Yeah, now that men's tennis is interesting again. They couldn't be bothered to make this change back when women's tennis was what got people excited and tuned in.

Well, yes. But how about the women playing five-setters? Equal pay for equal work cuts both ways.

I'm with Martin. The practice of having women play best of three sets instead of best of five is a relic of an era when women were thought too delicate to withstand the rigors of a 5-set match. This is such a ridiculous anachronism that I can't understand why tennis didn't jettison it long ago. Did Billie Jean King strike anyone as too delicate to last five sets? Chris Evert? Martina Navratilova? Serena Williams? Please.

You may think it works on an egalitarian, socialist level, but not on an equal pay for equal work or on a demand basis. The men's finals command a much higher ticket scalping price.

That doesn't mean I'm against it. Just pointing out there is no logic to it and does not strengthen the women's case for equal pay.

Martin, it's a private club. But the best explanation is that given by the club chairman, who cited "broader social factors" as one of the reasons. Gotta love them Brits.

Or else we could take a really enlightened view and not stand as nanny outsiders judging whether women's tennis or men's tennis is more profitable or better or whatever. Why don't you let the people who have made Wimbledon the great tradition that it is make their own rules without the stupid arrogant, moralistic, nannyism that stands for progressive thought.

I do not understand the left's preoccupation that everything must be equal. The stupid posturing that it matters a hill of beans whether one pampered millionaire makes more than another is why I have no respect for progressive (so-called) thought.

Kevin --

what have you got against grass courts. They produce the most interesting tennis of any surface. And Rolland Garros (toc . . . toc . . . toc . . . toc . . . toc . . toc . . . . toc . . . toc . . . toc . . . , well you get the picture), please.

No particular comment on either the topic or on Kevin's presentation of it, but I did want to say how absolutely hilarious I found Mr. Hansen's completely fact-free and reality-free post to be. It's rare to find someone so ignorant and arrogant at the same time. Kudos!

Why should women get paid the same as the men?

I really have no idea. Tennis is a business. If some one or some group brings in big dollars then it makes sense to pay that person or that group big dollars.

If women generate more money than the men then they should get paid more than the men. If they generate less money, which could be the case since they play shorter matches, then they deserve less money than the men.

This isn't sexism, it is commen sense.

KFC tries to get the Pope to bless their fish sandwich.

As I was thinking about this a magic lightbulb went off. The Vatican has been opposed to the use of condoms because it would prevent conception, but, as it prevents conception, is sex with a condom really sex? Isn't it a sort of illustrative celibacy? The Vatican could rule that as procreation isn't involved then activity with a condom wouldn't violate celibacy. Everybody wins.

Due to the blessed sandwich.

Is there any doubt that, if the men's winner had to play the women's winner, the man would win easily? Is there any serious prospect that even the best women would survive a round in the men's draw? Given these facts, which are in my view incontestable, why is equal prize money required by "equality"?

I'll no doubt be accused of trolling, but this is a serious question -- given the different level of competition, to say nothing of the 3 sets vs. 5 issue addressed by others, what is the basis for the assumption that the prize money should be the same?

It appears totally different to me from other spheres, such as business, law, blogging, whatever, were women can and do successfully compete on the same level as men, and where the pay should indeed be equal.

PaulB -

I can understand most objections to my arguments on this site. But what did you mean my post was "fact-free" and "reality free".

Isn't Kevin making a moralistic argument when he says "..Good for them for finally joining the 20th (sic) century...."

Isn't it true that women's and men's tennis stars are millionaires.

Isn't it true that Wimbledon has one of the greatest sports traditions behind it.

Isn't it true that the left for years pushed an amendment to the Constitution called the Equal Rights Amendment which was precisely obssesed with putting into the U.S. Constitution the equal treatment of men and women.

How is my post "fact-free" and "reality free"?

I mean its ok to disagree, but at least say something meaningful that has some bearing on what I said.

Paltry $53K?

That's more thanwhat 70% of US tax payers earn in a year.

I disagree on this issue.

If women want the same money, let them play 3 out of 5 sets. And, this isn't just a "reverse sexism" issue.

Two more sets keeps concessionaires o pen that much longer, so it's a business issue, too.

Greg --

It's a long history but starts with the battle for professionalism in the 60s. This ran slap bang into the equality fight both off and on the courts, Billie Jean King et al, which somehow became a cojoined battle.

When the professionals were finally accepted back, there was still a continuing fight for greater equality with absolute equality the goal.

The standard having been raised it has been confused ever since. The argument has never centred around the reality. If the men's and women's grand slams were run separately the economic difference would be immediately apparent. Try suggesting the separation to the women and I bet they would protest. Look at the prize money in the circuit generally.

