March 4, 2016
Letter to the Editor re 'Women's Matches Too Short to Justify Equal Money'
March 3, 2016
Ted
It must also be true that they practice less too. Seriously though it is one thing to be provocative, at times foolishly so, as you can be. But it is something else entirely to stand on the wrong side of history, uncomprehending of the fact that equality will just look and be different from the unequal and unjust present. I vote for equality and justice Ted. You can too.
Jim Coddington
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim, Doesn't this have to be seen as part of Ted's ongoing argument that the low tin is a poor choice for the women, rather than as an attack on equal prize money? I watched the women's highlights for the event and was struck at the number of low shots from the back, both boasts and drops, that either won the point outright or produced very weak responses. I saw several volleys that were simply slammed low in the middle of the court for winners, and I only saw the highlights. If indeed that is what most fans want to see, so be it. I think Ted would like to see, as would I, the women display the dynamic and tactical game of which they are well capable, rather than shooting for what most coaches would call cheap winners.
ReplyDeleteSasha Cooke
Sasha, As Ted's headline explicitly says equal money is not justified I think that is undeniably a very direct attack on equal prize money. And as such it thus becomes part of the larger social problem of equal pay for equal work for women. Hence my lead comment about practice - the women work just as hard as the men.
ReplyDeleteJust sticking with the squashcentric view you would have us take I think it too does damage to the game. Indeed I think it is at odds with other comments made on DSR in regards to how to grow the game. By suggesting that half the population is poorer at playing the game than the other half, well, I just don't think that is a very welcoming stance. We need to cure ourselves and our sport of such reflexes if we really want it to thrive.
Jim, (if that is Jim!) I want women to receive equal prize money. I want women to receive equal money in All walks of life. Professional sports are a form of entertainment. Squash is most entertaining if it provides a balance of shot making and retrieving. In my opinion, and clearly Ted's, the balance in women's squash is out of whack. The games are too short, and points are too often won by cheap shots. This will not inspire spectators to spend money on it, which cannot have a positive effect on women's prize money. (Personally, I would not spend a nickle on pro racketball where the object is to hit the ball as low as possible as soon as possible, although I think racketball is a fine game.) I can see that you think Ted's approach to making this point is abrasive, but that doesn't mean it's anti-feminist. And I have to ask, is it not okay to take a squashcentric (awful word!) view on a site that surely is only viewed by hard core squash fans?
ReplyDeleteThanks for replying, Sasha
I'm in favor of the women tennis pros receiving equal pay in grand slam events, despite playing 2 out of 3 sets, because the quality of play is there and the entertainment value is high.
ReplyDeleteNo way that the women squash pros deserved equal pay in Chicago though.
Equal prize money has nothing to do equal workload. In a business, I agree women should be paid as much as a man if they are performing the same job. But squash (and other pro sports) are an entertainment for the public. Equal prize money is justified if the public demand is equal and the women bring in as much sponsorship dollars as the men. For the most part, in ALL professional sports, they do not.
ReplyDeleteTennis may be an exception to the rule because the women probably attract just as many spectators (if not more) than the men and attract just as much sponsorship dollars. And, if they do indeed attract more, they deserve a greater slice of the pie.
I do not hear anyone using the argument that - for example - professional women's basketball players (WNBA) should get paid just as much as their male counterparts (NBA). Why? Based on the argument above (Jim), if they train and work just as hard as the men, they should get paid the same. But they don't. Not even close. And why is that? Because, in comparison, no one watches them. The demand simply isn't there.
Once women's squash attracts just as much sponsorship dollars and get's the demand as men's squash does, then they should absolutely get paid the same. Workload is irrelevant. It's all about the $$.
Sure, basketball sells tickets and TV for revenue and the players get a chunk. Squash tournaments are mostly financed by sponsorship. Allam doesn't make money on the British Open, he supports it out of love for the game. In other words, the men, like the women, are not exactly setting out their wares in a cruel market. That being the case, shouldn't the tournaments try to do the right thing?
ReplyDelete"Cruel" market? You can look at it that way, or just accept the reality. All the more power to the sponsors of the major squash events that put up equal prize money for men's and women's events. Doing it for the love of the game is terrific, but is that a sustainable model for the long term future? Should the the women's tour have to keep on relying on generous sponsors that are putting up matching prize based purely on equality? How long do you think that will last?
ReplyDeleteIf squash wishes to jump into significantly higher prize money levels then what they currently have, then sponsors will have to be looking at some sort of return on their investment. It's business, and they will only 'donate' so much. It has nothing to do with how hard they players train or work.
