Whisper <
whisper@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:
I understand your point, but we don't live in an idealistic world. If Alcaraz enters an ATP tournament the tickets sold explode as everyone wants to see him, even non tennis fans know he's a superstar and will watch him. More fans flock to see him
resulting in more hotel bookings, restaurants, greater economic activity, more taxes collected by IRS etc. He generates a lot of income for many stakeholders. Maybe it's 'not right' but that's just how things work. You say men should be paid more than
women because of the economic value they create, then how is that different for superstar players? It's the same argument. If you want Alcaraz to not accept appearance fees then you should be genuinely promoting equal pay for women.
I'm glad you understand my point.
I know we don't live in an ideal world, but we always strive for ideal and we settle for best possible solutions at a time.
In this case with appearance fees, it's the opposite. It seems we strive for something horrible and we've settled for something that's ultimately unfair so no reason to support it.
Remember the stories about shamateurs during amatuer/pro era split?
I see this stuff with appearance fees as kinda similar.
Ultimately amateur era was abolished and everyone turned pro so that shamateurs would be no more.
Idealism, pragmatism or simply fair approach?
As for equal pay stuff, I hope I'll make myself clear. This shouldn't be about equal pay topic but I'll say it anyway.
I am totally for equal pay, believe me. Nobody is more for equal pay than me.
Let me ask you. If Kamala wins, do you think I'd say "because she's a woman she should get only 50% of what Biden got in terms of salary"?
Of course I would not say that.
Equal pay for equal job.
I think Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill all deserved equal pay, more or less. They were 3 equal co-stars in Star Wars.
Female teacher, male teacher, equal pay.
However it's another matter that I think Kamala is unfit for such role, especially her, and that women, being generally less intelligent, less strong, less rational are on average, always a worse pick for such a duty.
So in terms of law making, I'd rather and sooner ban women from running for office altogether, than I'd ever support unequal pay for female leaders if such cases occur.
If you're crazy enough to allow woman to lead you, and you have laws allowing it, there's no point in doing nonsense such as unequal pay.
What good would that do?
You can accuse me of anything, but can't accuse of being against equal pay
Equal pay 100%.
If a woman joins ATP and starts playing against men in same competition, again, I'm 100% for equal pay, I could not imagine anything else.
I'm a fair guy.
However in tennis we have strange situation. They talk about "equal pay" which is a total hoax.
How can you have an "equal pay" between two different franchises? ATP and WTA.
Are US and Columbian president paid equally?
They could end up being paid equally, but tell me what's the link between them other than both being presidents? None, they're presidents of different countries. So why should they be paid equally? Based on what?
What's the link between NBA and WNBA players? Are those paid equally? What's their link other than both being basketball players? They play in different franchises.
That's my take on tennis. Ultimately, ATP and WTA are different franchises. Even if they do the announced merge, it will still be separate tours just as e.g. men's singles is separate from men's doubles within ATP.
We do have some unique situations in tennis with both franchises offering their products at a same place and at a same time, e.g. slams and combined masters events.
Ok.
But is that any different than e.g. McDonald's and Burger King operating at a same time next to each other in some shopping mall?
It's not.
But still, nobody demands McDonald's workers get paid same as Burger Kings guys. Why should they? Separate franchises.
My point is we shouldn't even care about WTA and their salaries. However since we have those combined events, slams and few masters, then we have a problem to address.
Sponsorship deals and broadcasting rights are often intertwined.
So we have to separate it somehow.
Within ATP, men's singles are more popular than men's doubles and since singles bring in more revenue, the ATP awards more money to singles. That's logical. Nobody whines about it. Imagine Bryan brothers whining that they're not paid equally to Federer
and they both won Wimbledon?
We'd have laughed them off.
But when women whine, we take them seriously? Why.
It's only logical to apply the same to women's tennis in those combined events. (If we talk about combined events only. Trust me, women could earn 100 millions in stand-alone WTA events, I would not care since it's their franchise)
But generally as I mentioned with doubles within ATP, it's not a taboo that some competitions are paid less. That includes doubles but naturally women too once we have combined events with combined wallet.
Tennis players are primarily entertainers, right? Well in slams, females entertain us much shorter than men, since their matches are shorter. With men, we're guaranteed 3 sets, with women, only 2.
So assuming both products are of equal quality (and that's even funny thing to say) we simply end up receiving less when we watch women's tour. It means less broadcast time for sponsors etc.
Remember tickets for women's finals in slams also cost less indicating lesser value overall.
Not sure about ticket prices in combined masters series. But at least there both play bo3 so equal in terms of broadcasting time.
In the end, most of the time, people who are part of WTA tour (women) end up with "same pay" as those who are part of ATP even though WTA as a whole contributed less.
So actually we don't have "equal pay" we have one franchise (WTA) leeching off another one (ATP).
Horrible.
Now I do kinda understand why you troll me and suggest since Alcaraz brings in the revenues he should get paid more than the others?
You compare this to my stance on ATP and WTA.
But he isn't "paid more", he's "given more", that's my problem.
I guess the main point of difference is that you think players are kinda solo artists, when in fact I see them inseparable from their peers and the tour they're part of.
Elton John is a solo guy, Alcaraz or Djokovic is not.
Elton John can exist alone, or with a few team members, but Novak Djokovic even with his team, is a complete nobody without the other 1000s of tennis players throughout his career against whom he competed and played in all those tournaments making them
possible. Those were all his co-workers.
My point being, the tour as a whole makes the money, not any particular player. And the money within the tour is distributed or should be distributed based on results ie merit.
Maybe it's the socialist mentality we still have here that you and me see things differently, noticing different stuff?
So that's where appearance fees rub me the wrong way.
I've checked Wimbledon revenues, I think 50% roughly comes from broadcasting rights, 35% from sponsors and 15% from tickets.
So fans flocking to see a certain player is 15-20% effect on tournament revenues right? Probably less than 5%.
Broadcasting rights and sponsorship deals are known years in advance, they're not depending on late decisions by some players to compete or not.
So appearance fees are even unnecessary.
But if you really really value Alcaraz hype that he brings to lesser ATP events why not make appearance fees merit based as well?
You remember 90s ATP ranking points and awarding bonus pts for beating higher seeded guys or upsetting them?
Why not make something similar in terms of prize money for smaller tournaments allowing for a bigger prize money for high seeded players if they win the title or advance far?
If not, the surplus that was supposed to be given Alcaraz if he wins the title is distributed among all players proportionally.
That way you'd still pump in money into Alcaraz in smaller events, if he truly brings himself into it, but he'd have to win it and deserve it on court, not just by showing up in town.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)