Tweet
Equal pay for men and women? Or market value? Or simply how well you do your job compared to others in your field?
Thoughts, anyone?
Thoughts, anyone?
-
Stotty -
They both will sometime drop a crumb of technical information for us ravenous recreational peons to eat, but I feel that Martina does this better and more often than John.Originally posted by stotty View Post
He has never offered me any help, e.g., with my McEnrueful, which is an imitation John McEnroe forehand sad that it isn't the original. I've had to work out every detail for myself-- except for a little help from the technical tidbits in YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. But, can a tennis autobiography ever compare with Wimbledon TV coverage? I think not. And I've learned more about John's forehand from Jimmy Arias and John Yandell than from John.
Well, after a huge reduction in pay for John, the next persons to receive similar and more extreme treatment should be the sources and producer and writer of at least one of these two pieces.
Not a single nice thing to say about Martina, not one. And no mention of her record, just that of John.
Off with their heads.Last edited by bottle; 03-19-2018, 04:21 PM. -
For me, McEnroe is the best commentator. He has become deeply entrenched over the Wimbledon fortnight in a way that Martina hasn't. The BBC find that when they use McEnroe he pulls in more viewers. They are actually quite desperate to secure his services each year ahead of other rival broadcasters.
McEnroe set out to be a commentator after quitting tennis. He wanted to make a career out of it. I am not sure the other player commentators have gone about it in such a focused and driven way, in fact I know they haven't.
Another thing about the BBC is they use male commentators for mens matches and female commentators for ladies matches, with the exception of McEnroe, who commentates on both.
Unequal pay is a big deal over here right now. Companies in the past have been very secretive about salaries but are now being forced to disclose pay differences between men and women. Sometimes the difference is huge, for exactly the same job, which is all wrong.
McEnroe's case with the BBC is more unique. He works way more hours than anyone else and is a first-class commentator and not just a player speaking into a microphone. But like all these things it's subjective. I do feel McEnroe's role is quantifiable, measurable...and so the market pays.
I would be keen to know what Klacr, don_budge, tennis_chiro, gzphcu...etc. This is where we need some women on the forum!
John, if you pop into this thread, can we encourage/advertise for more female posters on the forum, please? It would soften things up and force us all to be more polite.Last edited by stotty; 03-20-2018, 01:57 AM.StottyComment
-
I'm all for equal pay. If in fact both parties carry the same value. The market decides. McEnroe is polarizing but that creates opinions and emotion. He is highly sought after for his voice. Therefore, channels create a bidding war for his services. NBC, ESPN, USA, BBC etc etc.
I like Martina as a person, but how many channels are chasing after her? Maybe they are but I only see her on the tennis channel. Her tennis analysis is good, fair and insightful, but she does not conjure up the same feelings as McEnroe, who gives his blunt opinion on players. Players ranked outside top 10 are classified by him or her as a nobody it seems. In his commentary during Berdych matches he spends a good two sets explaining that Berdych is a mental midget and has achieved nothing in his career.
McEnroe reminds me of Radio/media personality Howard Stern. In the review of ratings, the average Howard Stern fan listens for 90 minutes, because they want to hear what he says next. The average howard stern hater listens to him for 120 minutes...because they want to hear what he'll say next. Martina may be polarizing with her political opinions, (which I'm ok with) but she fails to capture the viewer's attention and emotion like McEnroe.
This is not a war on the sexes, this is simply the market stating that it is willing to pay more for Mac because of demand from others. Economics 101-Supply and Demand.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
I think Klacr raises some good points. McEnroe has got a good voice, in terms of to listen to, whereas Martina's voice grates. Her pitch is awful.
But McEnroe is so skilful. He describes the goings on in a match in a similar way to that of a good storyteller who captures an audience spellbound....like a Morgan Freeman narration.
His one failing is that, as Klacr suggests, he berates and sometimes belittles the underdog whilst exalting the heavy favourite. He overdoes it with his praise of Nadal, Roger and Novak in my view....doesn't quite keep his feet on the ground. He's greatest asset is that he doesn't repeat himself or use too many stock phrases. He simply comments on a match as it unfolds, which is how it should be.
Frew McMillan comments on the radio over here and he is also excellent. He's exceptionally grounded about all the players and has great knowledge.StottyComment
-
Also, Why is McEnroe even mentioned in this issue? Is it McEnroe's fault that he gets paid more? If a station asks him and they negotiate a deal through his manager or agent, then that is their deal. I don't think McEnroe has a clue what others make around him, nor does he care nor should he. If Martina thinks she is equal to McEnroe in commentary and she knows what he is making then she should demand and get more no question. So why doesn't she? Is this a McEnroe problem or Navratilova's agent's problem. Perhaps the ladder?