Personally, I don't care. I object that all high profile professional athletes and sports people are heavily overpaid. And top opera singers too. And most top management.

But it's not economically justifiable, just a token that degrades the real argument for equal pay for equal work.

Kevin: The grass has really been slowed down over the past few years, as they switched the variety of grass. Also, the ball also bounces up more rather than skidding low. Now you see real rallies in men's matches, which you rarely did when Boris Becker or even Pete Sampras was winning.

Federer stays back most of the time on his serve (though he didn't a few years ago), as did the 2002 champion Lleyton Hewitt. Before that the only champion in the past 25 years not to play serve and volley was Agassi in 1992.

Since AETC decided to do this on their own rather than being required by the government, it by definition is a good business decision. Right? We can speculate all day about who bring ins what, set lengths, etc., but the market has spoken.

Well ok, of you're going to make the equal work, equal pay argument, then you're going to have to advocate that pay be linked with actual time played (or its surrogate, number of sets actually played) and give women the chance to work as many hrs as the men. Pay them by the hr. Or, if the men's final ends in 3 sets, the winner should only get 3/5s of the pay as if it lasted 5 sets. And let the women play 3 of 5 sets.

And if you are going to make the market draw argument, surely women's tennis has men's tennis beat. Aren't most sports viewers het men? And aren't most het men like (unashamedly) me, much more interested in watching the women play?

Of course, both arguments gloss over the fact that these are prizes, not pay. The pay comes in the form of endorsement deals, and are purely market driven. The women shouldn't get smaller prizes anymore than they should get smaller trophies.

The NBA and the WNBA are different corporate entities that play on different stages in different markets. Wimbledon is a single corporate entity, the men and women play on the same stage, in the same market.

"Isn't it true that Wimbledon has one of the greatest sports traditions behind it." --Greg Hansen.

Longest maybe and interesting. I can't talk about the real old days, but I objected to missing some of the best tennis ever when Wimbledon resisted the move to professionalism in the 60s while making large amounts of money for itself.

Go here to see a history of prize money:

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/prizemoney_history.html

When professionalism was accepted in 1968, the men's singles chanpion got £2000 and the women's £750, and that's where the campaign started. They shot for equal pay and 40 years later have got it.

Personally, the interest for tennis is the tension in the game as well as the skill and inventiveness. I can enjoy women's tennis more than men's; that was definintely true a few years ago. But 3 sets cannot compete with a 5 set cliff-hanger. And stamina does play a part in that tension.

It might give the women's game a shot in the arm to go 5 sets in semi-finals and finals of the grand slam tournaments. If the women figure they can go 5 sets all through, more power to them.

Disputo -- Unless I remember wrong from the last time I watched Wimbledon, the women *do* get a smaller trophy. ;-p Is that the next blow that must be struck for equality....?

If women generate more money than the men then they should get paid more than the men. If they generate less money, which could be the case since they play shorter matches, then they deserve less money than the men.

I'm not sure.

When the no.250 of the rankings somehow miraculously wins Wimbledon, she will have made the Wimbledon organisation less money than the Williams sisters did by just showing up.

So should that no.250 get paid less for beating Serena Williams than Serena Williams gets for losing to her? Maybe by the sponsors, but not by the All England Club.

Now, if women's tennis were vastly less popular than men's tennis, I could understand, just as the price money for the different doubles tournaments reflects the fact that these are less important.

But then we would not have this discussion. Ticket prices, tv-audiences etc. would differ as wildly as they do in most other sports, and nobody is complaining about basketball or soccer. Apparently women's tennis is more or less as popular as men's.

There's no economic need to pay the women less. The other grand slams pay equal money. Instead, by paying the women slightly less than the men, Wimbledon has been implying that it is somehow easier to win the women's title. It was insulting. Ungentlemanly even.

But Jasper, don't you think that it *is* easier to win the women's title than the men's? Who's harder to beat, Roger Federer or Amelie Mauresmo?

I love the way you all assume we're obsessed by Serena Williams... US players are pretty much irrelevant to world tennis at the moment.

oh, i love to put down pencil-necked righties. the women will get equal pay when they attract equal audiences. women less athletic? give me a break. less vertical, maybe, but some will argue the women's game is better because women players tend to be more fundamentally sound than their male counterparts. and if you don't think women can attract an audience, try going to a game at uconn or tennessee.

jasper emmering:

In track and field, organizers pay the top athletes appearance money so that the crowd and viewership is drawn and advertising rates are higher. If they win they get the prizes too.

