6 thoughts on “Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray: New balls, please”
This all about the money. My bet is that their agents or the association or both had a little talk with them about sponsorship’s.
Its easy, they must insist that they will only play the same number of sets as the women tennis players. Lets see what the prize money and ticket sales look like then. The financial affects would be massive for the big tournaments and they would have to quickly recognise that they need the men’s matches to bring in the sponsors and revenue to support the whole sport.
The feminist theory says that female and male work is of equal value for the same job, therefore the men should righty earn more for their extra work, but feminists do not know what equal performance is . The male players are pointing out they should be rewarded for the more popular entertainment level. We already know that the Serena Williams got beat by a man outside the top 200 in challenge match, therefore how can she the justify her higher paid for less tennis regardless of ability. She would earn next to nothing in a gender free sport.
Being right only makes it worse. What really gets me is these guys do not lack for female companionship due to their views. Tennis was not going to expel them due to their views. So why did they cave? The only answer is their need for female collective approval which only serves to confirm the accuracy of the title of this piece. Perhaps they should claim they identify as female so then they could not only use the female locker room but work less for the same money on the female courts. They obviously aren’t using their balls so current transgender politically correct protocol demands they should be allowed to play as the gender they identify with. Is there a flaw in my logic?
I have mixed feeling about this. Of course it’s an absolute travesty that female tennis players should be paid the same as male players, when the men bring in at least 3 times the revenue and play 60% more tennis.
The situation in tennis is however a good, high profile exposé of the nature of the corrupt feminist concept of equality, which is equality of outcome (when it suits) irrespective of effort or merit.
We can then ask people to imagine running a company where you pay sales people the same, irrespective of how much business they bring in. Such a company would soon be out of business.
Likewise a company which made board and senior management appointments not on merit and ability but on the basis of quotas.
This illustrates how damaging to business, the economy and everyone’s standard of living the broader adoption of the distorted feminist concept of equality would be.
If Djokovic and Murray don’t have a problem with getting less prize money than they are worth then that’s their business. They aren’t going to end up in the poor house and I suspect that they are making their comments with an eye to even more lucrative sponsorship opportunities, which might be jeopardized if they don’t follow the politically correct line.
So let this mockery of equality stand as an example of what feminist equality really means, equal pay for less work at a poorer standard.
Agreed on the set count, but prize money should still reflect revenues (from ticket sales, TV etc.) It’s only when we have joint tournaments that we have the nonsense of equal prize money. Female tennis players are parasites on male players, it really is as simple as that.
as a tennis fan, I followed this controversy with interest. I rejoiced that for once someone was telling the truth when djockovich said men’s tennis harder conditions ought to be rewarded with bigger pay. The whining from women insisting on working less for the same money is frankly not new, but still wholly enraging. I am shocked and appalled that the corresponding associations don’t see the paradox, and even more than players such as murray bend like poodles to such a lie. I would not hesitate one second to get women to play 5, not 3, sets in the heat of some of the toughest conditions tennis such as the australian open, dubai, etc etc. And then see what they say
This all about the money. My bet is that their agents or the association or both had a little talk with them about sponsorship’s.
Its easy, they must insist that they will only play the same number of sets as the women tennis players. Lets see what the prize money and ticket sales look like then. The financial affects would be massive for the big tournaments and they would have to quickly recognise that they need the men’s matches to bring in the sponsors and revenue to support the whole sport.
The feminist theory says that female and male work is of equal value for the same job, therefore the men should righty earn more for their extra work, but feminists do not know what equal performance is . The male players are pointing out they should be rewarded for the more popular entertainment level. We already know that the Serena Williams got beat by a man outside the top 200 in challenge match, therefore how can she the justify her higher paid for less tennis regardless of ability. She would earn next to nothing in a gender free sport.
Being right only makes it worse. What really gets me is these guys do not lack for female companionship due to their views. Tennis was not going to expel them due to their views. So why did they cave? The only answer is their need for female collective approval which only serves to confirm the accuracy of the title of this piece. Perhaps they should claim they identify as female so then they could not only use the female locker room but work less for the same money on the female courts. They obviously aren’t using their balls so current transgender politically correct protocol demands they should be allowed to play as the gender they identify with. Is there a flaw in my logic?
I have mixed feeling about this. Of course it’s an absolute travesty that female tennis players should be paid the same as male players, when the men bring in at least 3 times the revenue and play 60% more tennis.
The situation in tennis is however a good, high profile exposé of the nature of the corrupt feminist concept of equality, which is equality of outcome (when it suits) irrespective of effort or merit.
We can then ask people to imagine running a company where you pay sales people the same, irrespective of how much business they bring in. Such a company would soon be out of business.
Likewise a company which made board and senior management appointments not on merit and ability but on the basis of quotas.
This illustrates how damaging to business, the economy and everyone’s standard of living the broader adoption of the distorted feminist concept of equality would be.
If Djokovic and Murray don’t have a problem with getting less prize money than they are worth then that’s their business. They aren’t going to end up in the poor house and I suspect that they are making their comments with an eye to even more lucrative sponsorship opportunities, which might be jeopardized if they don’t follow the politically correct line.
So let this mockery of equality stand as an example of what feminist equality really means, equal pay for less work at a poorer standard.
Agreed on the set count, but prize money should still reflect revenues (from ticket sales, TV etc.) It’s only when we have joint tournaments that we have the nonsense of equal prize money. Female tennis players are parasites on male players, it really is as simple as that.
as a tennis fan, I followed this controversy with interest. I rejoiced that for once someone was telling the truth when djockovich said men’s tennis harder conditions ought to be rewarded with bigger pay. The whining from women insisting on working less for the same money is frankly not new, but still wholly enraging. I am shocked and appalled that the corresponding associations don’t see the paradox, and even more than players such as murray bend like poodles to such a lie. I would not hesitate one second to get women to play 5, not 3, sets in the heat of some of the toughest conditions tennis such as the australian open, dubai, etc etc. And then see what they say