Jim here. Now that we have opened this up to comparing squash to other sports let's open it up wider as my original critique was how unequal prize money reflects a deeply entrenched societal bias against equal pay for equal work for women. And as entertainment is the stated criterion let's go to that industry, specifically the movies. Does anybody want to make the argument that Tom Cruise's pay reflects the superiority or even superior entertainment value of his work to Helen Mirren's?
DeleteInequality is just so entrenched it is hard to see it, at least if you are male, and masking it with arguments about entertainment does not fully come to grips with the problem in squash. Bringing in sponsor motives I think also muddies these waters as we can only speculate on what those might be but we can be sure of our own motives in being for or against equal pay for the women who play our game.
Finally I would urge commenters to sign their comments. Ted offers his thoughts to us under his name and I think that is best respected by doing the same.
Jim Coddington
My point is that the MEN are not marketing their wares either- pro squash wouldn't exist without patrons like Allam. Without sponsors, who do it for various reasons, the MEN'S tour wouldn't function, so to argue that women get less prize money because they can't sell tickets is a misdirection- the men don't sell enough tickets to the general public in a year to support 5 players- it's the main sponsors plus gold patrons and so forth who pay for far more than their seats are worth. Since the men aren't "marketing" a product the women shouldn't have to. The "cruel" was a sarcasm (I thought an obvious one) intended advance that position.
DeleteAt the same time as I agree with Jim that this is a moral issue (I have tried to demonstrate that it is not an economic one) I have to agree with Ted that the women aren't currently providing as scintillating a spectacle. I think the low tin exacerbates this problem. I think equal prize money will help improve the quality of women entering the profession over time, but it will not make the women currently playing quick enough to pick up the balls struck just above the low tin. (While it's only marginally relevant I think Nicole David is as great a champion as Jahanghir, and I think the low tin is an unfair advantage to her opponents. Unfair in the sense that she spent years developing an air tight error free attack only to have the parameters change just as she is aging.)
Jim, I meant to sign my name on the previous post. I was having trouble proving I was human (my friends have doubts too) and I had to rewrite the post several times. The last time I was rushing and forgot to sign.
Sasha Cooke
I confess I too struggled with how to make my signature evident and am glad you added yours to this thread.
DeleteOn a slight tangent I would observe the loud and consistent buzz around Amanda Sobhy at the Tournament of Champions this year. Perhaps a harbinger of the future for her and other women. For now though I am interested in her comments here on winning her third Nationals.
http://www.ussquash.com/amanda-sobhy-wins-third-national-title/
Jim Coddington
Compare it movies all you like. I agree, if a Helen Mirren movie brings in just as much revenue as a Tom Cruise movie, then yes she deserves equal pay. If the movie is a bomb, should she still get paid the same even though she worked just as hard to make it? If a Tom Cruise movie is a dud as well, he shouldn't get paid the same either. However, a Tom Cruise movie brings in more people simply because of his name. Fair? Not really. But it's reality.
ReplyDeleteThe pro women squash players train just as hard as the men - no doubt - so why is the men's tour so much larger in terms of total dollars?
(I choose to remain anonymous, thank you)
Anonymous you have shifted the terms of debate from quality of play to money generated. Ted opened this with an argument about quality being the basis for rewarding players. The pay scale in Hollywood has nothing to do with bombs and hits to take you on your own terms and to eliminate quality as you ceded that point to Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep et al. Who makes a Bradley Cooper/ Jennifer Lawrence film a hit? Hard to say but not at all hard to say who gets paid more.
ReplyDeleteThink about this - who decides whether to hold a tournament? Men almost exclusively. Who decides what the purse will be? Men almost exclusively. That it has been this way a long time goes a long way towards explaining why there is more money in the men's game. You are advancing a self reinforcing argument that does not look beyond the here and now.
Squash tournaments, at least in the U.S., are thinking beyond that to what the sport can look like in the future. If that is because the same men have looked at things differently or if they have invited women to the table I don't know. I do know it is the right thing to do for our sport. They, in a phrase, manned up.
Jim Coddington
Okay, yeah... ummm... Are you watching the British Open? Just fresh off watching the Rosner - Simpson match - which was excellent, the following ladies match was - for lack of a better term - a joke.
ReplyDeleteEqual prize money? Oh boy.
How do we explain this? These women are world champs, olympic champs and get paid less. One answer is that unequal pay is systemic.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-national-team-accuses-u-s-soccer-of-pay-discrimination-1459429306?mod=trending_now_6
Jim Coddington