Rafael Nadal: World no 1 sparks row with shock equal pay admission - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/971935/Rafael-Nadal-World-no-1-equal-pay-French-Open The issue of equal prize money has been a regular topic of debate within the tennis community in recent years. Although in the Grand Slam events there has been equal pay since 2007, there is a vast disparity in the prize money offered at women-only tournaments compared to men-only competitions. And speaking in an interview with Italian magazine Io Donna, Nadal said it was not fair that women earned the same as men. “Female models earn more than male models and nobody says anything. Why? Because they have a larger following. “In tennis too, who gathers a larger audience earns more.”

“If ability and popularity don’t matter, then doubles and wheelchair champions should earn the same prize money as men’s and women’s singles.” While another added: “I don’t like Nadal but how is that wrong? If women really want equality, they should be treated like the men. “Do they fill stadiums as much as them, do they bring as many tv-viewers? No. Should they earn as much ? No. Simple.” I can kind of agree with that line of thinking, but this assumes that women's pay is proportional to their crowd size when that may not necessarily be the case compared to men. I doubt there's a systematic payment system based on crowd size and it's more negotiation and ballpark figures, and that comes down to the people in charge not wanting to pay women as much as men. The lack of data makes it hard to draw true conclusions so really Nadal's comment is leaving out the nuance in the issue.

They put in the same work, they get the same money. They aren't the ones tasked with advertising the thing, the crowd drawn is not their job. This is retarded

I agree that advertising is not their problem however it is their responsibility to cultivate and maintain their following so if they're pulling bigger crowds then they should absolutely get more money as a result.

If your job is being a celebrity of some sort and you attract more viewers, and there are normal pay differences inside each gender or whatever, and then the same organization paying you the same as other arbitrary social groups its probably coming out of your pay. Last i checked being paid less than your work is worth be because of your gender is a form of discrimination.

That's up to the marketing team then

that's really not how you'd expect it to work. If it was "all up to the marketing team" you'd be able to fill the same stadium size regardless of the players gender period and this would be a complete nonissue to begin with.

It's up to the marking team to handle advertising however a marking team can't always make someone more entertaining to watch.

Nice to see someone with the balls to say what everyone knows to be common sense.

For the record, between this and his recent political outbursts, this guy reeks of entitlement (and double standards). Or, in other words, rich boy speaks as what he is.

I'd say it makes sense in, say, football, where you're employed by a team. When it comes to prize money, that tournament isn't your employer.

There's nothing equal about men and women's tennis. The crowds aren't equal, the profits aren't equal, and the skill isn't equal. Men play at a higher level and bring in more revenue. By every measure, they should make more.

I don't want to go all "free market" on your ass, but yeah, if the players and viewers find it to be a big problem, then I guess they could change it. But if people don't boycott the tournaments, I don't really see how it's gonna change. You could also argue that the male players are by extension getting exposed to more people by participating in the tournaments, which probably isn't a bad deal when it comes to making money outside the prize money. And either way, this is such a non-issue. If you win the grand slam, you're gonna make a boatload of money either way. It's like an even more inconsequential version of "not enough female CEOs".

That isn't how things work. Actors like Chris Pratt and Owen Wilson both work (approximately) equal when in a starring role, but Owen Wilson isn't going to draw people to buy tickets in the box office today. Pratt can ask for more money because studios know that his name is going to bring in more money. I like Owen Wilson and I think actors get paid far far more then I think they ought to, but names that draw more money, make more money. And in sports, male sports tend to be more popular with more viewers, more expensive ads, more money.

Do you see the irony in saying "this isn't how things work" and then referencing an industry that works, you know, entirely differently. In movies Chris Pratt has his agent negotiate his pay. This is in contrast to tennis, where tournament organizers put up a prize, and then people compete for it. It's entirely possible that someone with less recognition (and perhaps lower viewership) could go ahead and claim the prize instead of Nadal. The prize money isn't tied to the viewership (directly), and it also isn't tied to the player. Whereas in movies, pay is very much decided by who you are. I'll admit that you could say that it should work like the movie industry, but this "haha kiddo this isn't how things work" is kinda stupid, because it's exactly how things work. If Nadal thinks the prizes are too low, he's well within his rights not to attend. You know, the same way actors don't work on movies if they don't get paid enough. The fact that he doesn't tells me that these industries definitely don't work the same way.

same prize money yet women play less sets? not equal

The prize money should absolutely be the same. It's a representation of achievement in the sport, not in popularity. The whole "bigger audiences mean more money thing" would stay true as the more popular players would still make way more in adverting and shit like that, which I'm sure is where top players like Nadal make 99% of their income. If we're talking about less popular players who can't yet earn through advertising then his point is nullified, as they're then on equal terms with the women at least in terms of audience draw.

Yes, but one has a much higher value to the company. I don't know enough about tennis to have an opinion about this specifically, but a worker's value to the company is how they're paid, not the work they put in.

Thats the thing, they don't. Female matches are shorter than male ones, if they went for the same amount of time then yeah sure but females play best of 3 instead of 5. I think the issue here shouldn't be that someone is calling them out for getting paid what they shouldn't and more that they aren't playing what they should, Tennis is somehow the opposite of gender equality but now that someone calls it out hes the bad guy?

That's a fair point, different industries function and operate differently. Nadal has every right to protest, not attend, or however they see fit. My comment was directed to the idea that "They put in the same work, they get the same money" and unfortunately most industries don't work that way.

But they aren't equal levels of achievement? One of them is for best female tennis player in the world, and the other is for best tennis player in the world. The two leagues simply aren't equivalent. The whole point of a separate female league is to allow for women to have a league to play in because they wouldn't be able to compete in a mixed league.

Have you considered asking yourself why Men's sports draw in more crowds than Woman's?

The women also play three sets instead of five, it's very much not "equal levels of achievement".

Remember that also female versions of sports have an unequal representation in sports media ( for example not opening the headlines when a female football team wins the world cup and only gets mentionated in a small corner ), which makes them being less known and ofc, with less public.

and they win fucking plates ffs

You can't force news media to put female sports front and center on the headlines, they're only going to do that if it sells more than something else. The biggest story gets the front page, if you want more people to be interested and thus more reporters reporting on it then you invest in advertising (among other things) and hope it's entertaining enough to pull and keep crowds.

Rafa has been a gigantic idiot lately.

Female teams (let's keep with soccer/football) are also incredibly underwhelming to watch are have no draw because their skill level is so low compared to men. Frankly put they are just not good or exciting enough to warrant the same level of coverage as male teams.

But then if we stick to that argument, male football is equally underwhelming because is always seeing the players faking a penalty or just seeing a single player going around in circles rather than collaborating with the team . There are good and bad teams everywhere. But that's the problem, as is a vicious cycle which will never be enough to draw a crowd. It totally doesn't help when the media talks about their sucesses by sexualizing them.

That's a defeatist mentality. It seems like you are suggesting (correct if I'm wrong) that because it's not possible to make it popular through natural means (advertising and marketing) that it needs to be forced onto front page headlines in order for it to gain more attention and thus become more popular. There is however some problems with that, simply putting more attention onto a particular sport won't make it more popular as it also has to be entertaining to begin with. I would make the claim that certain sports media will sexualize them because most of their readers (maybe all?) are male and are buying their product as a result, just as women have their own media that sexualizes men and I have no problem with that. If you don't like a sports media outlet sexualising women then don't give them your money otherwise so long as their is a market for it then they'll continue to feed it.