Does anyone feel that it is not fair that women receive equal pay to men at Wimbledon and other Grand Slams?

Question

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?

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

While your points are not entirely non-valid, I would answer that, first, as we have seen time and time again, best-of-five in major events has proven to be a more effective and entertaining test of the men's games. Presumably most women on tour could play best-of-five, but it would not likely be worthwhile, as the number of comebacks would presumably be much smaller.

Second, regarding playing doubles, in the first place, many fewer of the top women play doubles in majors recently - Helena Sukova at the 1993 US Open may well prove to be the last player ever to reach the finals in singles, doubles and mixed. In the second place, the argument that a few women would have the chance to earn more than the top men only tries to perpetuate a lack of depth in the women's game. If all the top women played doubles as well as singles, the disparity in earnings would widen for the women's field, which would presumably have a negative effect in the long run.

As for less competitive, the game scores might be, but, especially on grass, one might contend that it's very likely that women play as many shots as men do. It would not surprise me at all if statistics were to reveal that, say, Justine Henin hits the ball as many times or more in two sets as Ivo Karlovic does in five.

The relatively small difference at the top being insignificant cuts both ways. One might just as well ask why Roger Federer neads forty thousand pounds more. If the draws were played at different times and in different venues, as golf tournaments are, then one might be able to make a case that the men are much more popular and generate vastly more revenue, etc. But with all the players playing together for two weeks, the same number of matches available to everyone, and with one event requiring equal participation from representatives of both sexes, to pay the men a pittance more comes off as spiteful and gives the message that men are more valued than women. The symbolism of equality is worth more. I would also add that disparity can breed more of the same, not because of the top payment amounts, but because of the bottom. Making the main draw at a major and winning a round or two extends a lot of unheralded careers.

The women's tour may not entirely catch up to the men's tour (even though most events on both tours are best-of-three), but in a sport where the majors are all men and women playing together, and where the list of all-time greats is much more equally impressive than most (except for sports such as gymnastics and figure skating, where the female side is generally well ahead in popularity), it seems better for the sport as a whole that the total amount of prize money paid to both sexes is equal.

Answer 3

Its difficult to swallow the word "fair" when the money being raked in is already such a high amount. Almost like asking is it fair that Derek Jeter is not making as much money as A-Rod?
As far as whether it is ok for the men at Wimby to make more money than the women, it should be up to the organizers to decide, and if the women or men don`t think its "fair", they can choose not to play.

Answer 4

like anything, it is simply a question of supply and demand. if the quality of women's tennis was so bad, as it was a few years ago, there would be no reason to adjust the prize money. but these days there are many excellent female players who are great to watch (i particularly love watching henin-ardenne). if it was just dominated by the ladyboy williams sisters, people wouldnt be so interested in women's tennis. now, it competes with male tennis in terms of popularity, and as such, equal pay is, well, equal.

Answer 5

it is unfair...not from a women arnt equal standpoint...but if they want equal pay they need to have equal play...there is no chance of a 5 hour match...actually in womens u might not even see one three hour match..the physical demand is much less for women...its not as hard therefore it shuldnt be worth as mcuh

Answer 6

at wimbledon womens tennis draws fans...period, now as for the rest of our sports, no, less people watch both live and on tv therefore making the comercial spots less valuable to sponsors...

Answer 7

i don't think it's fair...a woman's match can be over in like 20 minutes whereas mens could take 4 hours..so yeah not really fair.

Answer 8

I thin it iz fair