has gone down to coincide with the age peak physical fitness for men,. Same goes for the age of first time winners. It's very hard to find men with lots of wins outside of the 26-28 range, even if they played professionally for longer than that. You can look across any number of extremely competitive sports, whether it's tennis, basketball, baseball, or whatever. You can look at the age of most sporting records - 26. So if male tennis players peak between 26-28, regardless of the occasional outlier, you know that it's a very competitive sport.

You can't say that about women's tennis, or women's sports in general,. Another way to understand this is in the rising age of female peak performance (i.e. as indicated by records). You can actually observe that as women's records are broken, the average age at which those records are set has been going up for the past few decades. And women's records tend to be broken by seemingly impossible amounts (like, was the last woman not even trying?) in spite of this, the performance of female winners varies wildly from that of the record setting performances. In just about every women's sport. Because they just aren't competitive. This has only been observed in women's sports, not men's. For men's sports, what you see is that year after year, large groups of male competitors of roughly the same age (26) all come very close to beating world records, but only by a tiny amount. In other words, the occasional woman who actually trains to perform at the peak of human ability is an outlier. And this allows her to have a very long career with plenty of wins. The rest of her competitors aren't even close to achieving their potential.

but Federer in particular will have been paid more overall.

But not because he won more Grand Slams. If you're going to impose equality of outcome for prize money, then it's fair game to look at the number of prizes won. After all, a male tennis player who won 11 Grand Slams "worked just as hard" to win those as the female player who won 21 of them. So let's just throw it all in a big pot and divide it in half, 'mrite? /s

Fact of the matter is, the only reason that women win any prize money at all is because they convinced everyone to let them hold their opens alongside the men. If they had to go back to play in separate events, no one would even pay attention to them. If men stopped playing tennis tomorrow, women's prize money would plummet. And if they actually had to compete against men, their best players would not get above 500 in ranking.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can always find outliers but it doesn't change the big picture. It's women who have the records for youngest wins, and longest careers, with plenty of wins at both ends of the spectrum. Not so men.

The youngest issue would be what we would expect given differing ages of puberty. Longer careers can be put down to differing styles of play. Women don't need that high powered serve to compete and the power-shots with large amounts of backspin in less present in the woman's game.

You do have a point about men sometimes winning in their early 30's, but most of those examples are from the 1970's. Since then, the average age of winners has gone down to coincide with the age peak physical fitness for men.

The 70s blip is largely due to Ken Rosewall

You can't say that about women's tennis, or women's sports in general,. Another way to understand this is in the rising age of female peak performance (i.e. as indicated by records). You can actually observe that as women's records are broken, the average age at which those records are set has been going up for the past few decades.

Varies. A bunch of them froze in the late 80s due to improvements in drug testing tech. The 100 meters being the classic example.

But not because he won more Grand Slams.

Indeed but that doesn't change the fact that his pay is higher.

[–]turn30left 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

1 player, and it was legal until this year.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Serena Williams is a fucking idiot.

"I wouldn't say my son deserved more money than my daughter because he's a man. It would be shocking."

It's not because he is a man that he earns more, it's because he draws bigger crowds, fills more seats, and brings in more money.

"This was never meant to be made into a fight between genders and differences in pay, but in the way all players are rewarded for their play and effort.

Which is precisely the point that Serena can't seem to grasp. I wouldn't expect a woman golfer to make the same as a man golfer, because men golfers draw more paying customers. It is simple economics really.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

"I wouldn't say my son deserved more money than my daughter because he's a man. It would be shocking."

The great laugh is that the same mechanisms which suggest men should be paid more are the very reason that she, as a professional athlete, earns so much more that the vast majority of society - and even, to an extent, the lower ranked pros.

That said, Andy Murray did make some very good points which swayed me a bit on this issue. He pointed out that whilst men's tennis gets the overall highest numbers, there are women who are bigger draws than men. Sure, head for head in the top 20 men should be paid more based on an economic basis, but should the 70th ranked man earn more than the 1st ranked women even if she pulls in more viewers just because of Federer and co? You'd really have to start working it out on a head per head basis.

Historically they prop each other up. There have been times when women's tennis was extremely popular, and even today, if a women's rivalry developed which captured the public's attention like Graff - Seles then that would be of major benefit to the men.

There are strong arguments on both sides of it, but unfortunately it all too often turns into a 'wahhhh equality' circle jerk or one about the standards of women's tennis, at which point they're so far off the point it's infuriating. As mentioned, the only reason professional athletes are paid what they are in high profile sports is because of the fact that people want to watch them, thus the only conclusion one can infer from talking about standards - or anything other than economic principles - is that they believe that it's an intrinsic right of a pro athlete to earn money. If that's the case they should be out in droves campaigning for all of the champion athletes scraping by on government grants and sponsorship in other, lower key sports.

Where standards should come into play is in acknowledging that women's tennis has fewer ticket sales due to the quality, not sexism. People watch sport for entertainment. Watching slower, less technical players is less entertaining than watching the very best players in the world regardless of gender.

[–]Swiggy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, head for head in the top 20 men should be paid more based on an economic basis, but should the 70th ranked man earn more than the 1st ranked women even if she pulls in more viewers just because of Federer and co?

