Serena Williams says she has been UNDERPAID and UNDERVALUED

She's got 23 singles major wins and another 16 doubles majors for 39 total.

Federer only has 20.

Djokovic only has 17.

Nadal only has 19.

She is the greatest tennis player of all time...regardless of gender.

Yet Federer made $100million in endorsements this year (forbes) to Williams's $32million.

If you want to say it's because women's tennis is of less value then men's tennis well that's still undervalued.

Again...she is the best tennis player of all time.

(Also, She's made some of her money by investment not by endorsement in black and minority owned businesses (see: Serena Ventures), and she felt compelled to start her own clothing line (instead of being given all this worth through endorsements, probably because her options were thin))

appleswan wrote:

ultrawalker wrote:

David Beckham has been massively overpaid in that case too.

Popularity/Looks > Ability with sponsors and it's obvious from a business perspective why.

Yes, but if Beckham was black, would he have been as marketable? Part of his appeal was his relationship with Victoria and his boyish looks, if he was a young black athlete in the 90s in a relationship with a white pop star - is it likely his popularity would have been the same?

The Sharapova/Kournikova/ Wosniacki blond-type is considered much more attractive to sponsors at the expense of black players who are more accomplished, that's the racism of which Serena speaks of.

So, I will point out the 2008 US women's gymnastics team. All white. Varying degrees of success in the 2008 olympics.

Cover Girl endorsed most or all of the team, except for one - Bridget Sloan. They endorsed girls who did not perform as well as Sloan. Out of the whole team, she was clearly the plainer one (God I hope she is not reading this, if so, sorry!)

I don't think it has anything to do with race and a lot to do with conventional beauty. Sloan did not have conventional beauty, and neither does Serena Williams. Many, many black women DO have that beauty, and they are able to make a lot of money from that.

BTW - I was so sad for Bridget Sloan when that happened. I cannot imagine how being singled out as the only girl on the team not endorsed by a cosmetic company would feel at that age. I have never used a Cover Girl product since.

She is a great player but her appeal globally is not as expansive as Federer because she lacks any personality or charm.

Tennis is the top women's sport in the world. She would be glad as there are other top women in other sports don't earn nearly as much as tennis.

I bet Kara Goucher agrees.

just the facts, ma'am wrote:

She is the greatest tennis player of all time...regardless of gender.

Again...she is the best tennis player of all time.

Most dominate tennis player ever, regardless of gender. Not even in the top 500 best tennis players of all time.

She isn't the best player of all time. She doesn't play against men. She is the best woman player of all time, in a protected category (even if you allow for the fact that Margaret Court still has more grand slam titles. Williams hasn't won a slam in nearly 4 years, and likely never will again.)

As for not being paid enough - she gets the same prize money on court as the men do. So unfair.

facts and reason wrote:

She's had an audience of millions of people. She's had endorsements. She's won championships.

I'm sorry, but I don't like how she's playing the victim.

Leftists do this a lot.

As someone who generally leans “left”, I find this type of complaining from rich athletes extremely irritating. Not sure the purpose of bringing politics into everything.

lol@ the people out there calling her the best tennis player of all time, period. she would be destroyed by every ranked man. so no. no woman is the greatest tennis player of all time. she is the greatest women's tennis player of all time. that is that. be real.

as far as endorsements go, I don't know. how is this broken down country to country? I don't know her popular in europe and asia vs. federer. i could see a claim for her to make as much as Fed in the US.

also, Nadal only makes 26 mil per year--he is currently better than her.

Djokovic is the best player in the world. only makes 20 million per year.

POOR SERENA

Unfortunately for Serena, advertisers prefer talent with a personality.

She's got 23 singles major wins and another 16 doubles majors for 39 total.

Federer only has 20.

Djokovic only has 17.

Nadal only has 19.

She is the greatest tennis player of all time...regardless of gender.

Yet Federer made $100million in endorsements this year (forbes) to Williams's $32million.

If you want to say it's because women's tennis is of less value then men's tennis well that's still undervalued.

Again...she is the best tennis player of all time.

(Also, She's made some of her money by investment not by endorsement in black and minority owned businesses (see: Serena Ventures), and she felt compelled to start her own clothing line (instead of being given all this worth through endorsements, probably because her options were thin))[/quote]

But she still hasn’t caught Margaret Court, so she’s at best second, by your calculation.

And no, she’s not the best of any gender. The best 500 men in the world, if not 1000, would beat her on her best day and their worst. If you think otherwise, you don’t know squat about the sport. That argument is so painfully ignorant.

just the facts, ma'am wrote:

She's got 23 singles major wins and another 16 doubles majors for 39 total.

