Talk of The Villages Florida - So so unfair pro golf purse

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- Pro Golf (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/pro-golf-333/)

- - So so unfair pro golf purse (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/pro-golf-333/so-so-unfair-pro-golf-purse-339508/)

Soccer both the same. I don't know where your watching soccer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sowilts (Post 2194276)

Laura Davies out drives most pros, even now.

She couldn't crack the top 100 PGA players... Even in her prime...

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2194283)

This is both true and misleading. The US soccer national teams have an agreement that whatever money the men win in FIFA is equally split with the women, and whatever money the women win is equally split with the men. That means in tournaments that the men don't even qualify which happens too often that they still get paid because the women are so successful.

And don't forget, in their last contract, the women players opted for payment security, accepting less, but guaranteed payments...

World Cup is only part of what they make...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDToto41 (Post 2194302)

If you ever watched an LPGA tournament you would see where the money could come from. The PGA seems to take precedence over the LPGA, especially on TV, even the Golf channel puts the PGA over the LPGA. If the TV stations would equalize the time of each group the money would become more even.

They know exactly what the ratings are for men's vs women's tournaments...

If less are watching the current tournaments, what makes you think the numbers would grow if they showed more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2194374)

Women's sports are an INFERIOR PRODUCT ????? Surely that is in jest. What about women's soccer teams that have won the Olympics Gold medals when the men's soccer teams were ONLY average ?????

Look at NON World Cup or Olympic soccer ratings and get back to me...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2194405)

Who's Monica Barbaro ?

Exactly...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2194137)

True--sort of--

That 5-set thing for men's tennis applies only to the four major "grand slam" tournaments (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open). The ATP Final and Indian Wells used to play five, but now only three. Fan attendance at the slam matches is pretty much equal men to women, and TV viewership for the grand slam events are also roughly equal, men and women. The prize money at the slams is equal, men to women, which makes sense considering the roughly equal fan attendance, media coverage, etc. for both genders.

Things drop off at non-slam events. There are roughly equal numbers of WTA (women's pro tennis) and ATP (Men's pro tennis) events per year. But the women's events just don't draw as many viewers at the matches, and "In total, the women’s competitions received 41% less media coverage than the men’s". ("Gender Media Coverage in Tennis", signal-ai dot com).

I love watching tennis, of whatever gender. But it is a fact that the games don't compare well. There are a few women's pro tennis players who have beaten men's pro players but those are the very occasional exceptions to a pretty rigid rule.

This, from topend sports dot com: "During the 1998 Australian Open, sisters Serena and Venus Williams boasted that they could beat any man ranked outside the world's top 200. The challenge was accepted by Karsten Braasch, a German player ranked No 203 (his highest ranking was No 38). Before the matches, Braasch played a round of golf in the morning, drank a couple of beers, smoked a few cigarettes, and then played the Williams sisters for a set each, one after the other. He defeated Serena, 6-1, and Venus, 6-2. Serena said afterwards "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."

Facts are neither fair nor unfair. They are merely facts. And it is a fact that women's pro tennis is an inferior product to men's pro tennis.

That WAS a GOOD example about the # 203 man. I was surprised that the Williams sisters would play that match. It was a lose / lose for women's tennis. The women pros starting with Billy Jean King pointed out that the women deserved equal pay because their matches are EQUALLY exciting to watch as the men. Both are competing with EQUALS. To try to compare male to female tennis players is non-productive.
.......About 50 % of ANY tennis audience is women, so the advertisers NEED to support the women as much as the MEN.
......When I played tennis (at a high state level) I found that I learned more about strategy by watching the women players, not the men. The men served WAY faster than I ever could so there was nothing that I could LEARN from the men's game as compared with watching the SLOW MO and technique of the WOMEN.
.......Take Cris Evert for example, she was NOT strong, NOT fast, have VERY basic reproducible strokes. so, how did she get to be # 1.........BECAUSE SHE WAS MENTALLY TOUGH in her game. And THAT was a GREAT lesson for the average MALE or FEMALE amateur player! Bottom line ......you can LEARN more by watching FEMALE tennis players.
.....And I don't watch Golf, but I imagine it is the same in golf - better to LEARN by watching the female players

Which sports, men’s or women’s, bring in more revenue/viewers? Until women’s sports pull in the same revenue that men’s sports do, there will be a disparity in salaries, prize money, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt.Roberts (Post 2200060)

Which sports, men’s or women’s, bring in more revenue/viewers? Until women’s sports pull in the same revenue that men’s sports do, there will be a disparity in salaries, prize money, etc.

