Tennis Identity

Should tennis move to a pay-per-viewer prize model?

Maria Sharapova courtesy EvianSounds crazy, a tennis player's winnings in line with the number of people who watch their tennis match, but viewership and tickets are totally trackable so it's possible.

Maria Sharapova shot back today at Gilles Simon's seriously un-savvy remarks pertaining to women's tennis prize money, saying that far more people watch her tennis matches than his. Probably true but should that help determine pay?

Read what went down here at the NYT. Flying barbs.

There are a lot of issues to consider. Likely the biggest is the differing requirement of 2 set wins for women vs 3 set for men at slams. Should women be required to play 3 set matches at slams? Maybe…but let's discuss intelligently.

When players of any stature make boorish comments nothing helpful is being accomplished, and we feel the era of the pressed wooden racquet heavy on our shoulders again. Title IX just turned 40 by the way.

Should we go to a pay per view model? Per Andy Roddick in the above linked article "…any other business in the world, the more you sell, the more you make."

Seriously, how would that work? Pay per view would be a bit like picking prom king and queen, a popularity contest rather than a true reward of character and talent. 

What tennis players need is a conference of some kind where they can air things out as a group, men and women together. No boors allowed.