twodoebs

Random Thoughts From Our Random Minds

Sunday, September 30, 2007

 

Congrats JR and Denise

By: Doebette


Last night JR asked Denise to marry him and she said YES!

Congrats to JR and Denise on their engagement!

Wishing you a lifetime of happiness together.



Comments: Post a Comment

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

 

With the greatest of ease!

By: Doebette

Last week I got the pleasure of going to a New York City landmark. Well ok, maybe that's overstating it. But I went to Trapeze School. On the West Side Highway on the roof of a 3 story building stands a trapeze set.


As a company event my department got to go and MAN it was fun. It's certainly much harder than I thought but it was a TOTAL blast.


If you come to NYC definitely put this on your list of things to do.




Comments: Post a Comment

Sunday, September 16, 2007

 

Welcome to the world Anneliese

By: Doebette






The Claus Family has grown by one more baby girl which is good news because the Claus's sure do make adorable girls.




Anneliese Joy Claus was born on September 7th and her whole family is enjoying having her home.






Comments: Post a Comment

  By: Doebette





Anneliese maxin and relaxin with her dad.








Comments: Post a Comment

  By: Doebette


Me and Anneliese







Comments: Post a Comment

  By: Doebette



Doebs and Anneliese





Comments: Post a Comment

Monday, September 10, 2007

 

Should women tennis players get the same pay as men?

By: Doebette
I was recently out to dinner when this lively topic came up: Is it fair that women tennis players get the same prize money as their male counterparts in Grand Slam Tennis tournaments?

I contend that it is fair, and here's why.

1. The tournament asks the same of men and women competitors. The U.S. Open women start from the same number of players as men, 128 each. They play the same number of rounds (4 Rounds of play followed by the Quarter-Finals, Semi-Finals and Finals). I can hear what some of you must be saying. "The tournament asks the same!?? That's not true!". I imagine what you're saying right now is: women only play 3 sets and men play 5- thus a higher pay is justified. I understand why this is a go-to argument because it's an easy number to point to, but I don't think it's a fair way to judge participation. Why? What if Male Champion X wins in 3 straight sets and Female Champion X wins in 3 sets. Does this mean the female champion deserves more because she played the maximum and the male deserves less because he played less than the maximum? Yes of course the opposite can happen where (as in the case this year) the women's champion handily beat her counterpart in only 2 short sets as the opponent didn't put up much of a fight. And I'm sure some readers are saying "see??--that means lower ad revenue!" To this I say: The ad rates are determined well in advance of the event itself. Ad time is purchased, planned and ads produced months in advance. The ad revenue is made well before the event happens so a 2 set match actually does generate the same as a three set match. Frankly if the US Open wants to make more money in ad revenue from women's matches, they might consider broadcasting the finals during more choice times, like perhaps, when they broadcast the men's finals- as opposed to dumping it on Saturday night when there are fewer TV viewers in general.

Now- back to the numbers question...I realize that you 'women only play 3 sets where men play 5' people are probably also doing some quick math and are readying a reply about the fact that to get to the finals, the minimum a woman has to win is 14 sets where the male counterparts must win 21 sets. This is true, but opens the doors to quantify those sets even further. What about a 6-1 set being "worth" less than a 7-6 set, is that fair? What then about number of total minutes played? If the female championship match takes longer than the male, do they deserve more because they were on TV longer? To me, the bottom line is there are too many variables to quantify what a "just" prize is. Never mind that prize money is determined well in advance of the tournament, long before any ball has bounced, makes equating set/time/minutes to prize money even funnier. What is consistent is that the male champion started from 128 players, and won 7 matches to be declared champion. The female champion started from 128 players, and won 7 matches to be declared champion.

2. The excitement and entertainment draw doesn't necessarily come from men's powerful game and fast serves. Those of you already disagreeing with me may be saying, "Be honest, men's tennis is just more exciting, thus drawing more viewers". Yes it's true- Andy Roddick has the world record for serve speed -155 mph. Yes, men hit the ball harder and faster. But since this is a co-ed tournament and TV coverage isn't scheduled that far in advance, attendees don't necessarily know who they're going to see when they buy their tickets, TV broadcasts cover whatever matches happen to be on that day - there is NO way to determine whether male or female tennis stars are drawing merchandise sales, TV viewership over the course of the tournament in New York and tournament attendance. Though it's important to note that the US Open Series is actually a 6 week tournament culminating in the US Open in NY. Over 700,000 people attend the U.S. Open tournament in NY over two weeks making it the highest attended sport in the world. Maybe viewers and fans tune in to watch Roger Federer win time after time (or perhaps they even tune out because his win is a foregone conclusion). Maybe they tune in to see Justine Henin's flawless backhand. It could be any of the major stars, but there's no way to tell whether 54.5% of the viewers are more interested in the men's championship thus making the 4.5% prize difference (at Wimbledon- the only Grand Slam still paying unequally). Frankly if we're looking at popularity, Forbes magazine ranks Maria Sharapova as the most powerful player in tennis based on her earnings in 2006 (including prize money, endorsements, and merchandise sales). In fact of the Forbes list of top ten most powerful tennis players features an equal number of men and women. And when you look at the total income of these top players, the prize difference is so meager one must wonder why the insistence on it to begin with. Which brings me to number 3.

