17:17, Tue 11 Sep
Didn't know about that. If she actually generates the most revenue, then fair enough, that could be considered as merit based. Very unusual for a sport though, people generally want to see the best (apart from our own local bias with Blues of course!). There must be some vague showbiz factor going on there then, where sporting prowess is only part of the attraction.
17:20, Tue 11 Sep
By this logic, I shouldn't encourage my daughter to go and play tennis and football, because when she's grown up the physical advantages the males will have over her means she shouldn't ever be one of the best in the world.

It's a narrow minded way to look at things.

Sport isn't like that. There is a reason you have an Olympics and a Paralympics. There is a reason why you have different categories in the Paralympics. There is a reason why you have different divisions in boxing or UFC.
Rab C Nesbitt
Holdsworth_MaraSonner
number8
No, what I'm saying is each case is different. You can't call Serena overpaid because in her sport, she's top dog. If she was playing men who were paid less, you might have a point, but she doesn't.

IMG did some analysis a couple of years ago on tennis revenues, TV spectatorship, advertising revenues etc.

BY FAR the biggest revenue generators in tennis were Serena, Federer and Sharapova in that order. So by the Premier league argument (i.e. that the pie should accrue most to those than generate it), Serena should be the highest paid person in tennis, bar none.
That’s not how prizemoney works in individual sports. Unless you’re saying Serena or Federer should get more prize money than anyone at the US Open even though neither won?

You're missing my point mate. I'm not arguing that athletes should be paid in line with the revenues that they bring into the sport. But it's a point that's very frequently made by people to justify women getting paid less in other sports.

The notion that Serena is overpaid is spurious. She's by far the biggest star of her sport in by far the biggest market in the world. Federer might be more skilful but he's incredibly boring in terms of social media, fashion and clicks. Serena earns every dollar she makes and then some.
Holdsworth_MaraSonner
Rab C Nesbitt
Holdsworth_MaraSonner
number8
No, what I'm saying is each case is different. You can't call Serena overpaid because in her sport, she's top dog. If she was playing men who were paid less, you might have a point, but she doesn't.

IMG did some analysis a couple of years ago on tennis revenues, TV spectatorship, advertising revenues etc.

BY FAR the biggest revenue generators in tennis were Serena, Federer and Sharapova in that order. So by the Premier league argument (i.e. that the pie should accrue most to those than generate it), Serena should be the highest paid person in tennis, bar none.
That’s not how prizemoney works in individual sports. Unless you’re saying Serena or Federer should get more prize money than anyone at the US Open even though neither won?

You're missing my point mate. I'm not arguing that athletes should be paid in line with the revenues that they bring into the sport. But it's a point that's very frequently made by people to justify women getting paid less in other sports.

The notion that Serena is overpaid is spurious. She's by far the biggest star of her sport in by far the biggest market in the world. Federer might be more skilful but he's incredibly boring in terms of social media, fashion and clicks. Serena earns every dollar she makes and then some.
Off court maybe. The fact is people don’t agree that her on court earnings are warranted. That’s clear.
Have you got a link for those top revenue generators in tennis mate?
I’d be interested to see those figures
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
I looked earlier for the link and couldn't find it via a google search. My mate is a sports marketing guru and showed it to me. The gap between the three I mentioned and everyone else (even Nadal) was pretty stunning. Will text him to try and find the link.
Cheers 👍
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
17:54, Tue 11 Sep
The Woman's a grade a fanny. She threatened to sue Wimbledon over a wet court, strange how these tantrums happen when she's under the cosh, que the sexist, racist crap.
19:55, Tue 11 Sep
Tee hee

20:38, Tue 11 Sep
Summed up very well here:

[www.skysports.com]
Holdsworth_MaraSonner
I looked earlier for the link and couldn't find it via a google search. My mate is a sports marketing guru and showed it to me. The gap between the three I mentioned and everyone else (even Nadal) was pretty stunning. Will text him to try and find the link.

I'd be interested to know how they calculate these numbers and how the individuals build their brand etc. I also wonder if they are a result of the fact there are some basic issues at play here regards comparisons between men's and women's versions of various sports and "earnings" and the exposure on TV etc. of the individuals. It strikes me that tennis, unlike any other big commercial sport I can think of, is "unique" in one regard. All other sports, you go, and pay, to watch either a women's event, or, a men's event. So, the men's FA cup final or the women's FA cup final or the men's or women's Open in golf. When you go to a tennis tournament, many events, including all of the grand slams, the main ones most people watch, you see both men and women with no distinction between the two. So, traditionally, punters do not chose between attending a men's event or a women's event. You cant go to Wimbledon just to see the men or the women. I can imagine, if the structure of watching the sport was more like other sports, the pulling/earning power of the individuals may break down differently.
21:27, Tue 11 Sep
Scoobers
Summed up very well here:

[www.skysports.com]

👍 Excellent interview
AnE - conspiracy theorist, ardent viler-hater, nutjob cyclist, Cubie-bater, go-to iconoclast
Roj
23:34, Tue 11 Sep
She has managed to restore my contempt for her with this outburst. I was softening towards her with her human side being more evident after becoming a mother, but here we have a player with an attitude that stinks. Her retirement is looming and not soon enough for me so I can start to enjoy watching players of the calibre of Naomi Osaka without the threat of tantrums and bogus -ism labelling. Billy Jean King's backing of her just adds to the problem. Women's tennis best of 5 sets in the Slams please in the name of equality.
23:51, Tue 11 Sep
In her post semi-final speech, I seem to recall that she said that she felt like she'd already won the final. It's difficult to see any mitigation in her character to be fair.
09:43, Thu 13 Sep
Except Osaka, revealing how supportive she was to her during and after the final.
09:46, Thu 13 Sep
Clapton
Except Osaka, revealing how supportive she was to her during and after the final.
After the final. I’d hardly say Serena was supportive to her during the final
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
16:18, Thu 13 Sep
During the match perhaps not being the competitor she is but after the defeat she told Osaka, she was proud of her and the booing crowd was not directed at her.

Imo that was a fabulous gesture.
16:33, Thu 13 Sep
I’d say that was standard behaviour from a senior pro tbh
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
16:41, Thu 13 Sep
Clapton
During the match perhaps not being the competitor she is but after the defeat she told Osaka, she was proud of her and the booing crowd was not directed at her.

Imo that was a fabulous gesture.

really? you are very easily impressed arent you. as someone else pointed out it's noticeable that not many pros have come out in support of her and her actions.
AnE - conspiracy theorist, ardent viler-hater, nutjob cyclist, Cubie-bater, go-to iconoclast
16:46, Thu 13 Sep
I agree, let's spoil the final for my opponent as I started ranting when I could see I was struggling to stay in the match but hey a quick you naught crowd you stop booing makes it a fabulous gesture.

Or a too late attempt at damage limitation
19:11, Thu 13 Sep
Osaka at the time was under the impression the crowd was booing her. So imo it was a decent gesture given Serena’s annoyance with herself the umpire...to make that time to give her some sort of comfort.

At the time It was badly needed as she Osaka didn’t understand what the booing was all about. Let’s not forget it was well known the majority of the home crowd wanted Serena to win.

Whilst her conduct was indeed poor people are under estimating how much pressure Serena was placing on herself to win that tournament. I am in no doubt she’ll be disappointed with the outcome on all fronts.

She let herself down and it will haunt her for the remaining time of her career.