Another point in regards to market value. Why would Martina even bring John McEnroe's name into this? Does Mats Wilander get paid more than Martina Navratilova? If he does, then why? Why wouldn't she mention his name instead? Because McEnroe brings attention and intrigue to the story, thus proving that his market value has some cache.
In my opinion, if we discuss the quality of commentary, I feel Robbie Koenig should be getting paid the most of anyone. The silky smooth delivery, the inflection of his voice after a big point, the South African accent I could listen to all day.
This is a story about a bad business deal. BBC may be wrong in paying these two commentators differently, unless Navratilova settled for and agreed upon that price which she would have had to do to agree to terms and sign a contract. It's a business deal and negotiations take place. McEnroe engaged in similar conversations and asked or requested a higher amount. BBC agreed to that in order to have McEnroe as a commentator. It's business.
I am all for equality and equal pay. Paying someone less on purpose because they are of a different gender, race, ethnicity etc is completely wrong. But when two parties enter into an agreement, they both accept those terms. The tough thing to prove here is whether BBC intentionally paid Martina less simply because she's a woman. In court, that is nearly impossible to prove because all BBC has to do is deny. Then it becomes he (they) said, she said.
The fact that this story came to public means means there are no winners involved. Martina looks like she was either cheated or is just bitter than she gets paid less, market value or not. McEnroe looks bad simply because his name got mentioned, which it did not have to. BBc looks bad because of the current socio-political climate we live in today. I remember when personal/business matters were discussed in private or in board rooms.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
From a BBC spokeperson...
"John and Martina perform different roles in the team, and John's role is of a different scale, scope and time commitment. They are simply not comparable.
"Martina is one of a number of occasional contributors who is contracted to carry out a fixed volume of work and paid per appearance. The BBC believes her pay reflects what she is asked to do, her time commitment, her level of broadcast experience, profile and track record and expertise. At Wimbledon 2017 her work amounted to three live match commentaries, four highlights appearances, one short video and two other short studio appearances. Beyond this she has no contractual commitment to the BBC.
"Our contract with John is entirely different. John is contracted to be on call for the BBC across the entire 13 days of the tournament, subject to a commitment with one US broadcaster, and is on air every day. He worked on live match commentaries on 12 of the 13 days along with highlights programmes, opening links, regular studio pieces with Sue Barker, studio analysis, filmed sequences and 6-0-6 programmes for BBC Radio 5 live, as well as publicity work.
"Along with Sue Barker, John is regarded as the face of our Wimbledon coverage. He is a defining voice within the BBC's coverage. He is widely considered to be the best expert/commentator in the sport, highly valued by our audiences and his contract means he cannot work for another UK broadcaster without our permission. His pay reflects all of this - gender isn't a factor."
This is all BBC has to say. End of story. Whether it's true or not that is for the public to decide. But the fact that BBC break down their responsibilities speaks volumes. I know Martina and like her for her knowledge and her game style. An incredible competitor in her day but this story, even if it has legs, won't change a thing. But hopefully Martina does get paid more, and when or if she does, I will be happy for her.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton
Comment
-
I loved watching Martina play. But I don't enjoy her commentating. She comes across as very smug and a know it all--when it's obvious there is a lot she doesn't understand technically. If I had a spare $21K I'd offer it to her to quit.Comment
-
A lot gets solved if pay is disclosed and put out in the open for all to see. I think in Norway pay is put out in the open. Anyone can view what another earns. The nice touch about is that anyone who wants to log in to see what another earns has to disclose their identify too. So if you are nosey, then everyone is going to know you are snooping...so the openness works both ways. I like that.Originally posted by klacr View Post
But, yes, openness about pay would resolve a lot of problems. Martina could then negotiate and find her true value using McEnroe and others as a benchmark. It's hard to negotiate in the dark and clearly women get a raw deal when this happens. But ultimately a person's market value would dictate pay in the commentary business.
Complete transparency across all pay sectors would name and shame a lot of tax evaders. I think everyone should have to show what they earn.Last edited by stotty; 03-20-2018, 01:35 PM.StottyComment
-
Its smart business what Martina is doing right now. That's all it is - nothing more. Boy, unbelievable how stupid the BBC is here in this situation. Nothing just appears on TV out of the blue with people like Martina. They look so bad right now, and NO ONE will take their side on this one. Game, set and match to Martina already here.
First off - the reality of the situation is she willingly worked for peanuts with ulterior motives and an agenda to look after her own long term interests.
Now the market is ripe! Time to pick the fruit! So, she acts accordingly.
Both of them - John and Martina. $15,000 for two weeks work - that is peanuts for Martina, and $200,000 is not a good wage for John either after taxes, travel, family time lost, other business revenue lost, ETC. They do it for their branding - the exposure keeps them relevant and fuels other income streams. That's why you do TV, radio and media - its free PR that makes you credible.
