The Bloody Equal Prize Money Debate

Yes, I *am* going there, once and for all.

Once again, as mens matches go 5 long sets and the ladies play best of 3 and get done in half the time, the ever-present debate about equal prize money rears its head - this time we can thank Julian Knowle, but if not him, someone would have done so.  It's part of the scenery now, every slam, without fail.

1) Why, they contend, should women get equal prize money for less work?

2) Or, womens tennis is less popular so they should get less revenue.

Either, or both, of these contentions are made to support inequality of prize distribution.

I will take the second point first


Mens Tennis is More Popular

Maybe it is - overall - maybe not - what objective measures are you using?  TV audience share?  Ticket sales of ATP events vs WTA?  What?  You can't just assert it without having some credible, and agreed-upon objective standard.

Otherwise it's just YOUR opinion.  And you don't speak for the silent majority, nobody does, no matter how we might cite them from time to time.  Your opinion is no more valid than mine.  Facts please or go home.

And it may be so, NOW - but what about in 5 years?  10 years?  Tastes change as heroines rise and heroes fall and interests fade in and out accordingly.

Anyway, in the case of Grand Slams, where you pay for entrance and a seat on a court (or the grounds) regardless of who is playing what matches on that court, how do you quantify this popularity?  If Centre Court shows 2 ladies matches and 1 mens match for the cost of your ticket, how can you determine the popularity of one vs the other?  And how are you sure it's not just the particular players as opposed to the gender in general?  You can't, of course.

Until Grand Slams sell tickets at market value PER MATCH, you cannot objectively say that a crowd coming in to see both men and women prefer one or the other.  Again, that's your opinion only and it doesn't make it fact.

Slams may sell a womens day ticket for less than the equivalent round for the mens' tournament.  E.g. I believe the SF ticket for CC at Wimbledon for Ladies SFs is less than for Mens SFs.  But that is as much a function of the fact that ladies are best of 3 and men are best of 5 - on balance, you are likely to get less actual play on Ladies SF day than on Mens SF.

Which brings me nicely on to point 1) above.


Equal Money for Equal Work

Let's look at our history shall we?  Back in the day, men played best of 5, but insofar as ladies should be playing tennis at all, (such vigorous activity), these poor inferior lambs were physically incapable of the rigours of best of 5 sets, and they needed to stick to best of 3.  Besides, perspiration is so unfeminine.

This is exactly how it became at the Grand Slams, and that format has persisted through the Open era, through womens lib and equal rights, and right now into the equal prize money era.

The Equal Money issue is completely the wrong issue to be focused on - it is incidental.  In any case, it's not the responsibilities of the ladies.  They play the format the tournament specifies.  Ladies are perfectly capable of handling the rigours of best of 5 set tennis.  The finals of the WTA Championships was played over best of 5 from 1984 to 1998 and nobody died, everyone survived, and there was even some good tennis played in matches going 4 and 5 sets.

The ladies are not, so far as I have seen, even been OFFERED the chance of "equal money for equal work".  And why not?  Not because it's physically impossible for these ladies to this - they are physiologically as capable of men of the endurance, stamina and concentration required to play 3, 4, or 5 hours if necessary - some better than others, sure, but not incapable as agender.

No, it's because the reality is the Slams have become rather comfortable in their scheduling, tournament durations, and there is no way best of 5 in Ladies Singles could be accomodated - at ANY slam - without either expanding the number of courts or the length of the event.  On that basis, it is a non-starter.

However, is that the fault of the ladies?  OF COURSE NOT.  They are were they are because of the history of the game, because of sexism and outmoded ideas and conservatism and complacency.

If the Slams turned around and told the ladies they needed to play best of 5 and the Slams would find a way to make that work, would they say no?  I doubt it.  Some might protest but the sheer double standard would make such a position extremely difficult to sustain.

But the Slams don't do this.  So the ladies previously had to put up with the injustice that they played less through no fault of their own but were also rewarded less.

They made fuss, and in the end all the Slams decided to pay male and female players equal prize money in their events.

Up went the cry that the men were now being discriminated against because they have to do much more for the same money - in terms of sets, 50% more per match.

And they have a point in that sense - they do have to play more to get the same money.

But that is not the fault of the ladies.  Your beef is with the Grand Slams.  Go moan at them, get them to change their format.  In correcting a historic inequality, the Slams chose the easiest path for them, that solved one problem and created a different one.

Andy Murray made the point that the ladies have more chances to earn money in Slams by playing doubles - men generally can't because of the best of 5 format, it's too much for them to add doubles and even mixed too.

This is true, but again misses the underlying point.  The ladies playing best of three is OUT OF THEIR CONTROL.  Why should they have to be the ones entering doubles and mixed to top up their income because the Slams can't treat male players and female players equally in terms of prize money AND in terms of what they're expected to do for it.

As has also been eloquently pointed out, the ladies have to invest as much in themselves and their careers as the men do - in time, in effort, in money.  It's not like they can play part time and hold down an office job with the extra hours they don't spend on the court compared to the guys.  It's the same travel costs, the same coaching costs, the same clothing, equipment, physios, etc.    The only thing that differs is court time, and, again, that is out of their hands and solely in the hands of the Grand Slams.


So What's To Be Done?

My solution is simple - to fix this, make it equal work for equal pay.

Absolute equality in the way the events are played.

Best of 3 sets at Slams for both men and women in R1, R2, R3, R4.

Best of 5 sets for the QF, SF, and F for both men and women.

Equal prize money.

Equally fair match scheduling, without the sexist overtones of putting the hot girls on the big showcourt.

This could be accommodated at all the slams with minimal disruption to the existing schedules - I don't see extra courts or days being needed, indeed it would relieve pressure on the Slams in the early rounds when all courts are packed out from Ready - Play to the final Game, Set and Match.

This wouldn't shut all the whiners up, the ones who argue on point 1 about the nebulous popularity question which they cannot back up.  But it would close down the argument on point 2 though - the Slams created this situation, they need to be bold to resolve it, and it would flush out those who simply believe ladies don't deserve equal pay for equal work, and can hide behind the messy compromise the Slams themselves instituted.

It may be a radical step for the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open, but it's one I believe they should seriously consider taking.