Sorry Maria Sharapova but being hot just isn’t enough. The tennis world has lead the way in gender equality, with the current Grand Slam Wimbledon, for example, introducing equal prize money for the men’s and women’s singles titles in 2007.

Would you argue with this woman? Photo:The Daily Telegraph

This is despite the fact the women only play to 3 sets and the men play to 5. Anyone who has ever watched a Grand Slam will agree there is a huge difference between a five-set battle and a three-setter.

Sharapova maintains the equal pay was hard won. “We women have fought so long to get equal prize money,” the Russian champion said overnight. “It was a big challenge and nobody really supported us. It’s been a few years since we’ve gotten that. We’re all really proud of it, and we continue to build the sport and make it bigger.”

This was prompted by comments from French sore loser Gilles Simon, who after coming second in his second round match complained about the pay arrangements, claiming all the men on the tour thought it was unfair.

“Men’s players?” Simon said. “The 128 players here think like me, that’s for sure. Just ask them.”

Serena Williams had a point, if inelegantly made, when she said of Simon’s whinge and Sharapova’s response: “She’s way hotter than he is, so more people will watch Maria.”

The modern reality of tennis is that it’s entertainment, and the women certainly bring eyeballs to the coverage, and thus earn the tennis associations plenty of dough.

But, with women the world over fighting for the right to be paid the same as men for doing the same job, the tennis arrangements to not represent “equality.” It is impossible to put a dollar figure on how a player’s “hotness” impacts the bottom line of the tournaments. That’s what sponsors are for.

So Sharapova and Williams can claim all they like that they earn the equal pay, but they will never be able to prove it.

There is a simple solution to this.

The women should play five set matches.

They’re fit enough, they’re tough enough, and it would inevitably lead to some epic matches that would be etched into our memories the way only drawn-out five-setters are.

It would also shut the likes of Simon up. No one can legitimately complain about the same pay for the same work.

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • Robin says:

      11:35am | 29/06/12

      Won’t happen though.  But by using those standards, Venus should be deducted pay for lack of hotness

    • Tim says:

      11:51am | 29/06/12

      And Serena Williams should actually have to pay money to play.

    • Fiddler says:

      12:12pm | 29/06/12

      So according to Venus they get paid to be looked at. While I agree that Anna Kournikova makes a damn fine excuse to watch tennis (and she never won anything) I can think of another occupation that does this.

      I don’t know any strippers who earn this much

    • Sahara says:

      02:34pm | 29/06/12


      Do any of you really understand the English language or only your version of it.?

      I’d explain but I think I’d only be wasting my time.

    • DannyD says:

      05:06pm | 29/06/12

      I love to watch to watch the William’s sisters, especially Serena.
      It’s all about the money. Perhaps they should be paid on a viewer base.  If more people watch the game, then you get paid more.

    • Tom says:

      06:20pm | 29/06/12

      No, Sahara, don’t explain. I don’t think the world is ready for your genius.

      We will be poorer for missing out on your razor insights but don’t worry, we’ll do our best to struggle through.

    • Tom says:

      06:29pm | 29/06/12

      The fact that a man can beat a woman at tennis is totally irrelevant. We are talking about genetic entertainment / attraction value, not some sort of work output.

      People watch sports stars because of their innate gene pool qualities. Survival of the fittest, fastest, best co-ordinated. Those gene pool qualities are their source of attraction / entertainment.

      If a woman is the best woman tennis player in the world, her gene pool value is just as high as the best man tennis player in the world. Her “entertainment value” is therefore equal.

      As a male chauvinist, it kills me to say it, but she should therefore be paid equally.

    • miloinacup says:

      11:41am | 29/06/12

      Why don’t the men play 3 matches? 5 matches go for so freaking long. I get bored, even when the game is fairly even.

    • Daniel says:

      09:53pm | 29/06/12

      Then change the channel and watch the highlights later. Nadal v Djoka at this years Aussie open… Amazing 5 setter.

    • duh says:

      11:43am | 29/06/12

      Surprised that the arguers for/against this don’t point out the obvious: it would be a scheduling nightmare. Playing 5 sets takes around 5-6 hours, if the following match was a 5 setter as well, that’s 10-12 hours of tennis, no-one would watch it.

    • Mike says:

      06:06pm | 29/06/12

      If you’ve ever been at the Australian Open in the second week, you’ll be stunned by how many courts are left unused. Make the first round go over three days instead of two, the second round as well and then revert to every second day as per normal. This would mean the first match is played on a saturday instead of the monday - but that means that the tournament goes over three weekends instead of two and brings in more gate receipts and sponsorship dollars.

      It really is easy enough to organise - and that’s just me postulating in front of the computer. Imagine if the WTA decides to make it happen and puts all their energy into figuring out how to make it happen. It’s about time for it to happen.

    • Knuckle Dragger says:

      11:43am | 29/06/12

      Damn right.  Let’s see them wade through five sets in 40 degrees, then they can open their own doors on the way out and into their cars, push their own chairs back when they sit down in restaurants then go hom and be berated for spending so much time at work in spite of their inflated pay packets.

      In fact - an even better idea would be for them to play for bigger money against the men.  No amount of shrieking on the baseline would save Sharapova against the likes of Nadal, Roddick or Federer.

      Once a lady wins a five-set mens’ Wimbledon or Australian Open final, that lady - and only that lady - can claim to be equal in that field of endeavour.  Wasn’t that tried by Navratilova, with the inevitable flogging followed by a cavalcade of tears and excuses?

      I hate tennis, by the way.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:51am | 29/06/12

      “Women should get the same pay, but only for the same job.”

      So should that also apply to the armed forces? Particularly given the fact that women get a lower set of physical standards to meet than men do despite demanding to go to the front line of combat and to be put in the same situations as men? And particularly given stories we’ve seen on the Hunch from ex-ADF and serving ADF about how women are softpedalled when it comes to jobs in the army.

      You want the same job, with the same pay, then you satisfy the same job requirements, and you do the same job.  Anything other than that is not equality, and certainly not feminism.

    • Muggles says:

      12:31pm | 29/06/12

      There’s a huge difference between jobs/professions.

      Tennis players are fundamentally entertainers/performers. Ultimately, they are paid according to audience numbers.  You don’t necessarily have to be the best player, just the best performer. See: Kournikova, McEnroe, Connors.

      Whereas defence uses an entirely different set of metrics to determine pay. It’s an extremely flat structure with almost no “bonus pay” for individual performance variation.

      The words give it away: in the defence forces, you SERVE.  In professional tennis, you PLEASE an audience.

      So, basically, there is little point talking about what a tennis player “should earn”.  Unlike the army or navy, it depends entirely on how many people are willing to pay.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:39pm | 29/06/12

      Well played, sir.

    • Max Power says:

      12:59pm | 29/06/12

      100% correct Muggles. The ADF definitely use a differeent set of Metrics to determine pay. Everyone is equal with pay, but not everyone is equal in performance..
      In the military a unit regardless of size, is only as strong as its weakest link, and having women who are significantly weaker and slower than their male equivalents is dangerous.
      I find it absurd, that two people can be employed to perform the exact same job and be required to meet different physical standards and still receive the same pay. 

      St Michael:  I have seen males on a course fail a practical assessment, and seen females pass the same assessment, despite making the same mistakes and having the same instructor.

    • Lilly says:

      01:00pm | 29/06/12

      I was only looking at defence force entry requirements this morning (possible new career there!) and the difference for in the initial general fitness requirements for men and women is 6 push ups. That’s it. Men do 10 while women only have to do 4. The difference for over 45yrs of age is larger. I honestly don’t think that miniscule amount is worth whinging over but I’ll do 10 if it will make you happy.

    • Steve says:

      01:32pm | 29/06/12

      Anyone grouping McEnroe and Connors in the same sentence as Kournikova plainly has no idea.

    • andrew says:

      01:51pm | 29/06/12

      can you check again to see whether women are allowed to kneel while performing those 6 less push ups Lilly? i believe this was the case about 10 years back when one of my mates was attempting to enter the army.

    • andrew says:

      01:54pm | 29/06/12

      and only 10 pushups?? It WAS 50 in two minutes and not allowed to rest on the ground at all, i remember it well as i figured it would be easy, got to 48 in about a minute then collapsed in a heap.

    • Muggles says:

      02:02pm | 29/06/12

      @ Steve

      You missed the point.

      The point being that it’s not necessarily winning ability that determines the size of the pay check.

      Kournikova draws big crowds.  Event organisers, sponsors and spectators are (by and large) very happy with her “performance”.

      And McEnroe and Connors drew big crowds.  They were also great performers (and yes, entertainers), but didn’t always win.  Connors in particular was noted for his showmanship over raw ability or win/loss ratios. McEnroe drew huge crowds even when he LOST.  Sometimes, BECAUSE he lost…

      So who is to say that McEnroe or Kournikova or Serena Williams or Joe Bloggs is “worth” more than another player?  The market, that’s who.

      None of these players intrinsically “deserve” any amount.  It’s not about how many sets they play (or don’t play). It’s about what people are prepared to watch.

    • andrew says:

      02:15pm | 29/06/12
      if anyone’s interested. those fitness requirements for general entry to the army,navy or air force are a joke! i rarely do sport these days but walk 25 min each way to work a couple of times a week and do 5 minutes max of weights or push ups every now and again and i could breeze through those requirements. Only the shuttle run might rule me out of the special forces / clearance divers as i think 10.1 is a pretty decent score and i’m not that great at running.

    • Max Power says:

      02:39pm | 29/06/12

      Army Standards

      In the RAAF, there is a choice between the flex armed hang and pushups. The arm hang both have the same requirements. The Push ups, men are required to do 2.5 times more push ups then females, until the age of 55.  Situps there is no difference. The Run or Walk,  females are given an extra minute across the board.

      So, in summing up,  as a minimum male are expected to be twice as strong in the Army and RAAF in regards to pushups. In the RAAF females have a minute less, and in the Army over 2 minutes lessr.

      The worst thing about the army, is that males up until the age of 50 are expected to be faster than females below 25, and males above 50 are expected to be faster than females 31-40.

    • Lily says:

      03:02pm | 29/06/12

      I actually went looking for half vs full pushups but couldn’t find that listed anywhere. But yes only 10… only 20 situps for gods sake I could do that sleeping.

    • djrtmum says:

      03:48pm | 29/06/12

      Okay as an Ex-Army female, I am offended… Noone carried my pack, I passed my fittness test better than most guys.  I could do more sit ups, more chin ups and more push ups.  There are women, who do play on the fact, and I do agree women should not be on the front line, however combat roles that are singular, eg: pilots are fine.  The reason is more to do with the culture in Australia.  Men naturally are protective and seeing a women shot would be bad for morale and would statistically lead to more deaths.  I work as a tradie, did the same work set up repair base camps, hammered in tent spikes, dug pits, fire a rifle.  I deserved equal pay.  I was also respected by my pears… Physical standards are there because we have different muscle mass.  I still run my 5km in 24 mins and then my 2.4km in 11 1/2 mins, but i bet I could outdo you in strength.  Women multitask better as well.  So do not be so closed minded, both men and women have strengths and weaknesses.

    • EX ADF says:

      04:06pm | 29/06/12

      Just my two cents worth and since I am an ex defence force member I think I have a right to comment. There may be physical differences and there fore different standards for men and women but there are also mental ones but this is a generalisation accross the board. There were many women who out performed a lot of the men physically that I saw and the standards are set as a minimum. I did notice however that on many occassiona as a female I ‘mentally’ had to coach many a man through passing academic tests and assesments as well as dealing with difficult situations such as deaths and other emotional situations as they just did not have the emotional maturity or comprehension on how to deal with difficult senarios. So I believe at the end of the day it evens itself out and that women have brought a lot to acting defence force units. Feel free to pull apart my above first hand observations but thats my opinion and I sticking to it grin

    • Kheiron says:

      04:17pm | 29/06/12

      The forces have had to steadily decrease entry requirements due to lack of applicants. They’ll honestly take anybody at this point.

      As for the tennis thing, we’re talking about prize money, not sponsorship.
      The sponsors give them money in accordance to how well they promote the brand, how many people they draw in.
      The prize money is given to the person that wins.

      The issue being presented is that the women get equal prize money for doing only 60% of the work.

      As for the women playing the men, Riggs, at 55, beat the pants off Court, at 30. Riggs lost the next match against King in three sets.
      It was still a retired player against top women players so not the fairest of comparisons.
      Conners beat Navratilova despite the one ball per serve handicap.
      Brassch also decimated both Williams sisters when he was ranked 203rd.

      It would be nice to see women play the men, but there’s no fun in watching a sport with a near guaranteed victor.

    • Soldier says:

      04:17pm | 29/06/12

      HA you guys make me laugh.

      FYI, the requirements for my age (28) in the Army are:
      Pushups: 35 in 2 minutes no resting on the ground or moving the hand position.
      Situps: 65 to a 3 second cadence, and if you don’t do the full 100 you are looked upon as a leper.
      2.4km Run: 11:48, now most relatively fit people should be able to do this with a little practice.

      That is the BARE minimum. In the Army you are expected to do more and push yourself to the maximum for the given time period or seen as a lazy waste of space. In the Navy and RAAF well the less said the better.

      SF is a whole ‘nother realm, and if you think you can do this easily you either play a very high level of regular sport or have seriously over estimated your physical ability.
      Go on the recruiting website and just see if you can do the 8 training program for SF, I think about 95% of the population wouldn’t have the drive let alone the physical capability to finish the first week.

      With today’s politically correct government they are pushing towards a gender neutral workplace, now as warm and fuzzy as that sounds it will just not work.
      For starters they are beginning to introduce a non-gender biased trade specific Physical Fitness Test… yet the BFA (Basic Fitness Assessment) is still different being much harder for men then women.

      I will leave you on a personal story of mine,
      A Signals detachment usually consists of 3-4 people, 1 CPL and 3 Signallers. A certain Signals unit in Townsville decided to experiment with a all female Det, 4 x females. They couldn’t lift the generator between them (usually accomplished by 2 males) out of the trailer, so in their infinite wisdom decided that it was to heavy and they would instead run it in the back of the steel trailer whilst it vibrated around it resulted in a cacophony that could be heard from Charters Towers to Cairns!

      Women in the Defence Force get paid EXACTLY the same amount, yet are held to different standards, intentionally or otherwise.

      P.S I’d had a few beverages whilst writing this so please forgive any grammar or bad spelling.

    • Peter says:

      04:35pm | 29/06/12

      Muggles: women join the Defence Force by CHOICE. So they would already know beforehand, the pay rates may not be equal.

      But people, both men & women, who join the Defence force dont do it for the money. And they are vetted throughout their training to make sure that they did join up to serve their country and not for any other ulterior reason.

    • andrew says:

      04:54pm | 29/06/12

      thanks for the input from those who have served in the defence forces. Seems like as kheiron says the problem is that generally speaking the population of australia is so fat and lazy they have to let just about anyone in, however the fitness standards for serving members seem pretty reasonable so they must expect to do a lot of physical training at recruit school. Soldier, i have read a book about the british SAS, it mentioned the survival training that everyone must do yearly - very full on stuff. I know at one stage a high ranking officer (maybe a colonel?) died of exposure during that course so it’s no child’s play. I will have a look at the SF program, though i could tell you offhand that there is no way i could do the running - have suffered from shin splints for years.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      04:56pm | 29/06/12

      djrtmum - I wouldn’t brag about multi-tasking. It’s just the ability to perform more than one thing at a time, poorly. It is nice, however, that you were respected by pears although I fail to see how this is relevant.

    • still serving says:

      05:34pm | 29/06/12

      As a military commander - a soldier of average fitness but who has excellent leadership skills, good computer skills, knows their profession, works well in a team and has a good attitude and work ethic is worth more than the super fit, arrogant fool who types with two fingers and can’t string a sentence. Gender is not an issue.

      Being a good soldier in the ADF is more than just about how fast you run and how many push ups you can do.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:26pm | 29/06/12

      Its not that the ADF ‘take anyone’ nowadays.

      In the ‘old days’ Army recruiting was done inhouse and whittled down the genuine contenders before they got onto the bus. Then they had 3 months at Club Pooky to belt them into shape before IET and onwards

      Nowadays civilian recruiting being paid ‘by the head’ regardless of whether or not they are suitable for Kapooka as long as they are in the vicinity of very very wide goalposts. And then they only have 6 weeks to sort out the wankers and get some physical fitness into them. Just not enough time and wankers do slip through and standards slide.

    • John says:

      11:53am | 29/06/12

      Who says more sets are better? Back in the day, there was nothing more entertaining than an Evert-Navratilova match, all played as best of 3 sets.  And yes, there have been some some gripping men’s five setters, like various Federer-Nadals. And there have been some 5 set stinkers. I have sat at the Australian Open at a mind numbingly boring 5 setter between two no name baseliners. It was awful. They should have had to pay me.  And I’ve watched Serena Williams rip through an opponent so quickly if I’d lined up for a hot dog as the match started i would have missed half of it.

      It’s the quality of the entertainment that counts, not the quantity.  On average, men’s and women’s tennis is about equal quality, so they should get the same money.

    • Bomb78 says:

      01:48pm | 29/06/12

      John: tell this to the NRL when they get about 80% of the money that the AFL got on their TV deal. The biggest difference in value is not the raw ratings numbers but the total amount of game time on offer. IN terms of our major fottball codes that gives AFL a time advantage of about an hour a game over the NRL. I don’t agree with you that women’s tennis is of a higher quality, but even if it was, it would need to rate materially higher than men’s tennis (somewhere between 30 and 50 percent higher) to generate the same advertising dollars for the networks that pay the bills.

    • Bomb78 says:

      02:26pm | 29/06/12

      I can’t easily find a wide range of stats on match lengths, but I did find this from 2006 -
      In short, the average women’s final at Wimbledon in the period 1980 to 2005 went for 92 minutes, the average men’s final was 150minutes. Very close to the 3/5 ratio getting thrown around here today.

    • S.L says:

      11:53am | 29/06/12

      Ok I see the point of the men playing potentially 5 sets to womens 3. But then women have the “tits and arse” appeal which men don’t.
      Look at Anna Kornakova. In her career she won NOTHING in the singles department but she attracted so much free publicity for any tournement she played in. Most top womens players (many who’s surnames end with “ova) have the “T and A” attraction which is worth more dollarwise for a promoter than a slugfest between Federer and Nadal for example…............

    • Markus says:

      12:15pm | 29/06/12

      Sponsorship fees for appealing players having absolutely nothing to do with the prizemoney though.
      This argument would only follow through if Kournikova was winning the women’s division just by turning up and being really, really, ridiculously good looking.

    • St. Michael says:

      12:15pm | 29/06/12

      If you’re looking for substantial tits and arse in tennis tournaments, let’s just say you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as free porn is concerned.  There’s more appeal and value in your average netball game, volleyball game, or lingerie ad in a Women’s Weekly than there is in three hours of holding out for a glimpse of Sharapova’s underwear.  And her grunting is about as big a turn-off as you’re likely to find.

