A female columnist for yahoo recently wrote an article stating that it was "about time" that the tradition at Wimbledon to pay the Men's singles champion more than his female counterpart be "chucked." I feel that this is unfair to the men, for a variety of reasons. First, the men have to play best of five set matches, while the women only play best of three sets; more women therefore are able to play singles and doubles than their male counterparts due to shorter, less strenuous matches. Second, women's matches are statistically less competitive than men's matches. Finally, the amount of difference was approximately thirty to forty thousand pounds, a sum that is relatively insignificant for a player who is able to win grand slam events. This leaves me to wonder why this move is such a big deal. Does anyone else agree with me that this move is unfair to the men? If you don't, what is your logic for determining this move to be fair?
2007-02-26
17:39:49
·
8 answers
·
asked by
lionsalltheway06
1