Now that Wimbledon pays equal prize money to women, should they have to play best of 5 set matches?

Question

Equal pay for equal work, right?

Answer 1

I'm going to answer this question and sort of throw myself on the grenade because some people are viewing this as a gender equality question, when that is not the core issue. I do believe women should get equal pay for equal work, but that is not what is happening here. The women's champion over the course of a grandslam is on court for about 12+ hours for 7 matches best of 3 sets. The men's champion is usually on court for 24+ hours for 7 matches best of 5 sets. Since there is at least 75% more work involved over the course of a tournament. I would say if the men made 10% to 15% more in prize money would be fair for all the extra work. If you Disagree with this-- lets look at this scenario, would it be fair to have equal prize money if the women decided to play a 1 set winner take all match, and the men should have to play a longer best of 7 set match for equal prize money. The women's champion would then be on court for about 5+ hours and the men' champion would now have been on court for about 40+ hours. If you think this is Not Fair, then the above best of three sets and best of five sets should not be fair either. I beleive a small 10 or 15 % more for the men for 75% more work is a fair bonus. If the women gather together and decide they want to play best of 5 sets throughout the tournament, then they too deserve equal prize money with the men. Otherwise the men should be allowed to petition the governing body for Wimbledon to play only best of three set matches for the duration of the tournament. This of course would lead to more upsets on the men's side and evensome grandslam champions that didn't truly earn the title. Which would in turn lead to possibly compromising the merits of winning a grandslam title. No true tennis fan wants to see the integrity of the sport come into question. Well thats my position, So remember...if your going to throw grenades, leave the pin in.

Answer 2

Tradition would forbid such a thing. Wimbledon is a tournament that reeks of tradition. Should it happen - yes. Will it ever happen - No!
Having been fortunate to have been in London during the tournament and been in attendance a few times I am biased toward keeping things as they are. A General Admit ticket allows you to watch any match (except CenterCourt) during a day. The women generally, early on, destroy their opposition, thus, you can see a Men's begin, go watch a woman's match, and catch the Men's final set.
If you made the Ladies Sets five at Wimbledon you would have to make all the Grand Slam Events five sets. Down Under final they would drop dead from the heat. France they would break an ankle or leg. U.S. would. depending on the weather, go for three days or suffer the same effects as the preceeding events. Wimbeldon is simply Wimbeldon. Change the others but let the Ladies play as they always have at the club.

Answer 3

No. That's like saying that playing a higher number of sets should guarantee you a higher payday. Should Roger Federer receive less pay when he blitzes through a Grand Slam without dropping a set as opposed to playing tough 5-set matches?
And to be honest, it is unclear whether or not 5-set matches are popular or not. Nobody wants to see women play 5-set matches. A lot of people are against the men playing 5-set matches. I believe there is a bit of a movement to make Grand Slams Best-of-3 until the QF or something like that.
And of course, we act like the money that the top tennis players make is totally merit-based in the first place. Roger Federer and Andy Roddick played in the U.S. Open final last summer for a couple hours and each walked away with more than 1 million dollars. It's not like they DESERVED that much money, but those were the stakes and no one seemed to complain. I say good for them.

Answer 4

I believe if people want to cry about the equal pay for female players, then do the equal work. I'm not saying the women aren't worth it, but put the extra effort and time in that the men do during the tournaments.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. Women are getting equal pay because more people want to watch them play. I know that when I watch the Grand Slams, I'm much more in tune with the women's side than the men's. Simply, their style is more fun to watch and as a man, yes, I like watching attractive women. That's why the equal pay is justified.

Answer 6

yes but i doubt the women can play 5 sets coz u saw how sharapova melted in the heat in a three set match

Answer 7

I think men got better prices, not because of a sport issue, but because of the rating they get on TV. I think, I am not sure, most people care to see the men final over the female finals. In my case, I see both.

Answer 8

yes