      Unless of course you like the thought of a woman grunting as your balls get smacked with a tennis racket hard enough for them to reach a speed of 100 km/h plus.

    • S.L says:

      02:27pm | 29/06/12

      @St Michael…........Very good reply.

    • S.L says:

      02:27pm | 29/06/12

      @St Michael…........Very good reply.

    • Markus says:

      11:55am | 29/06/12

      “It would also shut the likes of Simon up. No one can legitimately complain about the same pay for the same work.”
      Except that until the separate men’s and women’s divisions are done away with altogether, it still isn’t the same work. One group has to beat the best players in the world to win the title, while the other just has to beat the best women.

      Implement a unisex World Tennis ranking board and tournaments, then we will see just how equal the work is.

    • Nilbog says:

      01:33pm | 29/06/12

      It is generally accepted that the best women tennis players are the equivalent standard of male 2nd tier college tennis players.

      Therefore, even with a unisex comp, there would unlikely be many (if any) women in the top 500.

    • Steve says:

      11:56am | 29/06/12

      A simple solution - pool the prize money for both men and women and have the men’s winner play the women’s winner.  The better tennis player will win and take the lot.

      Or you could remove the gender distinction altogether and simply have the tennis players playing whoever they get drawn against.  Again, the best player wins.

      Both we don’t do these things because the women would mostly lose and so the women’s tournament will always be a bit ‘special’ compared to the men’s tournament.

    • H B Bear says:

      12:00pm | 29/06/12

      Perhaps the female tennis players might want to play a stand alone tennis tournaments, try to sell the TV rights and then pay themselves the current Wimbledon prize money. 

      Have a look at the womens golf tour and see how that works out for them.

    • Inky says:

      12:10pm | 29/06/12

      Uuuhh *thok*

      Aaah *thok*

      Nyaah *thok*

      Well damn, I just found your market demographic. As far as I can tell, there are two reasons to watch women’s tennis, and only one involves caring about the sport.

    • andrew says:

      12:14pm | 29/06/12

      i don’t think you’ll find Karrie webb or Anika sorenstamm living out of a cardboard box any time soon, i think they have done alright for themselves. Sponsorship rather than prize money is probably a large part of thier earnings though. Even men’s golf in australia has quite low prizemoney, from memory i think it’s around $250K for winning the masters? (and falls quickly from there).

    • Condor says:

      12:03pm | 29/06/12

      Pay is generally determined by a function of profit generated. This applies in sport where advertisers and sponsors pay more for more eyeballs. It applies in business where people that earn more for a company will be paid more

      The only place where it does not apply is in the public service which doesn’t really generate any money anyway

      It’s now illegal to pay a woman less for the same work and very rarely will you see it

    • MarkS says:

      12:36pm | 29/06/12

      “Pay is generally determined by a function of profit generated”

      Quite right, professional sport is entertainment. The entertainer should be paid according to what income they bring in. I have no idea if the women in 3 sets bring in twice as much as the men do in 5 sets or 50% as much. But whatever it is that should be the pay ratio.

      Think movie stars. Nobody talks about gender based pay, it is based on drawing power.

    • andrew says:

      12:06pm | 29/06/12

      the only downside i can see to women playing best of five sets is that it will force them all to become even more muscular and unfeminine. If i simply wanted to tune in for a perve i wouldn’t bother when the majority of the women would look like mauresmo or schiavone. Sure some men may find them attractive but it’s not my cup of tea (subtle wimbledon reference intended).

      As someone who has played competitive tennis and considers myself a genuine fan of the game, if i am going to lose sleep watching late night tennis then i want to see the highest quality matches possible - in my opinion nearly every one of these matches will involve at least one of the top 10 ranked male players -  So basically i watch very little women’s tennis.

      Also genuine equality would not only require the women to play best of five sets, it would also require them to serve at the same speed as the men, hit groundstrokes at the same speed the men do, and display the same level of athleticism on the court the men do. I am all for the female players staying at best of three sets and getting 2/3 of the money the men receive as they are playing roughly 2/3 of the tennis the men are.

    • Daniel says:

      05:14pm | 29/06/12

      Actually Andrew (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong) but making the females play to five sets would make them less muscular as they would have to spend more time focusing on stamina rather than power.

      I can see two upsides to this:-

      1. They’ll become more “feminie” and thus more (to me anyway) attractive.
      2. The lowering of shot power will will force more serve volleying into the game and make it more entertaining to watch than the “baseline wacking” you get today.

    • Renee says:

      12:07pm | 29/06/12

      What about jobs that women do better than men? For that we are rewarded less pay, because that’s a feminine job. What about ‘girl’s’ sports that get little to no recognition. We need to recognise that women and men are different and equal reward money for equal play is ridiculous, because they are playing equivalent matches therefore they deserve equal prizes. If you are suggesting women and men are physically equivalent then there would be mixed matches.

    • Markus says:

      12:22pm | 29/06/12

      Please name these jobs which women do better than the men but get paid less. I am genuinely curious.

    • MarkS says:

      12:42pm | 29/06/12

      Economics is not your strong suit is it? Prefer the cloud cuckoo land of gender studies no doubt.

      If female footy players could pack the MCG out with 100,000 people watching a game & millions on TV, then they would have their own AFL & be paid as much.

    • Condor says:

      01:06pm | 29/06/12

      The only jobs you could possibly be talking about are things like nursing and teaching. These are public sector jobs that don’t generate any profit and are paid for by taxpayers. That is why their pay is low. It has nothing to do with being feminised

      Same with certain other jobs in the public service that have a difference in pay. I think people compare economists in Department of Health and Ageing to economists in Teeasury. The latter is paid more but this is largely the result of better bargaining of Trwasury and having more leverage as it is the more important and high profile department

    • Bitten says:

      02:27pm | 29/06/12

      @Renee: Thanks for that cracking logic sister, I’m now embarrassed to admit I’m female.

    • LostinPerth says:

      02:58pm | 29/06/12

      What jobs in particular Renee?

      “We need to recognise that women and men are different and equal reward money for equal play is ridiculous, because they are playing equivalent matches therefore they deserve equal prizes.”
      But they are not equivalent matches, that was the whole point.
      “equal reward money for equal play is ridiculous” I agree, but you still then want equal pay for shorter matches?

