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

If the tournaments would like to do that, then they can, but I don't see any argument for saying they're in the wrong for making two unequal leagues have unequal prizes.

Well, to be honest I think both approaches can be justified. In the end it's up to the tournament organizers, and barring any extreme injustices, I have hard time seeing this as a big deal of any kind. Do you sort of half-way walk back on this, though? Do both approaches have merit, or is one so obviously right that only one lacking in balls could say otherwise?

They were also 16 at the time, far from their peak but fine, point proven.

While nobody denies that there are some biologic differences between women and men, is still not justifying the lack of representation at the media. It doesn't hurt to at least have a section of them and make them more known.

I really do think it's common sense that the men's league would have higher rewards. The only reason anyone would think otherwise is some notion of enforced sex-based equality of outcome, irrelevant of the factors that caused that inequality of outcome. If you know of some other argument for it, then I really would be happy to consider it, but at this point thats all I can come up with.

I mean I did just post an argument - they're similar achievements and you could be justified in compensating them accordingly. The same way women also get a gold medal even though their absolute performances rank below many men's. Is that argument completely ball-less?

I guess I just disagree that they are relevantly similar achievements. One is about competing to be the best player in the world and the other is a specialized league made specifically to give one class of players a chance at competing at all. Honestly, the women's league is extremely comparable to something like a league made for disabled players. The logic is the same. If we're going to say that being the best in the women's league is similar enough to deserve equal payouts, then why not a disabled league, or any other specific group given their own league? I also don't really like the gold medal comparison because medals are specific to the level of competition. Everyone recognizes that me getting a gold medal in a high school tennis tournament isn't anywhere comparable to a gold medal on the world's stage of professional tennis, but that doesn't really work for monetary prizes. Money is directly comparable across leagues because it exists outside of the sport as an objective measure. So while I can win a gold medal in high school, I can't win the kind of money professional players make because everyone recognizes that I'm playing at nowhere near that level. My gold medal is worth less than theirs. In the same way, I see the women's league gold medal as a lower level achievement. Don't get me wrong, the female players work really hard and are great tennis players, and they do get a lot of money, rewards, and recognition, but they are not at the same level as the male players. All sports are about "inherent advantage" at some level or another.

The idea that achievements aren't relative to your starting point is just kind of silly. Me beating the world's quickest 8-year old on a 100m sprint doesn't make me exceptional - and it doesn't make that 8-year old's achievement any less impressive. Women's tennis might not be as popular as men's, but I can promise you that Serena Williams attracts more viewers than number 500 on the men's list - why? Because his achievements aren't as impressive at all, as it's obvious that his relative skill is lower. Sure, absolute skill is also a draw, but humans are clever enough to see that achievements are exceptional not always because of the absolute skill on display. If they weren't, why would anyone care about a talking parrot? They're pretty shit at it, everything considered. The idea that money is "an objective measure" of skill is just confusing - the entire idea that someone would assume that two people with equal winnings are of equal skill relies on that being the system in the first place. Which it isn't, exemplified by Serena Williams having earned way more than rank 500 guy. If money were an objective measure, you'd also be able to use it across different tournaments and sports - which you can't. If Nadal wins a $1m and a $5m tournament against the same guy, did he suddenly improve five-fold? The matches could've been played at exactly the same skill level, after all. And how does he compare to a world-class football player? Is that football player more skilled in that field than Nadal is in his own? The same way as with medals, you need context - which sport? Which tournament? And the argument that "all sports are about "inherent advantage" at some level or another" is kinda just begging the question - how big are the differences in "some level"? Why do kids even have their own football leagues? It's brushing aside the vast differences in inherent advantage that exists between groups just because "some level" of discrepancies exist within groups. Obviously, some realities with regards to monetary rewards exist - I opened myself up to the argument above that kids should get the same prizes simply because there are differences in inherent advantages, and obviously that's absurd. But there probably exists some compromise in-between; do you really think that the earnings of top level female athletes should reflect those of males of similar absolute skill? That's a good way to kill all professional level female sports, because the effort needed to make a living would approach the inhuman.

you've convinced me that you're correct, please stop saying words at me

Idk how you interpreted what I said to mean women are lesser or deserve lesser medals. I literally went out of my way to specify that’s not how’s I feel.

Let me clarify a few things: 1) I agree that we can celebrate people who are the best relative to their starting point. I'm good with that. I've never argued that the female tennis league ought to be abolished or that people are wrong to enjoy watching female tennis players because they aren't the best in the world. The best women in the world should be celebrated for their achievements. My contention is that their achievement is not equal to that of the best tennis player in the world. In your example, a talking parrot is cool, but it's not anywhere comparable to say, Shakespeare. Both are celebrated relative to their starting points, but Shakespeare is still held to a higher level because his absolute level of achievement is greater. 2) I'm not saying money is an objective measure of skill, but that's it's has objective value. $1 million dollars given as a prize for the top level tennis tournament in the world is 100% equivalent to $1 million dollars given to a kid who won a high school tournament. The value of that prize is exactly the same in both instances. This doesn't hold for prizes like medals. A gold medal given to one is not equivalent to a gold medal given to the other. One has relative value and the other has objective value. So if one tournament requires a higher level of ability to win, then it makes sense to give it a higher reward. This stands for kids vs adults, amatur vs professional, disabled vs abled, and women vs men. In every case, the level of play that is most inclusive, the one that restricts the entrance of skilled players the least, is the highest honor. What makes the male/female split inherently different? So what is the compromise? Where can you draw a line that isn't equally applicable to any other group with lower average ability? The idea that women ought to be able to earn the same as men in something like tennis, or any other physical sport, really seems to come down the demand for equal outcome, not an actual argument for why the system is inherently unfair. It's no less fair than nature, itself. The vast majority of men have zero chance at ever playing sports professionally because of their genetics, their life situation, etc. Why are they in a different situation than women?

But men play more sets than women. Why should men be paid the same amount as women when they have to play almost twice as much? In the Olympics men run 100m and women run 100m, so they should be paid the same amount/given the same awards. In tennis men play 5 sets per match while women play 3, paying them the same amount of money for differing amounts of play seems unfair.

Wimbledon decides on the amount of sets, and women have played Bo5s before in large tournaments, as far as google can tell me. The idea that the prize pool is some kind of hourly wage also seems misguided at best - especially considering all the posts saying this is a question of skill, not being paid for your effort. Either way it doesn’t seem like this is something female tennis players decided.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care about how much any tennis players get paid. I just want them to be paid fairly. I don't even watch tennis, I was just going off what my mother said for amount of sets, since she's obsessed with tennis.

As someone correctly pointed out, I don't know much about tennis. I know when I've lost an argument.