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

(Photo by Paul Gilham/Getty Images)

Some, however, see nothing wrong with such a situation—even within the game. For example, the Women’s Tennis Association seem to be enthusiastically employing the maxim that “sex sells” to boost their sport, regardless of the message that may send out.

“I actually feel that one of the great strengths of the tour, is the personalities off the court twinned with these great athletes on the court," said Larry Scott, the out-going chief executive of the WTA Tour, this week. “Our players are very comfortable with that positioning [the Tour’s advertising focus on looks], and I think they are great role models for women showing that, you know, you can be gritty and determined on the court and go out to win, and still be a feminine celebrity off the court.”

For some, such an attitude is the core problem for the respectability of women’s tennis. The fact that Anna Kournikova is arguably the most famous exponent of the sport—a result of her good looks rather than her tour titles, or lack thereof—is a saddening aspect for many.

Due to the reduced emphasis of power compared to the men's game, some neutral tennis viewers may prefer the women’s game as a spectacle.

But on the whole, it is not what many viewers would choose to see.

If TV companies could get away with it—or, indeed, were only able to show a limited number of matches—then they would undoubtedly show coverage of men’s games at a far greater frequency than anything involving women, at least until the later stages of the tournament.

So if fewer spectators pay to see females play compared to the men, and broadcasters tolerate the women’s game rather than actively promote it, then how can they justify the equal prize money that some of them—most notably the Williams sisters—lobbied so forcefully for?

After all, many male players think it is an equality that isn’t really, well, equal.

“I don't think [equal prize money] is really fair,” said professional men’s player Tommy Haas when the change was announced. "I think the depth of men's tennis is much tougher than the women's, plus we play best of five sets.”

To earn their equality, then, should women play five set matches too? As Ian O’Doherty of the Irish Independent noted, apparently not:

“In the spirit of equal work for equal pay, should the female game not also adapt to best of five?

Erm no. Because as top female player Jelena Jankovic whined last week at the prospect of playing best of five: ‘What, you want to drive us into oblivion?’

So, we want the same money because we're women. But we don't want to do the same work. Because we are women.

But only a sexist pig would point out that absurdity, of course.”

O’Doherty may well have a point, but to penalize women for their physiological shortcomings would hardly be a great demonstration of equality. As Dinara Safina’s victory over Amelie Mauresmo showed, it is still possible to pack a lot of enthralling tennis into a three-set match.

But, on the other hand, the reduced interest in the women’s game means that outside the four Grand Slams, prize money is markedly reduced for women’s events, making it impossible for top women to earn as much as men from their craft.

Not to mention that at many events, the men also play best of three sets games. The difference for the men being that the prize funds are far greater than at women’s satellite events.

Similarly, sponsorship deals are more apparent in the men’s game. Women can sign multi-million pound deals to wear a certain brand, but again this is often based as much on the looks of that player as her ability from behind the baseline.

At least the Grand Slams allow women to earn well regardless of appearance. Perhaps economic equality there is not such a bad thing, after all.

At such high profile events, equal prize funds for both sexes sends a message to young girls—and, perhaps more importantly, boys—that equal pay is a basic requirement of a civilized society.

Such an example is undoubtedly an important one.

Still, once those young minds start to develop and they begin to appreciate the two tours and the difference between three sets and five, many might begin to question the situation.

But whatever the rights and wrongs of individual arguments, the reality is that the All England Club’s decision to move to equal prize money is one that can never be rescinded. The backlash that would come from any reversal would be such a PR disaster that it could never be beneficial to the tournament.

At Wimbledon, equal pay is here to stay.

But that will not stop the discussion from continuing to run and run.

Female players might just be happy to reflect that they are playing in the modern era where, in the Grand Slams at least, their presence is rewarded as handsomely—if not more so—than they deserve.

You're currently logged into Facebook

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