Federer only has 20.

Djokovic only has 17.

Nadal only has 19.

She is the greatest tennis player of all time...regardless of gender.

Yet Federer made $100million in endorsements this year (forbes) to Williams's $32million.

If you want to say it's because women's tennis is of less value then men's tennis well that's still undervalued.

Again...she is the best tennis player of all time.

(Also, She's made some of her money by investment not by endorsement in black and minority owned businesses (see: Serena Ventures), and she felt compelled to start her own clothing line (instead of being given all this worth through endorsements, probably because her options were thin))

Okay so here is the problem with your argument and I'm sorry this is easy.

Who are the 5 greatest male tennis players ever? It's Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver and Sampras. The order is irrelevant.

Who are the 5 greatest female players ever? Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Court and Evert. Again, the order is irrelevant.

Serenas entire career had absolutely no cross-over with any of those other 4 greats. She never played a single point against any of them. By contrast Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (who might actually be numbers 1,2 and 3 of all-time on the mens side) have had careers that obviously overlapped and for not just a handful of years - but over a decade.

So you can sit here and say "well Serena has 23 and that's better than the 20 of Federer, the 19 of Nadal and the 17 of Djokovic so she's the greatest player both male or female and should have earned the most" - and I would simply counter and say had Federer not had to go through Nadal and vice versa, or Djokovic through Nadal and vice versa, or Djokovic through Federer and vice versa, we could conceivably see Federer and Nadal somewhere between 26-30 slams (Nadal alone has beaten Federer 6 times in the 9 finals they have played at slams therefore costing him 6 titles on his own) and that is not even factoring in Djokovic who has will face Nadal for a 9th time on Sunday and who has faced Federer 5 times in grand slam finals.

Let me summarize this for you.

Federer no Nadal/Djoko in his era has 30 slams (doesn't even count losses before the final)

Nadal no Fed/Djoko in his era has 27 slams

Djoko no Fed/Nadal in his era has 22 slams (and he has a huge amount of losses at semi final stage to both Nadal and Federer so this number could be more like 35 to be honest

Serena is the greatest womans player ever because no womens era has ever really seen multiple greats clash (aside from Evert and Navratilova) and she has been the most successful.

But her body of work pales in comparison to either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, the three greatest mens player ever who smashed heads every single grand slam (barring a few injuries and freak results) for well over a decade.

Not a chance you can argue anything I have said here. Zeeeero.

You left out that a top schoolboy would beat the best women players. There are male pros who won slams at age 17.

But I think it's generally recognized conventional beauty standards are more difficult to achieve for black women. It's particularly difficult for dark-skinned black women. That's because the convention is to look at white women as the standard of how women should look and compare everyone else to how close they get to meeting this.

There's terrible stories about women of color using dangerous creams to lighten their skin and of visiting salons where nobody has experience cutting afro hair. There's also a lack of diverse cosmetics to suit darker skin tones. It's just assumed there's one standard of beauty which all women are trying to achieve.

Oh no, another thread about a female athlete, dominated by hateful, demeaning, and ignorant opinions and language. Don't, just don't. I think Serena's got a point.

facts and reason wrote:

appleswan wrote:

if he was a young black athlete in the 90s in a relationship with a white pop star - is it likely his popularity would have been the same?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what leftists do to stoke tensions in the community. They are gaslighting you.

Conservatives want jobs, security, and freedom. They want hot dogs on the 4th of July and gifts during Christmas.

You have to make a personal decision about which side you support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMWee5bZ-Ak

Ever notice how lefties have nothing more than generic strawmans? Leftism is a disease.

markboen wrote:

Unfortunately for Serena, advertisers prefer talent with a personality.

Lack of personality = she is black and powerful in truespeak

The Unkle wrote:

markboen wrote:

Unfortunately for Serena, advertisers prefer talent with a personality.

Lack of personality = she is black and powerful in truespeak

She has a personality. It just sucks.

But granted I’m not the type of person to buy a product because some over paid athlete endorses it.

Vince Matthews Fan wrote:

Oh no, another thread about a female athlete, dominated by hateful, demeaning, and ignorant opinions and language. Don't, just don't. I think Serena's got a point.

what is her point? that she makes more money in endorsements than Nadal and Djokovic, who are both better than her?

Runner10287 wrote:

She has a personality. It just sucks.

This. I still remember how she and her obnoxious fans spoiled the moment of Osaka's first grand slam win.