3. It's just right. Tennis is a sport that has long supported diversity and equality. Starting with the US National Tennis Center named after Tennis' leading ladies- Billie Jean King, who coincidentally fought tirelessly for equal pay for women players. As well, the Chairman of the Board & President, USTA is also a woman, Jane Grimes. The USTA has opted to pay the winners of the US hosted tournament equally, and in doing so says all the athletes are of equal importance. To the USTA the value of the athletes- at least in this tournament- will not be determined by revenue or popularity. Though again may I remind- the Australian and French Opens also pay equally. Even leaving out the support for amazing African American athletes such as Althea Gibson and Arthur Ashe- paving the road for the Williams sisters and others, tennis has lead the way for creating opportunity for ALL people to experience their sport. Although it's interesting to note- it was 50 years ago that Althea Gibson became the first African American athlete male or female to win the US National Championships (which is now the US Open) and the first year the US National Championships was the US Open it was won by Arthur Ashe who is the namesake for the main stage at

According to the U.S. Open Series website, their mission statement reads: To Promote and Develop the Growth of Tennis. One might argue one of the best ways to do this is support growth and development for both men and women. For U.S.T.A to stand up and say that they value the women athletes the same as the male athletes supports the growth and development they strive for.


Comments:
Although you are right about the fact that it takes seven rounds for each male and each female to win a grand slam, it is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is how long they spend on the court. The fact and the matter is, with 2 sets to win instead of 3, women spend, on average, less time than men on the court. Period. Okay, there can be exceptions in which a very hard fought female match will turn out to last longer than a men’s single, but that is an exception, and exception should not make the rules, they should only prove them right.

In addition, the depth in the women game is far inferior to the one of their male counterparts. Indeed, how many times have we watched these 6-0, 6-0, or 6-1, 6-0 in the first few rounds of the majors. Let’s face it, the difference between the top 25 in women and the rest of the crowd is HUGE, much, much bigger than on the men’s side. Sure you can get a 6-2-6-1, 6-2 during a first round between Federer and a wild card, but again, you see a lot more upsets, and especially early on, on the men side than on the women’s. There are several reasons for that, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is the fact that
1) Women have to spend less time than men on the court on paper, in theory that is.
2) Women DO spend less time on the court in reality.
3) Today, it is my assertion that even if women needed 3 sets to win a match, they would STILL spend less time on the court than the men’s (although this last point can be debated).
Yet, they get equal money…


I agree with the fact that it is nearly impossible to determine who people want to see when they go to Slams, big names can be found on both sides of the men and women tours, and if women tennis is probably more popular in North America than anywhere else in the world, in terms of pure popularity in general, women tennis is totally comparable to the men’s; comparable though, not superior….

So why? How can this be justified? Here is what I think: First, women’s tennis is popular, popular as a sport. It is among all sports, probably THE most popular women sport in the world. A woman sport enjoyed by women, already less sport addicts than their male counterparts to begin with, but also a women sport enjoyed by men; and, if we stick to regular league sports, not the Olympics, or other special events, that’s not too common, let’s face it.
I have not met a real tennis fan who was not interested in women’s tennis since Navratilova and Chris Evert always met in the final of EACH tournament they would enter, thus making what happened before that final totally uninteresting and irrelevant.
Women have done, and are still doing, great things for tennis, and tennis has done great things for women, but let’s face it, it remains an exception. I don’t know a lot of guys interested in WNBA, LPGA, Softball, or any other regular league championship sports. Women athlete paycheck don’t even compare with the amount of money men make, but again, no woman sport is as popular as tennis. As a result, I think that women were eager to take advantage of this golden opportunity, and pushed very hard, and very successfully I may add, to get the equal prize money in Slams.

I talked to a woman about this issue a few months ago, and I think her answer summarized very well the situation. She said that in our society, woman who work as much as men are on average getting lees compensated than men, and this since the beginning of time; as a result, “you men leave us alone on this tennis issue; give it up, let it go, as it does not even make up for less than .1% of all the other salaries inequalities faced by women EVERYWHERE on the work place in our society”.

It would be ludicrous for anyone to deny that she is right. And for that reason, I am very OK with accepting this equal pay in tennis between Men and Women, but, where I feel I have to step in, is when people try to give logical arguments, making this situation legitimate, based on any other elements that the one above. There is absolutely NO logical or scientific legitimacy in women getting equal pay to men at a Grand Slam when they work on average half the time hgthan their male counterparts, NONE!
That being said, historically and culturally women have always been involved in this great sport, more than in any other sports, throughout the centuries (literally), and they have not always been treated fairly, today’s situation is a way to pay back some of these past dues.

FYI: Since 2007, all Grand Slams, including Wimbledon, have an equal price money policy.

Posted by G.

 

**********
Such a spirited debate.

And SUCH well developed thoughts from both sides. Too bad the person who INITIATED the agrument didn't chime in . . .

 

**********
Post a Comment

Archives

April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   January 2011   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   May 2011   June 2011   July 2011   August 2011   September 2011   October 2011   November 2011   December 2011   January 2012   February 2012   March 2012   April 2012   May 2012   June 2012   July 2012   October 2012   December 2012  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Web Counters