Wimbledon Equal Pay
Here are some excerpts from an interview with Tom Phillips, the chairman of the All England Club by Christopher Clarey from International Herald Tribune.
ON CRITICISM OF THE CLUB'S CONTINUING POLICY OF PAYING MEN'S PLAYERS MORE PRIZE MONEY THAN THE WOMEN'S PLAYERS
Phillips: There is a lobby that is being run by the WTA, and they are going around and finding people to support them, and we say, 'Fine. Why not?' That's what they are there for in a way. We have not chosen to try and argue the case in public, because we want the tennis and the players to be the story. We don't want this slightly repetitive issue that trails endlessly. It's been running since 1968, and there are two ways of looking at it.
One is that it is an equal right and entitlement and the other is that in the sports and entertainment business, remuneration is driven by the market and not by your gender, and we happen to take that view. We don't believe that what Julia Roberts gets paid per film is significant in terms of deciding what her male costar gets paid.
The WTA doesn't pay equal prize money. The average week of a Tier One tournament on the women's tour pays 63 percent of the average week of an ATP Masters Series event.
ON WHETHER THE CLUB WILL REVISIT THE ISSUE WITH THE WOMEN'S TOUR
Phillips: We revisit it every year just in the context of prize money. We look at data from any source we can get it, including the WTA, and we look and try to be fair. We have no ax to grind. It's not a sexist issue. The last thing I would ever do is disparage the women's players. We go out of our way to respect them, to build them up. I haven't done the arithmetic this year, but last year the top 10 women's players took away more money from Wimbledon than the top 10 men's players because the women play more doubles. How unfair is that?
ON WHETHER THE BENEFITS OF STICKING TO ITS STANCE ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE EFFECTS IN TERMS OF IMAGE AND ON WHETHER THE PRIZE MONEY STANCE RUNS COUNTER TO THE PROGRESSIVENESS THE CLUB HAS SHOWN IN GENERAL
Phillips: I've read your views. You use the word progressive as if that implies that progressive is what your position is. My answer to you is that this is a market issue or a gender issue, and why do you think that, in virtually the whole of sports and entertainment, your view is not the one that pertains?
My position is that I don't actually want to talk about it. I want the story of Wimbledon to be what's happened. I want it to be Federer. I want it to be Mauresmo, the first Chinese win in the doubles, the longest match that's ever been played at Wimbledon, Agassi's farewell. And I find it counterproductive from our point of view to discuss prize money. It may be the media enjoy revisiting it year after year after year, but the fundamental issue remains the same.
ON CRITICISM OF THE CLUB'S CONTINUING POLICY OF PAYING MEN'S PLAYERS MORE PRIZE MONEY THAN THE WOMEN'S PLAYERS
Phillips: There is a lobby that is being run by the WTA, and they are going around and finding people to support them, and we say, 'Fine. Why not?' That's what they are there for in a way. We have not chosen to try and argue the case in public, because we want the tennis and the players to be the story. We don't want this slightly repetitive issue that trails endlessly. It's been running since 1968, and there are two ways of looking at it.
One is that it is an equal right and entitlement and the other is that in the sports and entertainment business, remuneration is driven by the market and not by your gender, and we happen to take that view. We don't believe that what Julia Roberts gets paid per film is significant in terms of deciding what her male costar gets paid.
The WTA doesn't pay equal prize money. The average week of a Tier One tournament on the women's tour pays 63 percent of the average week of an ATP Masters Series event.
ON WHETHER THE CLUB WILL REVISIT THE ISSUE WITH THE WOMEN'S TOUR
Phillips: We revisit it every year just in the context of prize money. We look at data from any source we can get it, including the WTA, and we look and try to be fair. We have no ax to grind. It's not a sexist issue. The last thing I would ever do is disparage the women's players. We go out of our way to respect them, to build them up. I haven't done the arithmetic this year, but last year the top 10 women's players took away more money from Wimbledon than the top 10 men's players because the women play more doubles. How unfair is that?
ON WHETHER THE BENEFITS OF STICKING TO ITS STANCE ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE EFFECTS IN TERMS OF IMAGE AND ON WHETHER THE PRIZE MONEY STANCE RUNS COUNTER TO THE PROGRESSIVENESS THE CLUB HAS SHOWN IN GENERAL
Phillips: I've read your views. You use the word progressive as if that implies that progressive is what your position is. My answer to you is that this is a market issue or a gender issue, and why do you think that, in virtually the whole of sports and entertainment, your view is not the one that pertains?
My position is that I don't actually want to talk about it. I want the story of Wimbledon to be what's happened. I want it to be Federer. I want it to be Mauresmo, the first Chinese win in the doubles, the longest match that's ever been played at Wimbledon, Agassi's farewell. And I find it counterproductive from our point of view to discuss prize money. It may be the media enjoy revisiting it year after year after year, but the fundamental issue remains the same.
posted by modestyrocks at Tuesday, July 11, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home