But tennis isn't track and field. Ticket-wise Wimbledon is always a sell out. The opening rounds at Wimbledon will be viewed the same as long as some of the top contestants are there; probably higher if there is a Brit (Murray) for the UK to follow. They cannot control who gets to the finals, I hope. So no appearance money.

Your economic arguments are just plain wrong. What other slams do and whether it is easier or harder are distinctly uneconomic arguments. And as to men's and women's tennis, look at their respective tours.

I'm going to have to agree with the point, if not the gratuitous lib-baiting, of Hansen and others. Professional athletics is one of the few areas of society where it is - or SHOULD be - entirely acceptable and proper to have different pay scales for men and women. There can really be no doubt that men are objectively better athletes than women. Better athletes (and teams) get watched more and generate more income.

Arguing that the women at Wimbledon somehow deserve the same money as the men - while inspiring less demand for their product and generating less income - is entirely analogous to arguing that the pay scales for the NBA and the WNBA should be equalized. Is anybody here prepared to make that argument? If you're not, then the argument is fatally flawed when applied to Wimbledon as well. Anybody who tries, though, should notice that I said "argument", not wishes that nature and society were perfectly gender-neutral in every aspect, or John Wooden-style bleatings that sports are more aesthetically pleasing when athleticism is discouraged in them.

Also notice that i'm talking about PROFESSIONAL sports here. I'm a huge supporter of female participation in sports and a Title IX advocate (even given its occasionally ham-handed and destructive implementation). But at the professional level, the idea of economic gender equality is so out of touch with reality that it's kind of crazy.

Besides, for the best athletes, there are other financial opportunities available - I would guess that Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova will probably make more money from endorsements (AND more money at Wimbledon) than the 100th-ranked male tennis pro, even though the 100th-ranked man is probably objectively a better tennis player than either of them.

The question we have to answer is: what is prize money based on? If it is based on effort, then the 5 v. 3 set distinction justifies unequal pay. But why would it be based on that? Is it based on who would win in a Roger Federer-Serena Williams match? If so, then that justifies unequal pay. But why would it be based on that? Is it based on who draws? That might make sense. I suspect, without claiming to know, that women's gymnastics and women's figure skating outdraw the male versions. I also suspect, again without claiming to know, that in tennis it varies. Did the Williams sisters in their primes outdraw men's matches when Sampras was on his last legs and Federer hadn't broken through? I know I was more likely to watch the Williams sisters, though not entirely for the tennis. There's no obvious basis for comparing compensation for male v. female tennis players. If most tournaments use equal prize money, that seems like a good enough reason for Wimbledon to do it.

I don't think the 3- vs. 5-set comparison is a relevant reason to put down women's tennis as unequal. First of all, plenty of men's tournaments play best 2 out of 3; just not the majors. Secondly, how can you compare the effort put forth in a 3-set match, when the competitors know that it won't go beyond 3 sets, with the effort put forth in a 5-set match? What I'd really like to see is what kind of tennis the women would play when a tournament asks them to play 5 sets. Who will be the trail blazer there? (for the record, I'm on the side of equal pay.)

El caballo -

I agree with you: there is no objective reason for an equal pay scale.

That said, tennis is obviously one of the few sports where both the men and women's games are roughly equally popular as a spectator sport. So there is also no objective reason not to have an equal pay scale.

notthere -

Of course they are distinctly uneconomic arguments. They follow the sentence "There is no economic need to pay the women less".

diddy
I don't think the 3- vs. 5-set comparison is a relevant reason to put down women's tennis as unequal.

From a $$$ perspective, and the importance of TV ad revenue to the big picture, paying women less due to their bringing in less commercial advert $$$ makes obvious sense.

Women's matches probably aren't 3/5 of men's in length, as their game is slower. But the matches are shorter in pure time measured, no?

Women do make more, The 3 set match is worth more to them then the 5 set match for men.If the women where playiong the 5 set match then they would be earning less but there not so they are the same.

Does anyone actually have any evidence/study/ratings to speak of that would show whether men or women bring more viewers/spectators to the proverbial table or are most commenters talking out their ass on this subject?

The WNBA/NBA comparisons aren't applicable here. Tennis is an event played at one venue divided into separate championships. The comparisons should be made to Alpine skiing and figure skating. Do those events offer equal prize money to their men's and women's champions?

Lots of comments referring to the best of 3/best of 5 sets differences at the majors. Many, many times the women have said "We're happy to play best of five if it means equal pay." It's really a non-issue.

Wow, I think the last time I saw so many men chiming in about a women's issue it was about abortion.

