I'm really writing all over the place. There will be more on England, but I'm still digesting much of my experience. Here I am responding to yet another article on tennis pay. Prize money is equal in the men's and women's draws. Should it be? Several brief considerations of various arguments.
Equality of pay
A champion is a champion, so pay should be equal. There is no difference in the training, skill and effort. There is appeal in this simple and obvious formula.
Time on Court
There is a marked discrepancy in time played between men and women. Women play 3 sets, men 5. While women's volleys tend to be a bit longer, there is a surprising degree of shot disparity, with men hitting the ball far more times. They need to be more conditioned, not just stronger.
Audience Size
There is a startling discrepancy in audience size, even when popular American women such as Serena Williams are playing. Men's finals outdraw women's finals more than 2:1.
It is a delicate issue with a history. Actresses have been screaming about pay equality for years, and are in many cases commanding it. This is despite the gross disparity in earnings by movies headlined by male stars vs female stars. There is no economic basis for equal pay when there is no equal income. On the other hand, there is a legacy of income disparity based solely on gender that leaves a sour taste when there is income disparity.
In private practice medicine, your income is based on how many patients you see and how many procedures you do. It doesn't matter if you are male of female. I think that is how the world should work. Real equality is not arbitrary 'equal pay' or 'equal admissions to college'. Whoever performs the best, pulls the largest audience, has the best grades, etc, is who should get the money (or admission, for schools).
I'm a meritocrat, not a sexist. You earn it, you get it. No affirmative action, no sexual consideration, nothing. Straight merit. On that basis, women's tennis players are overpaid when their prizes are of equal value.
Ted
Equality of pay
A champion is a champion, so pay should be equal. There is no difference in the training, skill and effort. There is appeal in this simple and obvious formula.
Time on Court
There is a marked discrepancy in time played between men and women. Women play 3 sets, men 5. While women's volleys tend to be a bit longer, there is a surprising degree of shot disparity, with men hitting the ball far more times. They need to be more conditioned, not just stronger.
Audience Size
There is a startling discrepancy in audience size, even when popular American women such as Serena Williams are playing. Men's finals outdraw women's finals more than 2:1.
It is a delicate issue with a history. Actresses have been screaming about pay equality for years, and are in many cases commanding it. This is despite the gross disparity in earnings by movies headlined by male stars vs female stars. There is no economic basis for equal pay when there is no equal income. On the other hand, there is a legacy of income disparity based solely on gender that leaves a sour taste when there is income disparity.
In private practice medicine, your income is based on how many patients you see and how many procedures you do. It doesn't matter if you are male of female. I think that is how the world should work. Real equality is not arbitrary 'equal pay' or 'equal admissions to college'. Whoever performs the best, pulls the largest audience, has the best grades, etc, is who should get the money (or admission, for schools).
I'm a meritocrat, not a sexist. You earn it, you get it. No affirmative action, no sexual consideration, nothing. Straight merit. On that basis, women's tennis players are overpaid when their prizes are of equal value.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment