Wimbledon’s recent decision to finally start paying female tennis players the same prize money as their male counterparts is long overdue.Now, it’s time for those more enlightened Grand Slam venues, which already pay out equal prize funds, to go to the next level and recognize women’s tennis for the hot ticket it is by paying female champions more than the men.
But, in my mind, parity isn’t enough. I’ve thought the women’s game has been much more interesting and exciting for years.
In fact, ever since the decline of McEnroe and Connors and the rise of Hingis and Sharapova, 
women’s tennis has been much more fun to watch. And, it’s not just what you think. Women’s tennis is much more strategic. They have longer volleys and more intense matches. Sure, every now and then, Federer or Nadel will play a truly inspired match, but most of the time the men’s incredible strength and speed add up to tons of aces and rallies that end before they start.
So, here’s a tip of the hat to the gents at the ‘All England Club’ for finally coming to their senses. Now, it’s time for one of the other majors to recognize that the women’s game is the only hot ticket around and award the prize monies accordingly.
Thanks to Moon for the idea.
That’s really interesting insight, Carl. This case reminds me of an article I was reading re men vs. women re pay and status in the workplace
The author was saying that women comprise a secondary labor market where rates of pay and promotion prospects are inferior to those available to men. The principal reason being that women have or are assumed to have domestic responsibility which compete directly with paid employment. Such domestic responsibility which are strongly influenced by social values require women to give priority to home and family over paid employment.. etc etc. Nevertheless, when I read this Wimbledon news it made me think back to what this author was saying. Even though discrimination or prejudice exist still, admitting to these feelings is considered quite taboo now. And regardless of the real reason why things are changing/ have changed (e.g. Wimbledon case), it’s nice to see change occurring period. Hope I didn’t sound like an ultra-feminist here. đŸ™‚
I’ve heard quite a bit of debate about this issue… “Women only play 3 sets so they should get less” or “women’s tennis gets higher ratings so they should get more”. The All England Club has drawn out the points that support its reasoning, but as with all these things there is another story. According to the Guardian the All England Club was a long way from making this decision last year, but voted for it this year. What changed? Wimbledon will be a venue for the London 2012 Olympics and the prize disparity was becoming and increasing embarrassment to the British Olympic Association. So much for a commitment to equality.