Seriously, it is easy enough to harrumph and pontificate about what should or should not happen to women but if you do it too much there is one thing for sure - you ain't gonna get laid.

Just a word to the wise.

Here you go. ATP and WTA earninigs 2006. Separate tours, separate sponsorship, advertising, ticket sales, audiences and prizes.

http://tennisessentials.blogspot.com/2006/11/2006-earnings.html

Tripp --

this isn't a "women's issue". It's about reward.

I don't care much about the pay issue, but my (uninformed) guess is that tennis is one of the sports - like figure skating, gymnnastics - where the women audience is LARGER than the mens'.

Certainly, to me, the women's game is more interesting (more strategy, volleys, less aces). Then there's the hot-chick factor, in short skirts - which is something men AND women are interested in (see figure skating).

WNBA? What's that? I just buy cds now, I don't listen to the radio.

It's not based on amount of work. Like all sports, the money comes from TV.

There was a time (before the Federer dominance era) where the women's game was drawing more television viewers, hence more TV revenue. They were still playing 2 of 3 sets then - they were bringing in more money than the men while still being paid less. That was when the argument for equal prize money started really gathering attention.

What I don't understand is why there are people arguing that Wimbledon shouldn't close the prize money gap if they so choose, just because the women play best of 3. I can see taking issue with Kevin's point over the alleged symbolism of prize inequality. But why have such a emotional stake in keeping in unequal just for the sake of it?

Disputo, good point. Federer just won the Australian Open without dropping a set. Anyone advocating a smaller prize because he didn't play more tennis?

As far as the WNBA is concerned, I hit upon a solution to their attendance and ratings problems long ago -- shirts v. skins. But nobody listens to me.

On the 2/3 vs 3/5 set issue.

I dislike 5 set matches and think the women deserve more money for not inflicting them on the public. Three sets is plenty enough time to establish a winner - five sets is overkill.

Gex---

Speaking only for myself, I don't have any issue with Wimbledon's decision -- it strikes me as a good business decision they should have made sooner, and it is what I would have done purely from a business perspective.

Where I don't agree with Kevin is in saying that there is a principle of equality that compels equal pay in this situation, implying that the old Wimbledon policy was absurd and sexist.

To me this situation raises an interesting issue, because it is one where the assumption that men and women are equally capable and should be paid equally for similar work (an assumption I generally agree with) appears to break down in a pretty clear way. What happens in such a case?

To me, saying that equal pay is required in this case has some pretty radical implications, because it goes beyond saying "equal pay for equal work" and would require equal pay for work that is actually unequal. Even if there is a good reason to do that in this case -- symbolism perhaps -- the unexamined assumption that equal pay is of course required here (and its unspoken implication, that anyone who has a different view is sexist) strikes me as somewhat troubling.

"Kevin - Do you have any stats on which stars bring in the most TV viewers? I'd bet the rent money it's the men."

Women players have an appeal the men lack. See, Maria Sharapova in a tennis dress.

What they need to do is stop giving two or three chances to get a serve over the net. What is that all about, anyway? Is it a kind of mulligan?

Should WNBA players earn the same as NBA players?
Should female boxers earn the same as men?
I believe in equal pay but in sports the argument isn't the same.

What they need to do is stop giving two or three chances to get a serve over the net.

Three?

Only two. (Excepting lets, which are always replayed).

Oh please. The grass is not the problem. What they should really do is require wooden racquets. It's absurd that the power game should have entirely taken over. It'd do the sport good to have a major at which finesse were still rewarded.

ctate, do you want to give Federer an even bigger edge over the competition than he now has?

Though it would be nice to have Martina Hingis back at number 1 in the women's game...

With the exception of Roger Federer, is there any justification for paying male tennis players the same as women?

"This is hardly the most important news..."

Got that right Kevin.

If you view tennis as entertainment, the women might deserve equal pay, since they're equally entertaining. Some men find the good-looking ones more entertaining than the men.

If you view tennis as a sport, then the best players should get the best pay. The men play far, far better than the women.* The best women in the world would lose to men you never heard of. On that basis, the women should be paid only a small fraction of what the men receive.

*As evidence, a few years ago my company arranaged an exhbition match where the worlds' leading doubles team played two office worker guys. They office guys won.

Are you people serious? Men play a completely different game than the women; they just compete at a much higher level. It is like watching pro football versus college football.(Sorry Kevin, but college football is lame). Not that women's tennis can't be enjoyable to watch, but the whole point behind pro sports is to see the best, and the men are, without a doubt, the best tennis players in the world.

