The above is where I disagree with you a bit, and has always been part of my argument for equal pay at coed events: The popularity contest, if you will, as evidenced by private sponsorships DOES have much to do with the discussion of equal pay. Not everyone watches tennis, on TV or in person, purely for the game. You need only have paid attention to coverage of Serena's retirement, (or should I write "retirement?") to see that she (and Venus) brought a lot of Black fans to tennis who had never before cared about the game. Li Na is single-handedly credited with a tennis boom in China, (girls AND boys.) These things don't just sponsorship money in their own pockets, but have monetary value to the game of tennis.
I would think of these as different businesses, in our agreed meaning of the term business. Private monies to an individual don’t mean that equal pay is just. They get that because their own personal attribute appeals, whether it’s to nationalism, or glamour mags, and it doesn’t really refer to the equal pay debate, for me. I know they can create a tennis boom and if the tennis boom in China means that the women’s game is more popular than the men, then pay them more than the men. I’m not going to complain, it’s the market decides.
Because it's impossible to parse out who attends/watches the coed events by what proportion for men or women, I think it is fair to give equal pay. You can resent that for being too PC if you like, but I see a lot of arguments for it.
We can guess the breakdown of who attends/watches etc, by the stats relating to their separate tours. The men generate a bigger income at theirs, so it’s not impossible to imagine that theirs is the more popular at the coeds.
By the way, they get equal pay at the coeds so this isn’t really a discussion anymore, other than to understand why they got it, which I think is largely down to successful activism based on bad faith politics. People aren’t sexist for preferring men’s sports in general. I enjoy the coeds myself for the reason that they’re all there and it’s traditional, and
that actually in itself is bargaining power enough for the women, without stretching plausibility by suggesting they’re equal to the men or that their game is as good. And this is why I roll my eyes when BJK pops up to correct us about a man’s achievement.
Also I vaguely remember a woman tennis player complaining that men get paid more, and this is why I suggest that she should ask her paymasters - the WTA - why they’re not paying her more.
Another point of yours that I will address is that there's always a lot more interest in the men's game. Part of this is that men watch more sports than women, and they tend to watch and prefer men's sports. There is a cultural aspect to this. Many girls aren't raised to like sports...in fact, there are certain cultural aversions to it. (Think of what it took for Ons Jabeur become a top tennis player.) So, while boys are encouraged to watch and play sports, girls are much less so. Of course, these ideas are changing, somewhat, but it is a real thing that the gateway to sports for plenty of women is a man in their lives and/or boy children. So a lot of women come to sports via men's sports. It's pretty hard to argue for the opposite.
I get what you’re saying about cultural reasons why women are excluded and I agree and hope that things are getting better in that regard. Like I say, I have nieces, sisters etc, I’m not in favour of anything that holds women back in sports. But the popularity I’m largely referring to is in the west, and though women’s sports are being pushed heavily in the media, there’s still a preference among women for the men’s tennis, and sports in general.
And by the way, it’s not just an effect of the Big 3. These things aren’t transactional. Even during the heyday of Chrissy and Martina, we had bigger players in the men, even when they were less successful than Borg. Greater depth. Men and women are different when it comes to competitiveness and that translates into early round matches in slams, upsets, and all the way to the top of the game. The women’s game in general has thrown up a lot of mediocrity, and this is even at the higher level.
I remember my sisters and mother would ask when Borg or Becker were playing, but they weren’t so much interested in Evert or Navratilova.
I was, because I’m a tennis fan, but in my whole years of watching, I’d never say the women give as much value as the men. They’re far more predictable. Well, until the era of the Big 3, actually, where the men’s game resembles the WTA, and that’s a problem.
As to me, you point out that I focus on men's tennis. Yes, I do. That has much to do with this being the era of the Big 3, which you agree is a decent point. Because of that, the people on our forums that I tend to be friends with and debate with participate more on the ATP forum. I talk to the people I know and like to talk to, (or dislike and enjoy tweaking. LOL.) In the time we've been together on all of these various forums, there has been a fair revolving door of top women players, so it hasn't been as easy to care about them. I am a fan of the Williams sisters. I loved Ash Barty, but she quit early. I really have a lot of faith in Swaitek, but have had my heart broken by any number of the women I have backed in recent years, so it's hard to get up for the conversation. But that's the state of women's tennis now, but not forever.
The both games go through phases of lesser quality, transitioning from one era of great players to another. Barty is certainly a loss for the women, and I’m surprised she Borged out so early, but only she knows.
Tweaking posters is the best reason to be here…