You know that.
I know that.
Jeb just doesn't like reality.

:clap2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2194374)

Women's sports are an INFERIOR PRODUCT ????? Surely that is in jest. What about women's soccer teams that have won the Olympics Gold medals when the men's soccer teams were ONLY average ?????

Oh, I didn't realize that those women's soccer teams won a gold medal playing against men's teams.

Also, I don't recall any women's Olympic soccer gold medals being won by men's teams and vice versa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2200135)

Oh, I didn't realize that those women's soccer teams won a gold medal playing against men's teams.

Also, I don't recall any women's Olympic soccer gold medals being won by men's teams and vice versa.

Given the latest gender options in sport, that could all change. :icon_wink:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jebartle (Post 2193766)

LPGA WINNER $270,000 HSBC
PGA WINNER $3,600,000 BAYHILL

Tennis, soccer same for both.
NOT FAIR!!!!!

Most of the golf prize money comes from television revenue. If the women golfers had the same ratings as men, their prize money would be equal.

The only reason women tennis players get as much as men is because it is one tournament and the revenue is shared. Most revenue comes from broadcast rights, followed by ticket sales, and sponsorships.

Do you think any of the women want to have their own tennis tournament a few weeks before the men play and see what the TV ratings are? And the purses?

That is what golf does - separate major tournaments for men and women.

In 2022, Wimbledon viewers

Men’s final peaks at 7.5m on BBC One.
Women’s final at 3.

The men draw more than twice the viewership (which is the money) and they get paid the same as the women.

If a salesman was bringing in 2.5 times the sales than a saleswoman, and they both got paid the same, that would be unfair.

Women will always be smaller, weaker and slower than men and hence they can't play the same as men. It's just the way it is. Because of this, their sports games are not as entertaining to watch and people don't which means less revenue and smaller purses.

Why is this unfair? First of all, money in professional sports is based on what advertisers will pay for ads.

Secondly, the LPGA is basically a minor league tour. No offense is meant by that but any tour or league or sports organization that has a qualifier in front of it's name is restricted. Lady's, women's, Senior's Junior, special needs etc are not open to the best players in the world. They are restricted to certain athletes.

The PGA tour is open to anyone that can qualify to play in it. If a woman can qualify on the PGA tour, then she would be eligible to make the same money as men on that tour. And if you think that the LPGA tour is not restricted to women, what do you think would happen if a male player on the Korn Ferry Tour decided to enter the LPGA qualifying.

There have been a few women that have played an event or two on the PGA tour but none have been successful. Some may feel that they'd make more money being at the top of the LPGA tour rankings than they would being 150th on the PGA Tour.

WNBA? If any of those women could compete in the NBA, they'd probably be allowed to play there.

Tennis is different. For some reason there is huge interest in women's tennis. This attracts big money to be invested in it. Advertisers are willing to put up a lot more money because they know people are watching.

I can't explain it but the fact is that other women's sports are nowhere as popular as women's tennis.

But unfair?? No it's all perfectly fair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP (Post 2200263)

I wouldn't say that they're not as entertaining to watch, but they are not the unqualified "best in the world" at what they do. They are the best women in the world at what they do.

A better comparison would be the Champions Tour. Why are they not making as much as the PGA Tour? Because in the spite of the fact that they are the best players in the world over 50 years of age, they are not longer the best in the world period. If I'm not mistaken purses on the LPGA tour are higher than on the Champions tour. Is that unfair?