I am not a golf fan, but I think of it like the PGA versus the Senior's tours. The seniors are still damn good golfers, and have a sizeable following because of their name recognition, but if you want to see the best golf, you watch the PGA. Do the PGA events have larger purses than the Senior's? I thought they did.

Women should play 5 sets in the majors, period. That is why they are majors. Anybody who thinks that pacing yourself for 5 sets is the same as going all out for 3 hasn't played tennis before. There is no excuse for them not to go 5. For all the people who get bored with 5 sets, there are plenty of non-major events to watch; or baseball, almost guaranteed to not go over 3 hours.

As far as grass is concerned, it is needed to counter clay; talk about a boring one dimentional surface. Usually the Wimbeldon winner is one of the top 10 players. The French winner is always some clay court specialist that fades in the rankings as soon as the clay season ends. Sampras, McEnroe, and Federer have never won the French, need I say more?

TT

Didn't Billie Jean King settle the argument that the top women can beat lower-rung male pros at tennis, like, 30 years ago? Why is this even a debate topic?

Furthermore, tennis is the one sport where the women are a roughly equal TV and gate draw as the men. They play at the same venue for the same organization during the same time. Offering equal pay is just common courtesy.

Christ, the dick-swinging wankers come out of the woodwork on the internets whenever anyone speaks up for gender equality. Who in the holy blue blazes cares if the men are "objectively better" tennis players than the women? Michael Schumacher is objectively a better race car driver than Jeff Gordon. Does this mean that US advertisers should drop NASCAR for F1? Of course not. Sports are driven by fan interest, not by some sort of purity standard. Don't be such a bunch of asshats.

It's thoroughly depressing to see how not-far we've come in the last 30 years.

"I mean its ok to disagree, but at least say something meaningful that has some bearing on what I said"

Mr. Hansen, when you write something worth responding to, rest assured I'll be happy to respond. When you write a fact-free and reality-free mindless partisan rant, mockery is the only appropriate response.

aji: Didn't Billie Jean King settle the argument that the top women can beat lower-rung male pros at tennis, like, 30 years ago?

No. Bobby Riggs was not a lower rung tennis player when he lost to Billie Jean King in 1973. He was a 55-year old has-been. He had been a world champion tennis player in the early 1940's. This match was played 30 years after he had been world champion.

It's striking that a man so many decades past his prime did beat another women champion, Margaret Court on Mother's Day 1973.

People keep talking through their posterior orifice. See earnings for the APT and WTA referenced above.

The women's tour does not attract the same gate, advertising or sponsorship as the men's tour.

Despite the inverted sexism several times above where it seems some males watch tennis because they get a glimpse of knickers (they must lead a deprived life), the world as a whole and the US prefer men's tennis.

At the highest levels, I'd far rather watch womens tennis. The matches are never 5 set yawnathons and they actually rely more on strategy rather than brute strength (Federer excepted, the only high ranking man I enjoy watching at present).

At the lower levels (past the top ten or so) the womens game can be something of a snoozer with slow volleys and lots of second serves and unforced errors.

Prize money should be equal at co-ed events, period. Endorsements and single-sex events are another question altogether.

they should pay the women about half of what they pay the men, if not less - no woman would make the men's top 1000 in the world. but, i suppose all must have prizes...

I'll disagree with Michael Farris a little. Most of the top women hit with tremendous power, in fact it IS often a battle of brute force. Does Sharapova do anything besides hit the ball as hard as she can?

I actually think the women today hit the ball as hard as most men did in the 60s and even 70s, when they were still using wooden rackets.

Paltry $53K?

That's more thanwhat 70% of US tax payers earn in a year.
Posted by: Name

Yep. More than a million dollars to bat a ball over a net. Nice work if you can get it.

"You have two cows. China has one trillion cows. Guess who sets the price of milk?" - Mark Gilbert

Equal pay for equal work. It's a simple concept you Neanderthals!

The easiest way to implement it would be to merge the men's and women's systems, and have a unified qualification system. Problem solved!

Or is there something else at work?

Kevin,

What do you have against grass? If Wimbledon played on clay or hard court, then it would lose its most distinguishing characteristic.

I think some of the commenters here would like it if womens events were eliminated from the olympics as well. Maybe at the least gold, silver and bronze should be reserved for men with the new medals rock, wood and mud for the women?

Grass courts are good!!
Serve'n'Volley is good,
Sampras was fun to watch
McEnroe funner than Borg ...

I think some of the commenters here would like it if womens events were eliminated from the olympics as well. Maybe at the least gold, silver and bronze should be reserved for men with the new medals rock, wood and mud for the women?

You are soo getting laid, dood!