    • Lucy says:

      12:09pm | 29/06/12

      Couldn’t agree more Tory. The women should play five sets.

      Can you imagine if this same principle, of playing only 60% of the men was applied in other sports?

      Cathy Freeman could have won gold at the Sydney Olympics in the 240m sprint.

      Or, the 60m breaststroke - all the pools would have to be reconfigured.

      What other sport discriminates in favour of women to the tune of requiring only 60% of the effort? I can’t think of one.

      It’s ridiculous and should be changed - either play 100% of the time, or get 60% of the prize money.

    • PeterH says:

      12:11pm | 29/06/12

      The same job would actually mean playing and beating the best of the best not just the best of 50%.

      The 1000th ranked male player would smash the 1st ranked female player which means he is a better tennis player but wouldn’t earn anywhere near what the number one female player earns.

      The man who came last in the mens 400 meter final at the Sydney Olympics ran 2 seconds faster than Cathy Freeman. Does anyone remember his name?

    • Lily says:

      01:04pm | 29/06/12

      Men and women are physically different. Hence the seperate competitions. Just because a 5"7 woman can’t beat a 6’4 man at sprinting it does not mean she is crap at sports and does not deserve a decent pay check or the recognition that she is the fastest WOMAN on the planet. It’s funny how men like you want to prove you are so different when it suits your advantage but then expect women to compete against you on a different scale. Different =/= better or worse.

    • PeterH says:

      03:13pm | 29/06/12


      Disabled and able bodied athletes are also physically different. Hence the seperate competitions. Just because a man or woman with one leg can’t beat an able bodied man or woman at sprinting it does not mean he is crap at sports and does not deserve a decent pay cheque or the recognition that he or she is the fastest one legged man/woman on the planet.

      Is anyone demanding equal pay for disabled athletes?

      Where do we draw the line?

    • The Bunyip says:

      04:59pm | 29/06/12

      Lily, I’m the fastest 4’11” guy in the world.  Should I get the same prizes and accolades as Usain Bolt?  After all, it doesn’t mean I’m crap at sport just because I’m short.  I am the fastest FOUR FOOT ELEVEN MAN in the world.

    • Lily says:

      09:06pm | 29/06/12

      Reductio ad absurdum Bunyip. It never wins an argument, it just makes you look silly. And yes Peter, if they have the appeal then why shouldn’t a disabled athlete get a good pay? Of course nobody could ever convince you of anything could they. You come off as a ‘my way is the only way’ kinda person. I’d love to see a tennis match between you and Serena Williams.

    • The Bunyip says:

      12:16pm | 02/07/12

      Lily, reductio ad absurdum is an old and accepted form of argument in logical reasoning.  “It never wins an argument” is about as absurd a statement as I’ve heard for a long time.

      Logically, having separate competitions for men and women makes no more or less sense than having separate competitions based on height, eye colour, or any any other factor that is determined solely by genetics.

    • Lucy Kippist

      Lucy Kippist says:

      12:17pm | 29/06/12

      Totally agree, Tory. Women do the same amount of work for most other sports, so why not tennis? And they shouldn’t be admitting that their sport is about what they look like as Serena did as it just takes away from their credibility.

    • Lucy Kippist

      Lucy Kippist says:

      12:23pm | 29/06/12

      Oops, sorry - this is Amelia on Lucy’s account.

    • John says:

      12:23pm | 29/06/12

      It’s about market value.  I’d pay more to look at Maria Sharapova for 90 minutes than to look at Bernard Tomic for 4 hours. I have a feeling the sponsors might agree. Equal pay for equal value, not equal pay for equal sets.

    • Soldier says:

      04:31pm | 29/06/12

      I’d pay more to look at Sharapova then Bernard Tomic for any length of time, simply because he is a spoiled twat.
      But if I wanted a perve I wouldn’t be on this site, and I wouldn’t have to pay!

    • The Bunyip says:

      05:39pm | 29/06/12

      John, should Anna Kournikova have received more prize money in the tournaments she played than the winners of those tournaments?  Should Tsonga get more prize money just because he is popular?  Should white NFL footballers get paid more than black NFL footballers because they appeal to a larger, more affluent audience? 

      By your logic the answer is ‘yes’ to all three, which is a nonsense.

    • Muggles says:

      12:24pm | 29/06/12

      Beyond a nice, shiny trophy, professional sports people “deserve” only what their performances generate in revenue.

      These professional sports people can’t have it both ways.  They can’t say that they’re in it for the game, when they earn tens of millions a year in match earnings and sponsorship. They are also BUSINESS PEOPLE.

      And BUSINESS PEOPLE have to satisfy the marketplace.

      If (if!) a women’s match brought in ten-times larger audiences, then those women would be entitled to argue for a massive pay increase.  It wouldn’t matter if they play 1 set or 3 or 5. It’s whatever the audience wants.

      Same goes for the men.  If their performances get more people watching, they “deserve” a bigger cut of the take.

      And yes, looks are a big factor. Sex sells; we all know this.

      (And yes, the Williams sisters are the last people who want to be pushing that particular barrow. She who lives by the sword…)

    • MarkS says:

      12:50pm | 29/06/12

      “If (if!) a women’s match brought in ten-times larger audiences, then those women would be entitled to argue for a massive pay increase.  It wouldn’t matter if they play 1 set or 3 or 5. It’s whatever the audience wants”

      100% agree. I work less hours then my personal assistant, she is in before me & leaves after me. I would not be able to do my job as well without her. But I earn about four times more than her. Why?  Because its my skills that bring the money in, she is easily replaceable. It is the value in money of that person to the business that counts.

      One of my old bosses had a gay male personal assistant, he earned about a fifth of what she did. Again nothing to do with their sex, gender or whatever.

    • AdamC says:

      12:31pm | 29/06/12

      That is quite an interesting idea, Tory.

      This stuff about women’s tennis pay has been going back and forth for years and years. I am pretty sure the Aussie Open brought in equal pay some time before Wimbledon. In the mixed grand slam tournaments, I think the advocates for paying men more are on a hiding to nothing.

    • Huonian says:

      12:39pm | 29/06/12

      It’s a pity that the equal-pay-for-women issue seems to be so much about people who are extremely well paid anyway, while so little focus is on the crap pay that so many women on struggle street get.

