Why do women get the same prize money as men? This is not a ‘sex’ argument, so don’t start shouting at me. In 2007, Wimbledon started paying women the same prize money as the men (£850,000 for the singles champion this year). Back then, the argument was based on equality. For me, the argument should be based on quality.
As with anything in life (pretty much) you pay for what you get. Tennis is the only sport that bucks the trend. The mens game is quicker, more powerful, more physical and the matches last longer. It’s the last point – games lasting longer – that forms the basis of my argument. The mens game can last up to 5 sets (anything between 2 and 5 hours long) where as the womens game only lasts a maximum 3 sets (approx. 1-2 hours) in length. Remove the fact that the mens game draws a bigger crowd, is quicker, more entertaining, has bigger sponsorships etc and focus on time. Men should expect to get more prize funds, merely as reward for the hours they put in on the court! I WOULD NOT be happy if I was paid the same as someone else who worked half the hours I did for what is, essentially, the same job.
If anybody wants to argue against my reasoning, bring it on. I think it’s a joke that women get paid the same – ‘time = money’ SHOULD be the determining factor.