One of the tennis topics often discussed these days, especially at the Grand Slam events, is the prize money parity for men and women.
Since this is my blog and I have been asked to use it, I will tell you what I think about it. Ready? Go: Equal prize money for men and women in tennis is wrong, ill-advised and unnecessary.
Before you start insulting me, which you may as well do later, I guess that’s what people do here, let me articulate my case first.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with women making less, the same or more money than men. And that is universally true and should apply to all walks of life. But the ultimate decision should be made by the market. The market is usually fair and definitely not sexist. And that is, I think, the only valid argument in that case.
Since I have time and nothing better to do, I will refute here all the other baseless arguments and fallacies heard to defend or attack the need for equal prize money in Grand Slam events, and in tennis in general.
First off, an idea often heard to argue against the equal prize money idea is that, during Grand Slam events, men need to win three sets to win a match while women need only two. And guess what, this is simply dumb. When did professional athletes start getting paid by the hour?
If it was really the case, should we reward the winner of a five setter more than a great player who takes care of his opponent in straight sets? Pete Sampras who was able to serve four aces in a game would not have made much money then. Should we punish the player who benefits from the retirement of his adversary? Should the player who needs to practice longer than a more gifted fellow need to get paid more, even if he loses early? After all he worked harder.
Moreover, If equality is such an important issue for some people, why not compete together? It’s always funny to me to to put “equality” and “competition” together in the same sentence. And I know, it’s stupid. Men are stronger, faster and some would say more competitive than women. At least, I am told. And I believe it is generally true.
The stats provided by the Australian Open official site prove it as well. Men’s serves are faster than women’s. Their ratio of winners over unforced errors is much higher. And although tennis doesn’t provide that particular piece of information, it is hard to argue that women run faster than men. The men’s game is therefore better than the women’s.
Yet, the audience and the announcers that come with them -- they usually go together; announcers, for obvious reasons like it better when their products are viewed by a large number of people, which is after all a market decision that very few people would argue with -- may still prefer the women’s game. Human beings are not all and always rational after all. They may prefer a lesser level of competition. It is their right. In which case women generate larger revenues and should therefore make more money than men. Not less, not as much. Simply more.
And this is where I believe women shot themselves in the foot by asking for equal prize money. If they believe their product deserves as much money as the men, maybe they could have asked for more. After all, Maria Sharapova, who is far less successful than Roger Federer is a lot more popular. I won’t even mention Anna Kournikova. Well I guess I just did.
Women simply believed that it would be more acceptable to ask for equal prize money. You don’t want to sound greedy when you’re 20 and make millions of dollars to play the game you love. A fight for equality in a world where you wake up every morning to beat your friends is very popular.