For some reason Murray leaves out appearance fees. I wonder if these stars who demand equal pay because "We work just a hard" would be willing to spread their appearance fees to the other tour players since viewership and tickets shouldn't influence compensation.

[+]sm1lsta -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes but that is why capitalism blows, it is unfair that a man will draw bigger crowds just because he is a man. A woman will never make as much as a man in tennis no matter how good she is because women's tennis isn't as good.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

it is unfair that a man will draw bigger crowds just because he is a man

He doesn't draw bigger crowds because he is a man, he draws bigger crowds because he is better, and those matches are better.

[+]sm1lsta -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but he is better and those matches are better because he is a man.

[–]sm1lsta -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If those who downvoted me could explain how women are better than men at tennis that would be great. You will never find a woman who can beat a man in professional tennis, therefore men are better and the matches are better...

[–]EgoandDesire 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're getting downvoted because your posts are incoherent and pointless

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure the women who perform better or at least have more fans get more money than other women. But when it comes to men earning more than women, ohhhh noooo that cant happen. It would be sexist to pay the men what they are worth.

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]naturalheightgainer[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Aside from tennis, name any sport anywhere where it's even remotely close to true that the female pros earn what the males do.

Also it seems to me that the depth of talent among men is greater. A 50-150 ranked male winning sets off a 1-20 ranked male happens noticeably more often than in the womens game. I'd love to bring up the stats. Yet that No.50 ranked female is mandated to have earnings on parity with the No.50 male.

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]geniice -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sure. I get that.

So, let women try out for "men's" sports teams. If they can make the cut, let them play.

Call it the "open division" of the sport or whatever.

Not going to happen (outside of chess anyway). Would mess up youth feeder teams too much.

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Modern football scouts follow players from a very young age. They don't want their nice streamlined male recruitment pools messed up with girls who hit puberty a few years before the boys do.

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What a ridiculous thing to say.

They'll manage, believe me.

They could but why make things difficult for themselves?

Not many girls try out for football at a young age anyway. They're not interested. Would make no difference whatsoever.

Your problem isn't in total numbers. Your problem is the irritating left wing mid fielder who keeps the player you are actually interested in on the bench

[–]TheDude41 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]urinedanger123 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They can safely ignore the girls, because it is literally one in a billion (or worse) chance they could play at the highest level.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also it seems to me that the depth of talent among men is greater. A 50-150 ranked male winning sets off a 1-20 ranked male happens noticeably more often than in the womens game. I'd love to bring up the stats.

That's less talent and more to do with the styles of the game. Breaking a male server is difficult to put it mildly. Male sets tend to be won either by whoever breaks the other's serve once or via the tie-break. Female server are easier to break making it more straightforward for top players to consistently win.

Yet that No.50 ranked female is mandated to have earnings on parity with the No.50 male

No. By the time you are down to 50 its going to be more driven by player nationality or in the case of female players what they look like.

[–]bigbronze 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Handball and raquetball I think. The thing is, most tournament style sports have a buy-in and you win prize money. You aren't getting an actual regular pay check. So it makes sense that the pay is more equal than not.

[–]-er 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Battle of the Sexes pay-per-view.

Djokovic vs Williams

$3M prize pool. Winner takes all.

I'd pay to see that. Can we make it happen?

[–]urinedanger123 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Spoiler - Djokovic would win and it wouldn't be remotely close.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

a

[–]ChaosOpen 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I saw a youtube video about this when it first came out, and it broke down just how the men's and the women's division differ. One of the largest differences was the lower number of sets the women's division plays. In the men's the final and semifinals has a best of 5 sets, each set can theoretically go on forever, a set is up to 11 game the first to reach 6, except for the last where it the winner must have a minimum of 6 games with a 2 point lead, so a 6-5 would continue 7-6>8-7>9-8, etc until someone finally gets 2 points ahead of the other, so the last set could theoretically go on forever(who said you can't learn anything from anime?). Women on the other hand only have to play the best of 3 sets(with the final game being the same where the person must get a 2 point lead).

So, if you break it down this all means that if the women's league and men's had the same prize money, the women's division will pay more per game than the men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the women's division will pay more per game than the men

this is the going there being all of "equal pay." women don't want to work the hours, don't want to put in the effort, don't want to do what it takes, but they want the same pay.

More4Less

[–]fullhalf 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I wouldn't say my son deserved more money than my daughter because he's a man. It would be shocking."

dont twist his words. nobody is saying that. that would be absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical like the shit feminists say. the real question here is, why should women get paid as much as a man when the number one ranked female player cant even beat a 200th ranked male player? do you have any idea how big the skill disparity is between a 20th rank vs a 1 rank to begin with? this is 200th ranked. you could barely make a living as a 200th ranked male player yet you're making millions as a female player and you're complaining.

[–]Capitalsman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't he applying all the points used during the women's world cup up roar that Ronda Rousey said in a boo hoo gender pay gap question? Mens world cup soccer bring in bigger crowds and get rewarded as such, Ronda brings in huge crowds and PPV orders so she is the highest paid woman. Not only do the men bring in bigger crowds they also play more sets, so at least a 50-50 in pay is deserved.

Love how they always say "how would you explain this to your daughter?!?!"

[–]expert02 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your title really, really, really, really sucks.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter