The argument isn't whether Hingis vs Graf etc differs from a top men's match in terms of skill, appeal or attendance - because they don't; however the women's game as a whole is much weaker than the men's game. Crucially there is less strength in depth, making tournaments easier to win, early rounds less competitive and the product less marketable to audience.
I do not think that audiences are comparable either; surely a non-championship WTA event doesn't draw the same crowd as an equivalent ATP event? I don't have the figures to hand but a quick Google of women’s tennis attendance reveals concerns over big events not selling out, here is a snippet from the Grand Slam Committee report in 2003 about the WTA/ATP Tour Championships:
Much has been made of the poor attendances at the women's championships in Los Angeles where the Staples Center was almost empty for many of the early matches last year.
The men's event, by contrast, saw fans flock to Shanghai to witness the biggest professional sports event held in China.
Looking ahead at ticket prices to the comparable events this year - spectators will pay 300% more to watch the men’s championship than the women’s event. The effect on gate receipts is clear and I would be very surprised if this was not mirrored in both sponsorship and merchandising revenue. I appreciate that this is one example, but until I see evidence that this is not the case across the majority of the calendar then I will presume that it is.
Of course at the combined major events their will appear to be equally good attendances at both the women’s and men’s games, but if these events were split into women’s and men’s event how many of those spectators would attend the women’s-only version? Far fewer. If I have a ticket to watch an early round of a men’s major – say a top seed verses a player in the world top 100 - and there was a comparable game from the women’s event on beforehand then I would probably attend. But I wouldn’t purchase a ticket purely for a women’s game of that nature.
Matches from either sex where the crowd are familiar with, and can associate with the players, will always attract attention and will therefore generate revenue. Lesser matches will not. The difference is that the men’s game is packed with such matches, whereas the women’s game is not.
I think that it is fair to say:
- The women’s tour does not generate the same revenue for either the hosts, sponsors or manufacturers as the men’s tour
- If the major combined events were split into two separate events, then men’s event would be better attended and would generate more revenue (for the hosts, sponsors and tennis equipment manufacturers)
- Prize-money comes from this revenue.
- Prize-money should be dictated by the importance of winning event to
all stakeholders not by misplaced political-correctness
- None of the above is sexist.