      At the elite sport level, there’s all sorts of reasons why someone earns a few mill more than someone else.  Gilles Simon wouldn’t earn as much as Sharapova because she wins more often than he does.  And, being male, wouldn’t ever get as much sponsorship for being “hot”, as Williams points out.  That’s probably sexist, but does it really matter at that level?

      The gender pay gap at the top end may be a matter of principle, but at the bottom end it’s much more serious than that.  I really cannot care too much about pay issues for people who earn a bucketload anyway.

    • thatmosis says:

      12:42pm | 29/06/12

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We shouldn’t have men and women’s sport but just sport. Both compete for the dollar against each other as that is the true meaning of equality not this crap we are served up now. The women boast that they are on equal pay bit they don’t do the same as the men so where is the equality. Never mind that most men would rather watch the shrieker than Tomic its equality that they want then let them play against the likes of Tomic et al.
      I don’t really care as I have made a conscious decision not to buy anything endorsed by these overpaid ball hitters anyway or for that matter any product endorsed by a sports person.

    • John C says:

      12:45pm | 29/06/12

      Equal pay for equal work.

      Don’t reduce the prize money for the women, increase the number of sets they have to play to get it.

      That way we can admire Maria for longer - evreyone wins!

    • Muggles says:

      02:07pm | 29/06/12

      But we’re not talking about work.

      We are talking about performing in a sport, for an audience. Where “performing” is a very broad, multifaceted term.

      We don’t pay athletes for the years of dedication they put in, or the amount they sweat.  We pay them for the 2 or 3 so hours we see them on the court, through our attendance/viewing.

      And we pay some people less than others. Much less.  Some 200th seed might have busted a gut and clocked up a 5 hour 5 set marathon against the 199th seed. But they don’t get paid the big prize for that “work”.

      It’s about success, where success is defined as “doing what most people want you to do”.

    • renold says:

      02:18pm | 29/06/12

      @ Muggles

      Their sport is their work

    • Muggles says:

      02:39pm | 29/06/12


      But you don’t get a wage or a salary for an individual sport.

      We (rightly) don’t regard a tennis match performance as work, when it comes to pay.

      If anything, you’d have to regard these people as self-employed. And I’m self-employed, and I can tell you for free that the hours (sets?) I work is not directly related to my remuneration. wink

      (I should say that I would like to see women’s matches go much longer.  45 minute matches are a joke, from a spectator’s point of view.)

    • Little Joe says:

      04:38pm | 29/06/12

      @ Muggles

      Tennis Players get paid for WINNING!!!!

      Sponsors pay to have the audience see their signs. Its a package ,,,,, in some smaller tournaments they will change signs between men and women.

      Tennis Patrons pay to watch a game ..... which is why I do not pay to watch tennis ..... not to the Brisbane International anyway. Paid good money one year, the first game was over in 40-minutes, the second lasted 20-minutes because one player said they had an injury. Any twinge in Brisbane will see a player walk off because they don’t want to risk an injury before the Australian Open.

    • Emma says:

      12:47pm | 29/06/12

      I totally disagree. It should all come down to how much money they generate. No matter how many sets they play. Its not important how long you sit in the office for, its important how successful you are.

    • The Bunyip says:

      05:12pm | 29/06/12

      So you have no problem with women’s sports in Australia receiving a fraction of the funding that men’s sports receive?  Or netballers taking home a fraction of what footballers do?

    • jase says:

      06:37pm | 29/06/12

      Ah but Emma, we live in a society that thrives off of precisely that, how many hours your work vs actual productivity.

      Hell the day I can pay everyone based on their productivity, rather than how many hours they work, will be a day I cannot wait to celebrate. The whole concept of being paid “hourly” is to protect the under achievers in society.

    • renold says:

      01:11pm | 29/06/12

      Tennis has always been the biggest joke when it comes to equal pay and it still is.

      Same pay for less work, in some peoples mind that means equality.

      Problem is easilly solved by simply dismantling the enitire notion of seperating the genders in an equivelant event.

      No more seperate100 meters for men and women..fastest wins, afterall that would be equality

      Which basically leaves synchronised swimming in which women will continue to excell

    • Knemon says:

      01:12pm | 29/06/12

      “The women should play five set matches” LOL

      How boring would that be? They struggle to get through three sets as it is, there is no way known they could play five - physically and from a spectator’s view point, they’d be lucky to get the ball back over the net in the fifth set!

      The pay should be 3/5 of what the men receive.

    • Kika says:

      01:28pm | 29/06/12

      I tend to agree. 5 sets. If they want the pay for 5 sets, they can play 5 sets.
      The 3 set thing was determined way back when it was still a ‘ladies’ game and they had old wooden rackets and wore sweaters, stockings and country club gear… so they played till 3 so they don’t get too flustered. Poor darlings.

      What’s Serena’s excuse? She could clearly play 5 sets. Sharapova might lose her voice after 3 and end up losing her advantage of screeching for so long.

      Tennis is no longer a fun pastime but an elite sport. They should play 5. Simple as that.

    • Bitten says:

      02:30pm | 29/06/12

      I would get so bored if I had to watch them screech and grunt and moan their way through 5 complete sets - 3 is hard enough. Although the mute button can make it bearable.

    • Kika says:

      04:56pm | 29/06/12

      Yes. It’s interesting that the men don’t have to screech and carry on as much as the women do. And they are more powerful. Weird.

    • Benevolent Rapscallion says:

      01:32pm | 29/06/12

      It’s bad enough watching 3 sets of non-stop grunting. Heaven forbid we should have to sit through 5. Will we ever see a return to the skill and elegance of players such as Martina Hingis and Steffi Graf?

    • Ags says:

      09:13pm | 29/06/12

      Will we ever go back to the 20th century? Sport ain’t sport any more. It’s only about money

    • steve says:

      01:37pm | 29/06/12

      Fairfax ran the headline this morning “I’m hot, you’re not” and falsely attributed this to Sharapova.  Subsequently it was changed.

      Here we have Tory again falsely suggesting that Sharapova made a comment about “hotness” in the first sentence.

      Is it too hard for so-called journalists to write about things that did happen rather than making things up?

    • John says:

      01:53pm | 29/06/12

      What the hidden agenda of this article? divide and conqueror by the commie marxist western media, who keep on dividing people from religion, to marriage, to men, to women, to nation.

      Western Religious leaders are pedophiles, Men are oppressive to women, Heterosexuality is oppressive, you must also be bisexual,  women need more pay, all western people are racists against minority’s, homosexuals need rights to marrie, third world immigration needs to pour into the west under the guise asylum seekers.