I think somethings going on behind the scenes with Martina -- suddenly this is a public issue? She's been aware of this gap for decades. Suddenly she comes out? I wonder whats happening. I kind of see the scenario - likely, the BBC played hard ball with her in negotiations and realizes their is no market whatsoever for Martina as KLACR alluded. If I was Martina's advisor - I would understand this right off the bat.
Now - this is why you have good agents and lawyers.
They will flip out behind the scenes. Let things "slip out." Catch the right news cycles - you know, get it out there on Monday,
McEnroe has been told whats happening - he won't be available for comment - however, I am sure in a week or so if its not resolved he will be "shocked."
John knows if Martina gets more - he will get more. They have likely talked this out - two old pro's who are tennis players and on the same team. They certainly ain't pro BBC - jocks are jocks and they always take care of their own (or, they should in theory).
Phase II of the plan ... get the BBC and Wimbledon sponsors on the record ... your old buddies in the media you've been slipping "insider information" to over the years - let them murder every company for not supporting Martina.
If BBC continues to shortchange in negotiations - back to the media, insulting offer, McEnroe ETC.
Keep piling it on, and on and on!
Develop a few hashtags - twitter - just follow the playbook.
BBC won't fire Martina, and she has just backed them into a corner.
And, if they do let her go, wrongful dismissal, Martina is a champion, retroactive pay, pain - suffering and British government telling the BBC to settle as it looks very bad for everyone involved here.
In all ways Martina is set for life here, she will get into the $250,000 range, John will re-negotiate for $500,000 -- and everyone will go home happy because its all just business with these people at the end of the day.
Martina said something very interesting - "I was paid $15,000 for many years, and over time that adds up." And she is right - and in all ways she will force their hands to pony up. And, they will."
And next year Slotty will be paying much more money for his ticket.
Welcome to pro sports.
This is not about equality - this is about a millionaire (Martina) cashing in now. Martina ain't no stupid dumb jock - in all ways in the end she will get her cash. She ain't stupid, that is for sure. Gotta admire her in a way. Martina has become to big to fail now, and the BBC will pay up.
The lesson in all of this folks is don't fuck with a smart woman who defected, beat communists at their own game in Czech, won title after title - she will rip you ass apart and enjoy it. Martina is a tough woman. You will all see in the next few weeks.
Last edited by hockeyscout; 03-20-2018, 03:00 PM.Comment
-
Like it. But think they both should be paid the same-- $80 a day which is what the internet says a substitute teacher earns.Originally posted by hockeyscout View PostComment
-
Absolutely zero compassion for poor little old Martina. It's a job. She knows the terms. She knows the score. If she doesn't like it she is free to take her services to the highest bidder. McEnroe is sliding in my eyes as well. But he doesn't have much to work with these days. The tennis is really dreadful. The only thing that makes any of it interesting is Roger Federer. As a commentator McEnroe is becoming more and more an apologist for the shit he is trying to dress up. He's no rebel any longer...he's a suck up just like all of the rest.
I watched the last Federer versus Del Potro match without commentary. Just turn the sound off. Commentating on a women's match should be one of the highest paying jobs in the world. I cannot imagine the stress or pressure of trying to find something to say during the duration of one of those matches. The equal pay for men and women playing tennis is debatable. I really find it difficult to find an argument for it.
This conversation is getting tiring. The victims...the oppressed. Put them in the same draw from now on. Let's eliminate the differences in the sexes altogether. Dog eat dog. Right Martina? This isn't about sexism. It's about rich people getting richer. Personally I don't care how much she makes and even less about how much McEnroe makes.
More feminist propaganda...lurking just beneath the veneer of the story. It's everywhere now. It is a war on men...there can be no doubt about it. Masculist versus Feminist. That's ok. It used to be that the battle of the sexes was never won because of too much fraternisation with the enemy. Just imagine what the future holds. It's hard to.Comment
-
I am sure the Hillary Pants Suit Brigade will be with Martina on this grave injusticeComment
-
Yes, you are right - it is all about the rich getting richer.Comment
-
I think Navratilova took advantage of the situation within the BBC where equal pay is being discussed. Whether she deserves it is another issue. Not so sure.
Equal pay in tennis is another question. Men attract more spectators, at Grand Slam events, but at any rate, women play best of 3, men best of 5. So here it is questionable. For other events, where both play best of three, no problem.
It would be interesting to have women members pitching in, as I have mentioned before, but the forum seems to be an old boys club.
Even on the website, I have not seen a woman writing technical articles, just historical (Segura, Gonzales...).
Comment
Comment