The great debate of whether women tennis players should get paid as much as men tennis players has been happening for years.
And judging by all the questionnaires and polls on Google, most people think women should get paid less. I tend to agree.
On the tennis ATP tour, it is fair that women get paid the same amount of money as men for winning their final matches because they both have to play the best of three sets.
But as soon as they get into the major grand slam tournaments, men have to step it up to the best of five sets, whilst women just have to maintain the same level as in the ATP tour.
So is it fair that if a women wins the final of a grand slam in two or three sets gets the same amount of money as a man who wins his final in five sets?
If women want to get paid the same, they should have equal rules as men and play the same amount of sets.
Surely, if the Williams sisters can finish their singles matches and then go off and play doubles too, they obviously have enough in the tank to play five sets.
A lot of female players play doubles and even sometimes mixed doubles because three sets is manageable, whilst the top men's players only concentrate on singles due to the extra sets having to put more match practice in, taking time away from being able to play doubles or mixed doubles.
If men can change up the tempo to play an extra set or three in a Grand Slam, why can't women play five sets if they work just as hard as men?
On the Canadian content website, Geoff Sweet has a page on evidence as to why women tennis players should not get paid as much as men based on the amount of hours on court, versus amount of sets and games played within sets.
Should women have to play five sets in grand slams to earn the same amount of money as the men?