      They repeat these mantra’s, over and over and over again until western civilization starts to self destruct, which is the aim of course. It’s like a battlefield, but instead of swords, shields, carvery, you have money, marketing, stories, constantly pushing out stories that weakens western civilization against it’s self, so that it becomes a confused, weak willed, divided in-cohesive unit.

    • Misogynistic says:

      01:57pm | 29/06/12

      “This is despite the fact the women only play to 3 sets and the men play to 5.”

      Not surprising: Women do 60% of the work* and whinge about not being paid enough - while the men put in more hours without complaint. I can remember one conversation with a feminista who whinged loudly that “men don’t have to take the kids to school and do the washing up!!” while I know men who’d /love/ to have the time to take their kids to school. That hell, if that was their only complaint about their life, they’d be loving it.

      If they really want to prove they’re equal, let’s abolish the men / women division in tennis altogether and just let all the men and women play against each other in the one tournament. That way there’s only one set of prize money and players really will have to prove themselves.

      * 3/5. Although interestingly enough, even women’s sets themselves are often shorter than their male counterparts.

    • Kev says:

      05:40pm | 29/06/12

      Some women’s matches are shorter than an entire set of men’s tennis. I think one of the sets in the Nadal Djokovic final in the Aus Open outlasted the entirety of the women’s final.

    • Chris says:

      02:02pm | 29/06/12

      All pro tennis tournaments, save Davis Cup and the Slams, are best of three. There’s no need to have best of 5 in any form of the game. Let the men play best of three and the problem is solved.
      Better still, make it retrospective to 1968,  see who would have won the tournaments then, and issue new trophies.
      (Okay, just kidding about that last bit.)

    • Justin of Earlwood says:

      02:40pm | 29/06/12

      I don’t have a problem with the current pay situation sets wise, the problem is the lack of depth & quality on the women’s tour.

      Take Sam Stosur. It’s not a shock when she gets bundled out of a slam, it’s a shock that she actually won one. She was a middling player who has only slightly improved her skills (her backhand is still practically non-existent), but she got herself incredibly fit & in women’s tennis, that gets you in to the top 20. Once there you get an even softer draw, you string a few top matches together at the back end of the tournament & hey presto, you’ve won a slam.

      A middling men’s player gets himself super fit & if he’s lucky, he cracks the top 100. Meanwhile half the women on the tour have the prefix of “former world number one”, & half of those having gained it by never winning a slam.

      I don’t particularly like men’s tennis, but it’s a genuine contest. Nadal going out in the 2nd round is a shock. The women’s number 2 (who is it this week?) goes out in round 2 & it’s a shrug of the shoulders.

    • James Mathews says:

      02:42pm | 29/06/12

      Well Yes I agree but you’ve also to consider in Tennis’s case is that the Women and Men are controlled by separate entities which in apart does mean that there are differences in the pay for the Grand Slam Win.
      I think that you’re right Tory to want the females to play the same number of sets that the men do but that would mean starting from starch with the points and ratings, this would only happen if both tour organisers merged.
      But would you really want five sets of Sharapova?

    • Jimmy says:

      02:50pm | 29/06/12

      Your argument is silly, the actual length of the match should have little to do with how much the tennis player earns. Does that mean players in a men’s match that only goes to three sets should be paid less than their counterparts who play a five-set epic? No.

    • SM says:

      03:53pm | 29/06/12

      Exactly right.  Their pay is, as it should be, determined by factors including broadcast rights revenues, sponsorships, etc.  How many sets they play is irrelevant.  If the market sustains what they’re being paid, then that’s all that matters.

    • Tango says:

      04:01pm | 29/06/12

      f you were to extend your even sillier argument, players who win a match by winning each set 6-0, should get paid less than someone who wins in three tie-break sets because they only played 18 games compared to 39.

    • The Bunyip says:

      04:53pm | 29/06/12

      Of course not, Jimmy, because the man who won in 3 set had to win 3 sets - the same number as the guy who won in a 5-setter did.  The guy winning in straight sets just did it more efficiently.

    • Abraham says:

      03:50pm | 29/06/12

      if people want to uphold the idea of equality, then it must be uphelp in all facets of society. Focusing on tennis and equal prize money: by the same logic of men and women being equal, then they should receive the same money for the same amount of work. 5 sets requires MUCH MUCH more effort than 3 sets. This might sound pig-headed of me (but I really dont care): female tennis can only demand equal pay when they agree to play 5 sets. Till then, STOP WHINGING!!

    • Anjuli says:

      04:08pm | 29/06/12

      The women should win the same as the men ,when they play the 5 sets which men do ,that what equal pay means.

    • Sandra says:

      04:26pm | 29/06/12

      NOOO do NOT make the women play 5 sets.
      I’m bored enough watching the girls play 3 setters already.  The quality of play, the unforced errors. Ugh.
      Men’s tennis is the only reason I watch the sport, I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    • Equality for equality's sake says:

      04:26pm | 29/06/12

      Clearly children’s competitions should be sponsored and the children paid! I know they can’t give the kind of sporting performance that adults can, but we need equality!

    • Not Shortsighted says:

      04:42pm | 29/06/12

      All you men need to get off your soap boxes about how you have to play 5 sets or have higher ADF physical requirements, until you guys decide to birth your kids half the time you need to shut up about deserving higher pay.

    • really? says:

      04:07pm | 30/06/12

      Why is that? Do the female tennis players give birth on the tennis court?

    • Nick says:

      04:43pm | 29/06/12

      The Job is entertainment. Success is judged by:
      1) Advertising sold (TV, Outdoor)
      2) Tickets sold
      3) Sponsorship
      Based on those metrics, what should the men and women be paid?

    • Craig says:

      05:29pm | 29/06/12

      Frankly people should play sport for the enjoyment, not the money.

      If anything we should be paid to watch it. That’s fair!

    • kev says:

      05:54pm | 29/06/12

      Frankly the argument that women work as hard off the court and therefore deserve the same pay packet is bullshit. You do not play best of 5 set matches therefore you do not need to work as hard to prepare your body for the rigors of a 5 set match therefore you cannot argue you work as hard as men. Play 5 sets and then you can justify equal pay packets.

    • Luigi says:

      06:04pm | 29/06/12


      Equal pay for equal work, right on.  When the ladies in pro tennis play 5 set matches, rather than 3, fair enough.  One of the factors with 3 set tennis, if you win the first set, what are the stats you’ll be the ultimate winner and collect the bigger bucks.

