Isn't it sexist that for the same money men play 5 sets but women only play 3?

Question

Society's bias against men?

Answer 1

think of it this way maybe it'll make you feel better...

men are naturally way much stronger than women and can exert more effort for longer times... it's nature!!! or else why aren't they playing together? bec. the weakest man can overtake A FAIRLY STRONG woman... when a woman plays three sets she actually exerts the same effort that a man does when he plays five bec. she's naturally weaker and this is as far as her body can take unlike men.. so when a man plays three sets THIS is unfair!!! no I was just kidding in this last one  :) actually men only play 5 sets in grandslams to give the players with super stamina and fitness the chance of winning fairly, eliminating the chances of lucky winnings... they CAN play five sets and women CANNOT.

edit:

to all who didn't like my opinion:

prize money is given for exceeding the ones who are in your same category ,not a higher one..

Answer 2

Yes, it may appear sexist and the old debate may resurface. There are a few factors to take into consideration, the time allowance to complete majors, add on a few extra hours of court time and it disrupts the draw. Heavens forbid they open up and drop some H20.There are positives: (1) not having to listen to the squeals any longer (2) if a not so sexist man happens to hook up with a ladies ATP winner, there will be no questions about the money she won, would there now?

I might even sit through a whole tournament if it was my woman playing five setters all the way through!!!

Answer 3

Good point. Kind of, because Federer and Roddick don't seem to have a problem with it. Everyone else does. I think women have potential to stay out there that long, because then it doesn't make a difference from a tournament like Indian Wells compared to the Australian Open. Yes, different surface, but same rounds, and sets, but different prize money. Yes, it is a bit sexist.

Answer 4

I always wondered about that. When there is parity, that can be looked as a raw deal for men. But, the dynamics of the sport has changed recently where the top 3 men are far better than the competition. At the same time, parity among the women has never been greater. So, the 'fatigue factor' for the men and women in the finals are about the same (given their physical abilities) though the men play more sets and hours. So, I am ok with both making the same for being the best in their sport. They should be treated equally if they put in the same work (on and off the court). That's just an honest reply.

Answer 5

If you make the decision based on the number of sets played, does that mean that Nadal should've been paid less for this year's RG since he played 21 sets to 24 for Federer?  You can't decide the money simply based on the sets played.  The prize is a reward for being the best in your respective field.  

Also as more and more tournaments are cutting down to best of 3 for men, I don't see a lot of calls asking for them to cut the prize money since men will be playing less.  The entire Master series this year went to best of 3 instead of best of 5 while keeping the prize money the same.

Answer 6

The prize money is not equal in tennis. Wimbledon is the only grand slam where the prize money is equal; unless you play in the doubles where the women's prize money is less than the men.

In all other tournaments, both men and women play the best of 3 sets. But men and women play on different circuits so obviously the prize money will differ as they don't play the same tournaments.

I agree that both men and women should receive equal prize money and play 5 sets a piece in a grand slam. Maybe it is time tournament officials realise that women are up to the task.

Answer 7

Olita,

If men CAN play five sets and women CANNOT, men MUST get paid MORE. Your hypocricy IS exposed.

Answer 8

Okay here's my response to this... We are in 2008!!!!

I am so sick and tired of hearing these kinds of baseless arguments. It's about time that we as individuals started treating people as equals rather than second class citizens. From your logic, that men should be paid more money because they play 5-sets as opposed to women who play 3-sets... base on this warped, close-minded way of thinking, my question to you is: why stop there? Why don't we start to award prize money based on the individual's race, or class, or nationality or even religious affiliation? If we can say that gender and s*x is the reason why women are paid less than their male counterparts, then let's add other factors to heighten the inequalities and injustices that are so rampant today!!!

People need to realize that all these reasons why men deserve to be paid more than women are outdated and old fashioned and therefore has no bearings in today's world anymore. We have come too far as a species and have made too much progress for this mindset and frame work of thinking to dominate our present society and the human conditioning. That's the bottom line!!!

The logic that men exudes more endurance during their five-set marathons and works harder for their prize money, that a men's match lasts longer than a womens' match, that men are stronger than women and therefore women can't play five set matches, are soo ridiculous in today's world, when you consider the insurmountable progress that women has made in society over the last couple decades, and continues to do so to this day and beyond.

I believe reigning Wimbledon Ladies Champion, Venus Williams said it best in her essay published in the Times on the eve of the 2006 Wimbledon:

    "I feel so strongly that Wimbledon’s stance devalues the principle of meritocracy and diminishes the years of hard work that women on the tour have put into becoming professional tennis players.

    I believe that athletes — especially female athletes in the world’s leading sport for women — should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message....

    Wimbledon has argued that women’s tennis is worth less for a variety of reasons; it says, for example, that because men play a best of five sets game they work harder for their prize money.

    This argument just doesn’t make sense; first of all, women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments....

    Secondly, tennis is unique in the world of professional sports. No other sport has men and women competing for a grand slam championship on the same stage, at the same time. So in the eyes of the general public the men’s and women’s games have the same value.

    Third, ... we enjoy huge and equal celebrity and are paid for the value we deliver to broadcasters and spectators, not the amount of time we spend on the stage. And, for the record, the ladies’ final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men’s....

    Wimbledon has justified treating women as second class because we do more for the tournament. The argument goes that the top women — who are more likely also to play doubles matches than their male peers — earn more than the top men if you count singles, doubles and mixed doubles prize money. So the more we support the tournament, the more unequally we should be treated! But doubles and mixed doubles are separate events from the singles competition. Is Wimbledon suggesting that, if the top women withdrew from the doubles events, that then we would deserve equal prize money in singles? And how then does the All England Club explain why the pot of women’s doubles prize money is nearly £130,000 smaller than the men’s doubles prize money?

    I intend to keep doing everything I can until Billie Jean's original dream of equality is made real. It’s a shame that the name of the greatest tournament in tennis, an event that should be a positive symbol for the sport, is tarnished."

To add to this, I just want to conclude by saying that if anyone agrees that in this heavily globalize man's world that continues to dominate our every facet of life, to suggest that men are somehow being disrespected, devalued or oppressed in anyway, is simply laughable to me.  

Women should always be treated as equals and respected for what they contribute to the sport and therefore be awarded for such, regardless of these outdated beliefs that keeps getting thrown around every so often .

Answer 9

Sexist? NO. Wrong? YES!

In any other sport, the rules are the same for male and female athletes. Let it be equal for Tennis also.

Some tournaments are played as best of three, some are best of five. Make this the rule for men and women alike!

This may make women's tennis more prestigious. If the same rules were applicable to both sexes women's tennis would be taken more seriously. Remember Anna Kournikova? Who ever went to see her GAME? Nobody. But everyone went to see her ANYTHING ELSE, which she obligingly displayed...

Answer 10

Yeah it's about time that the Grand Slams be fair about it. It'll make the women realize that they need to stop sitting around gossipping about the boys or fashion and stop scarfing bonbons and do more conditioning if they want to get in the shape that Navratilova, Graff, Henin, and Sharapova are in and the Williams' used to be in before the aforementioned guilty pleasures.

Answer 11

Ahhh affirmative action and lost direction of "equality" at its sickening best.

Answer 12

Yeah that is always a question. Some argue it's because women don't have the same endurance or that it's because they typically have 20%+ more unforced errors or that tradition this or that.

But I think women play on equal footings in most other major sports and they should be given the opportunity to prove themselves on the tennis court by playing best of 5 like the men.

I'm not saying I think it'll go well. But if nothing else it would force the women to be more serious about conditioning and ultimately elevate the level of play.