The Debate That Won't Go Away: Equal Prize Money at Wimbledon

(Photo by Paul Gilham/Getty Images)

Before the All England Club finally relented in 2007, the subject of Wimbledon’s allocation of prize money had become something of a millstone hanging around the necks of all those associated with the tournament.

While hardly on the same level as Augusta National—host of the Masters golf tournament—which singularly refuses to allow female members, Wimbledon's payouts that reward female winners of the tournament with smaller financial rewards than their male equivalents led many to accuse the Club of being archaic and misogynistic.

In fairness to the Club, for many years the situation had been improving, albeit at an unsatisfactorily slow pace.

In 1968 the men's singles champion, Rod Laver, won £2,000 for his triumph, while the ladies' winner, Billie Jean King, received just £750. But by 2006, Amelie Mauresmo was taking home just 5% less than Roger Federer’s £675,000.

But the fact that there was any difference at all still rankled with many.

Fortunately, that nominal difference finally disappeared in 2007 as Wimbledon officials announced that competitors would receive the same amount of prize money—at all stages of the tournament—regardless of sex.

This put the tournament on par with the US and Australian Open, and ahead of Roland Garros—which quickly fell into line).

Despite this, however, some have continued to criticize Wimbledon, arguing that female competitors do not deserve their new-found equality, for a variety of reasons.

It is a debate that is set to run and run.

It is perhaps both ironic and unfortunate for the Wimbledon committee that in the years immediately following their decision to award equal pay to both victors, the quality of the female game has tailed off dramatically.

At the same time, the excitement surrounding the men’s game has reached a level not seen since the days of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe.

While Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer seem to be contesting the world’s grandest tennis match as they rally trophies and titles back and forth across the globe, the top players in the female game seem to have become entrenched in an uninspiring battle to see how many of them can become world number one without actually winning a Grand Slam title.

As a spectacle, there is simply no comparison between the two.

But is that a reason against equal prize money?

It cannot be doubted that female tennis players put in the same amount of effort and dedication to the honing of their craft as their male counterparts.

The fact of the matter is: prize money for sports stars is not calculated on the hours they have put in on the training ground, but rather on the interest and attention they manage to garner from sponsors and, most importantly, spectators.

In this respect, male tennis players have a clear advantage.

"There are not many opening-round matches in the women's draw of grand slam tournaments that I would cross the road to watch,” said former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash. “Predictability has always put me off [the women’s game] and things aren't too different from ten or 15 years ago."

Cash’s sentiment is one echoed by most casual fans. On television, men’s finals are more widely viewed than women’s. In 1999, a Wimbledon survey revealed 70% of spectators come to the tournament first and foremost to see men’s singles matches.

For better or worse, the men’s game is most often what fans will pay to see.

Even the most casual of fans can name upwards of 20 top male players, based primarily on their abilities on the court.

But could they name more than five or ten top female tennis players? Of those named, are most not known more for their looks than their devastating forehand smash?

If that constitutes equality, then somewhere the rulebook has been mislaid.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?