      Although lots of female tennis players are eye candy, I reckon many ladies think some of the guys fall into the same category.

      I also think that one of the underlying beliefs in 3 set matches is that lady athletes do not have the strength and stamina as their male counterparts.  This might be OK in a man vs woman competition (eg marathons), but not lady on lady contests.

      Earn the bucks girls.

    • The Razor says:

      06:36pm | 29/06/12

      Some of these woman should pay us to sit through and have to endure their ridiculous grunting and high pitched screaming, what a turn off ! ..... and Sharapova has to be the bloody worst !

    • The Other Martin says:

      07:50pm | 29/06/12

      Why are there separate men’s and women’s competitions? The reasons are historical and are based in the ‘inequality’ of the sexes - that idea is no longer seen as valid. Hence there should be one competition and may the best player win! I wonder what the women players would say to that?

    • Bho Ghan-Pryde says:

      08:42pm | 29/06/12

      I do not know what all this 3 set or 5 set business is but I’ll happily watch Maria Sharapova wearing nothing but a sheen of sweat and a very short dress any time. And she can grunt as loud and long as she pleases.

    • Greg says:

      09:47pm | 29/06/12

      What a load, if you want to compete for one level of prize money simply have an open comp. If no then you are basically admitting that women cannot play to the same level as men, so why should they get the same prize money for a substandard level of play??? oh thats right cause couch potatoes can look at some arse, I suppose its not the tallent but the money it brings in, so much for striving for excellence

    • Michelle says:

      09:49pm | 29/06/12

      Look, tennis players are not receiving “payment”, they are receiving “prize money”.  They get this prize money as a reward for reaching particular stages in a tournament.  When they receive “payment” it’s from their individual sponsors which is directly related to their overall popularity, skills, appearance etc.  If they manage to win over the sponsors, more power to them.  Well done.

      The fundamental point, however, is that when women players are asked if they would be willing to play 5 sets the unanimous response is a resounding YES!  But they don’t get to choose how many sets they play, that decision is reserved for the MEN who run the grandslams and various tournaments around the world.  Go figure.

      And, is there really ANYTHING to be gained by telling women they’re not worth watching and therefore not due to receive the same prize money.  Really??  The male tennis players need to get over it.  They walk away with a handsome purse - just be grateful you get to play the game you love and be rewarded for it.

      Would Djokovic beat Sharapova?  Yes.  But so what?  It’s a lame argument that gets no merit because it would never happen.

      But look at the practical issues:  how on earth would they fit in the required matches over two weeks if every match (men and women) went to 5 sets.  There just aren’t enough hours in the day.

      Lastly, why aren’t we just happy to reward the women for efficiency?  If they can get through 7 rounds of a grand slam and not drop a set then they deserve prize money for all round excellence, not negative messages from loudmouths who cry the men are being ripped off.  If Djokovic or Nadal has to battle through 5 sets because their form during the match is up and down, why isn’t that noted as something ‘less than excellent’, however entertaining such a battle might be.

      Would the detractors be crying so foul if the respective finals turned out to be a tight 3-setter in the women’s, and a walk in the park 3-setter in the men’s?  I don’t think so.

    • Sam Richards says:

      10:06pm | 29/06/12

      I am a middle aged man and work out at the gym extensively. I also do gym classes and regard myself as very fit. Yet there are many women there who are fitter than me, can cycle longer and even lift similar and sometimes heavier weights in an hour long Pump class.

      Women can EASILY do FIVE sets at the top level of tennis. There is no logical reason for them NOT doing it except maybe a historical relic from a different age.

      Women should do five sets, they can do it easily, so they should.

    • Disillusioned ALP Member says:

      10:14pm | 29/06/12

      Tory can you please do a story on how this Federal Government can’t seem to implement any program without a diarchal.  For example look at today.

      With the reduction of the 30% Health Insurance Rebate this so called Labor Government made the rules such that the wealthy,  who could prepay your Insurance, got the next twelve months at the 30% rebate.  While those families who can only afford to pay their premiums monthly will only get 20% or even 10% rebate.  Surely if you are entitled to a rebate at 30% it shouldn’t matter whether or not you are wealthy enough to pay a $4000 bill at short notice.  Also, if you talk to any of the Health Funds you’ll be told that because of this policy today was the busiest day on record, with queues out the doors all day while people tried to pay what they could in advance – talk about market distortions.

    • HT says:

      10:30pm | 29/06/12

      Sports people earn too much money in general.

    • stephen says:

      12:26am | 30/06/12

      ‘In general’, yes, but that may be because they are a product of their country of origin.
      It is in a country’s advantage if their protogae is a winner and their home companies can make a killing.

      The Olympic Federation needs to maintain their name.
      And money is the name.

    • acotrel says:

      09:34am | 30/06/12

      Earn ? I thought that had something to do with work !

    • Argh says:

      02:57am | 30/06/12

      My partner made a point which I begrudgingly acknowledged as somewhat of an explanation towards the equal pay debate in tennis. Physically, men are considered overall stronger than women - you can’t deny it. We are built differently and it affects what we are capable of. But whether it’s 3 sets or 5, the women train just as hard as the men, pushing themselves to the peak of their fitness. They dedicate the same time and effort, and so I guess they feel that makes them equal.

      Really liked Michelle’s comment though - they compete in a competition for prize money, not for pay. (It’s potentially problematic though, as that does equal it up - both sexes compete to be the best of their gender in their chosen game…hmmm).

    • St. Michael says:

      02:07pm | 30/06/12

      “They dedicate the same time and effort, and so I guess they feel that makes them equal.”

      And it’s here that we get down to the main point: subjective assessment of performance as opposed to objective criteria.  Also known as: why an Arts degree is not regarded as significantly as an Engineering degree.

    • Ex Liberal Voter says:

      03:32pm | 30/06/12

      This site is so saturated by young Liberals that some could think it’s a genuine cross section of the population or the views of human beings but they’re obviously not. They’re so transparent. You can tell the ones that are young, dumb and full of something….

    • St. Michael says:

      05:41pm | 30/06/12

      Yeah, they name themselves Ex Liberal Voter.

    • Amber says:

      02:25pm | 01/07/12

      On the money as always Tory

    • gordon says:

      05:14pm | 01/07/12

      Sell the match tickets on ebay and put the TV on pay-per-view. Everyone gets exactly what they are worth. Job done.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter