What size are your balls?
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist that cheap shot headline (It’s Friday and my synapses are going silly again.) Now, get your mind out of the gutter; I’m talking about tennis balls.
(Tip of blog bowler to Phil Gerbyshak for whacking my synapses on this one.)
Apparently, Wimbledon thinks it’s fair to pay women less. And, on the face of it, (dollars per hour) it’s logical. Women play three sets; men play five. Yet, it’s the same game, and the balls are - ahem - the same size. In fact, Phil makes a good point. If you look at the dollars per minute, the men are actually the ones getting the short end of the racket.
But here’s the thing. Value doesn’t have much to do with logic. It’s about experience, perception and desire. And, in this case, “equal pay for equal work” is further skewed by the type of industry and event.
Does Wimbledon charge less for the tickets when women play? It doesn’t appear so, based on a quick visit to their web site. Could I pay less for a hotel room if I’m just there to watch the women? Of course not. Do the women train any less time? What about advertising? Do they charge less for ads that have the women in them? Hmmm. Come to think of it, there are women tennis stars making big bucks for endorsements, and they seldom win anything. And, Wimbledon has a woman player in the masthead of their web site (sex sells, doncha know?) Could/should the women players receive extra compensation for the use of their images in advertising, in an offset to less actual play time?
Me? I think the compensation structure - for both men and women - in both sports and entertainment is obscenely out of sync with actual value to society.
What do you think? (Phil, feel free to weigh in again!)
Tags: blogher, marketing, marketing troubleshooting, tennis, Wimbledon, nobodies
View the Blog Roll
April 28th, 2006 at 10:25 am
You can’t look at it as an rate per hour issue. They are playing to win, just as in any sport. The number of matches, etc, shouldn’t matter. What should be taken into consideration are the number of people attending the matches. If there was substantially less interest/prestige in the women’s matches vs. the men’s matches, then I could see a difference.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
The amount of money one creates should be the judge for the pay of the entertainers. I completely agree, and think that’s the point I SHOULD have made.
And I completely agree that entertainers get paid WAY more than the value they bring to society, but unfortunately we would rather be entertained than educated. Sad state of affairs, to be sure.
Good points here!
May 6th, 2006 at 6:57 am
It seems “value” in sports almost always directly equates to “stars we want to see play”. Tennis is one of the few sports where there is a rich tradition of well known female “stars”. so It’s actually one of the few sports where I think the women are if not on equal par with the men, at least getting close.
Other sports, like the WNBA are nowhere near close - so while I find the difference in salaries appalling, I at least understand the thinking behind it.
But watch out - I think the women are going to pull closer to the men in many sports - specifically golf: Look at the exciting young players coming up in the LPGA. Look at Danica Patrick in car racing. The more “star” players women’s sports produce, the more money everyone will make.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Yes, the new generation coming up is going to make some big differences! We’re just now seeing the results of opening up sports programs to girls.
Of course, we still have a ways to go. The women sports stars always seem to end up in some cheesecake spread, whatever the sport.