So, just how deep is the men's game?
By Liza Horan
The depth of the men's game is so immense that qualifying the level of competition is a tough task itself.
The depth of the men's game is so immense that qualifying the level of competition is a tough task itself.
To put it in context, consider the time spent on court during the last two tournament matches by the new No. 1s:
- Rafael Nadal's last two matches—the semifinal over Fernando Verdasco and the final over Roger Federer—together ran 577 minutes.
- Serena William's last two matches—the doubles final with Venus and the singles final over Dinara Safina—combined for 135 minutes.
Rafa played more than 7 hours longer than Williams.
Yet, she won two titles and walked away with US$142,500 more than he did. Each singles champ received US$1.265+ million and the winning doubles team won nearly US$285,000.
The usual suspects didn't make the late rounds in the women's draw, but Serena is such a force, would it have mattered?
The opposite is true for the men. The competition is so thick. It's exciting. It's heartwrenching. The men's trophy presentation alone spoke to the power of sport itself, and to the power of tennis.
The Australian Open is just another example of the great disparity between men’s and women’s prize money.
Many people I know, including women, still do not understand the basis for equal grand slam tennis prize money for men and women. Is it symbolic disparity, gender equality, political correctness? Venus Williams, says, “It’s really about an equality issue, about being created as equals, as human beings... We’re the premier sport for women.” Does that mean that the premier sport for the handicapped, seniors, racial groups, other sexual groups (gay/lesbian, transsexual), girls, boys, and even doubles and mixed doubles get equal prize money?
Is it just “equal rights”? In all endeavors of life that means each has the opportunity to compete based on their abilities and performance, the results of these determining compensation or awards. If the tennis associations allowed women to compete in the ATP against men or the men to compete in the WTA against women, what do you think would happen?
Is it for all the preparation and work before a tournament? Women generally play fewer tournaments than men. Do women train as long or as hard as men?
Is it because women attract as many fans and money resources as men? Stand alone women’s tournaments do not attract the crowds and prize money that men’s do. Based on one analysis by a blogger (randomratio.blogspot.com) for 2006, the WTA tour, with 61 tournaments, averaged prize money of $650,000 or a total of $39.6 million. The ATP tour, with 64 tournaments, averaged $929,000 or a total of $59.5 million. Is there any other women’s sport that matches the men’s in that respect?
Is it for their performance on the court? Based on my analysis of the statistics on their website in 25 out of 26 grand slams, these are some of the answers: men not only played three sets to two, but they had 69% more extended sets, averaged 6.6% more games per set, and had 188% more tie breaks per match than women.
As for fan appeal and quality of tennis, men had 8.2% more winners per game, 21.8% fewer errors per game, 119% more aces per game and 28.6% fewer double faults per game. Most people that I know think the men’s game more gutsy, where they go after every ball, with good all court play and more variety of shots. There is more intensity and excitement in the men’s game.
Yet given these facts, based on statistics of recent 15 of 17 grand slam tournaments, the average tournament prize money for the women’s singles champion was 60% higher per game played than the men’s champion. It ranged from 23% to 101%.
Or is it, “just because”? This question is raised, not to be unfair to women’s tennis, just as it is no insult to college or high school tennis, realizing that all are at a different level. It is raised, because from every point of view it seems grossly unfair to men’s tennis. Prove it not so, by separating the grand slams for men’s and women’s tennis.
Reply to this
Joe,
100% true !!!!!!!!!!
Reply to this
Women should have to win 3 out of 5 sets same as the men to receive equal amount of prize money.
Reply to this
As a capitalist, I think the prize money paid out should be proportional to the money that they bring in, as best we can judge through TV ratings, sponsorships, etc. If either men or women are a bigger draw, they should be rewarded accordingly.
Reply to this