Equal Pay At Wimbledon – Justified?

It seems that talking about pay in football just causes arguments – see the comments on Wednesday’s post. So as a change from football, let’s consider the question:

Is it fair that the men’s and women’s prizes at Wimbledon are the same?

Obviously we don’t care about this, so I’m sure we can all have a nice convivial discussion and still be friends at the end of it. I don’t know how many ladies read this blog, but I suspect less than 50 per cent of the total. But that won’t matter – we blokes are all very fair-minded so I know we’ll come to the right conclusion.

As background info, the 2012 Wimbledon prize money in the singles was:

Winners: £1,150,000

Runners-up: £575,000

Semi-finalists: £287,500

Quarter-finalists: £145,000

And the doubles:

Winners: £260,000 (£130,000 each)

Runners-up: £130,000

Semi-finalists: £65,000

Quarter-finalists: £32,500

Same amounts for both sexes, of course.

So what are the arguments for men and women at Wimbledon being paid this equal prize money:

  • Men and women players all have to train equally hard
  • Women may not be as fast and strong as men, and therefore as good as men at tennis, but that’s not their fault, it’s just their physiology
  • Some people (women tennis players mainly, to be truthful) say that women’s tennis is often more entertaining than men’s
  • Equality is a good principle – same pay for the same job

And the arguments against:

  • Is it right to reward for trying, or to reward for success? At Grand Slam tournaments, men play five sets and women play three, so the winning man has to do a lot more work to get the same money as the winning woman. This year Roger Federer played 236 games, an average of 33.7 per match, while women’s champion Serena Williams played 169, an average of 24.1 per match. So Serena played 71% of Fed’s total, but got paid the same.

The fact that men play longer and harder meant that Roger doesn’t really have the option of entering the doubles. The top ladies aren’t so restricted, and Serena won that as well. She played 127 games, at an average of 21.2 per match to do it. Her figures are probably a bit higher than her career average, because unusually in both singles and doubles she had matches that went to three sets where she won the third set 9-7. Last year Petra Kvitova played only 136 games to win the ladies’ singles, and the year before Serena won by playing only 129.

Serena’s total games this year were therefore 296 compared to Fed’s 236, but of course Serena pocketed an extra £130,000 of doubles prize money. So overall for effort expended per pound sterling she did slightly worse than Fed – £4,324 per game against £4,872. Of course I’m not measuring the length of time they’re playing, so I’ll have to assume for the purposes of this that all games average out to equal length.

But if Fed looks to have done better than Serena, take a look at the men’s doubles: the winning doubles team in the men’s tournament, Marray and Nielsen, played a massive 304 games to win their title, at an average of 50.7 per match. If Fed had entered the doubles he might have played 540 games to get the same money as Serena did for her 296.

Looked at from another angle, why should Marray and Neilsen have to work so hard in the doubles for a measly £130,000 each when Serena and Venus Williams can stroll through most of their doubles matches so easily that they can tear up the singles as well? Marray and Neilson earned themselves just £428 per game in the doubles, while Serena and Venus’s per game figure was £1,024!

Now I accept that paying by the game would obviously be daft – you could get players deliberately taking it easy until they got to 6-6 in every set and then just going for it in the tiebreakers. But it’s still obvious that the earning potential for the men is less than for the women.

  • Men are better at tennis, so why shouldn’t they be paid more?  French player Giles Simon claimed that all 128 men in the draw could beat all the 128 women at Wimbledon. I don’t know if that’s true, but if you put Federer or Djokovic against any of the ladies it wouldn’t last long. Ace; ace; ace; ace; 1-0; etc.

You may have heard, or may remember if you’re old enough, that back in the ‘70s aging men’s former player Bobby Riggs – the 1939 Wimbledon champion – challenged Billie Jean King to a match in an attempt to prove that even at the age of 55 he was better than the top women. King at first declined, so Margaret Court, then 30 and the top ranked woman in the world stepped in. Riggs beat her 6-2, 6-1 on May 13, 1973.

Billie Jean then decided she needed to defend the honour of women, and a $100,000 winner takes all match with Riggs was arranged, which King won 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 by playing a good tactical game and wearing Riggs out by staying on the baseline and making him run around. She was 29 at the time, a full 26 years younger than Riggs, and was also the current Wimbledon champion and winner of 10 singles Grand Slam tournaments to that point.

In 1998 Venus and Serena Williams, then aged 17 and 16, claimed they could beat any man outside the top 200. The 203rd ranked man, Karsten Braasch, then 31, played a set against Venus and won 6-2, then a set against Serena and won 6-1. This was after he’d played a round of golf in the morning and drunk two beers, and he said he didn’t try too hard in order to make it more fun. By Braasch’s estimate, the Williams girls wouldn’t have beaten any of the top 500 men.

The point here is that regardless of exactly how many men could beat the top women, the top men are so far ahead of the top women that no lady would be likely to ever get past the first round of a mixed tournament. So does that deserve equal pay?

  • Is men’s tennis more entertaining than women’s, or vice versa? Some of the women players have claimed recently that you can pretty much predict who the four men’s semi-finalists are going to be in the Grand Slams, and that is true to a point. Though even the likes of Djokovic and Federer usually have to work to get there, and work even harder from quarter-finals onwards. You don’t get a lot of 6-0 sets in the men’s game. In the women’s third round at Wimbledon this year Yaroslava Shvedova won a set without losing a single point!

In the professional era the lowest ranked Wimbledon women’s champion was Venus Williams, 31 in the world and seeded 23. The lowest ranked male champion was Goran Ivanisevic, unseeded and ranked 125. Venus was only ranked so low because the Williams’ have a habit of only playing a few tournaments a year – yet they still manage to dominate their sport. In 2009 Venus lost to Serena in the Wimbledon final, but had beaten number 1 seed Dinara Safina 6-1, 6-0 in the semi-final! That never happens in men’s tennis.

The winner of most men’s Wimbledon Championships is Todd Woodbridge with nine (all in the doubles). For the ladies, Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova have 20 titles each.

So the women’s game is overall more predictable and thus could be deemed less entertaining. That’s not to say there’s never a boring men’s match, but the fact is the tickets for the men’s final cost more than the tickets for the women’s final, which indicates a higher demand and a justification for more reward.

  • Equality: surely the most important thing is that the principle of equality is demonstrated? Men and women paid the same for the same job, as they should be in all walks of life.

Yes, of course women should be paid the same as men for doing the same job, it would be morally wrong to suggest anything else, and in the UK legally wrong to implement it. With a couple of caveats, of course.

The first is that in any job you should pay everyone the same as long as they are doing it to the same standard. In your own workplace you wouldn’t expect the top performers to only get the same as people who are clearly not as proficient, regardless of their sex, so why should tennis be exempt from that?

Secondly, tennis is not a normal job with a salary anyway, it’s an entertainment with the reward based on prize money that itself is based on the demand to see it. No one seriously suggests that women footballers or rugby players be paid as much as men. No one suggests that seniors’ tennis tournaments reward their winners the same as the regular tournaments, or that people under 5ft tall have a tournament with the same prize money, because it’s not their fault they’re disadvantaged by being short.

Doesn’t all that suggest that perhaps the men should be paid just a little bit more?


15 thoughts on “Equal Pay At Wimbledon – Justified?

    • I’m assuming this means you think men should be paid more, which i agree. Let the Women play 5 set matches, then they can have equal pay as far as i’m concerned.

  1. I completely agree… What we see here is actually inequality where bias is placed towards one gender and the other gender is actually being discrimenated against.
    Take sport aside, and look at the payment structure within the ‘real’ world.
    Your pay is graded upon skill of the resource and length of time… Obviously skill is more judgemental dependant upon the job specifications, however length of time in the role is more calculated. Therefore take two workers one male/one female whom are considered at the same skill rate – is it right to pay the same to each where the woman works 3 hours a day longer than the man.. NO… You pay them on the amount of quantity put in, just as much as the quality..
    Lets translate this back to tennis, therefore Men’s tennis play out of 5 sets (potentially 60% more quantity than women tennis players) if skill cannot be considered then there is an argument that men’s tennis should be paid 60% more.

    There are only two real options to make this equal..
    1) Woman must play out of 5 sets – Longer term we may see the quality decrease as the top ranked woman dominate too easily (iie 6-1, 6-2, 6-1 on a consistent basis) which will raise the skill debate
    2) Scrap the sex events and create unisex tournaments where women compete alongside/against men.

    Option 2 on an equal opportunities scale is the more obvious choice but logic (and feminism) indicates this will be unfair on the fairer sex – and again the question of what is considered actually equal comes into play.

  2. Serena Williams would slaughter every man outside the top 6. Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga and Ferrer are the only ones I could envisage beating her.

  3. e15swiss did you miss the part where a guy 200-odd in the world, 2 pints and a game of golf down thrashed the williams sisters? He reportedly smoked during end changes. The fact is women (even überwomen like serena) would be too slow and could never deal with the power of at least the top 100 men.

    The main point apart from the number of sets is the public interest. The prizes and wages are a function of the money the sport attracts from viewers, sponsors etc. More money is in the men’s game – fact – so they should get a prize proportional to that. That’s why footballers get more than rugby players or cricketers.

  4. E15Swiss, did you not read the above about the match with the guy at 203 who took it easy after a game of golf and the 2 beers. I agree with this post entirely and have always thought that the equal pay was to satisfy the PC brigade but does not stand up in any other way. Does that make me a sexist? In my business I would employ the best for the job regardless of who they are or where they come from so I don’t consider myself as being prejudice in any way. The equal pay in tennis is wrong on many counts. The amount played and time put in has been well discussed but one area that hasn’t been mentioned is the analysis of tennis as a business model i.e how does tennis get its big pot of money in order to pay out the prize money. It is obviously from a few sources but one key source would be the demand to watch the games both live but particularly on TV. The level of demand dictates the money that TV receives and therefore how much they pay for the rights to broadcast it. This in turn affects the level of sponsorship revenues you can command at a tournament. If you were to split the mens and womens into separate entities, I do not believe for one minute that the womens would get anywhere close to the mens in terms of the public demand and therefore the money coming in. In other words the ladies tennis is piggybacking on the mens in this area. I know these points will get some ladies backs right up but I am also aware that this is a view shared by many women who far prefer the mens game to the womens. I actually think that the womens tennis of yesteryear was more interesting where it was about subtlety and crafty shots and left the men to play the power game. The womens tennis now seems to be more about power with all the grunting and hitting the ball as hard as they can. For me that means that womens tennis has lost its individuality that seperated it from the mens and that what we see now is a poor imitation of the mens game.

  5. 1. Women should play best of 5 in the Slams: to only require them to play best of 3 is outdated and reflects the same mentality that initially denied women a place in he Olympics, and then let them in but said they couldn’t run further than 800 metres, and then said OK they can just manage 1500 metres, oh hang on maybe they can do 10k as well, oh what do you know, they can even manage a full marathon…tennis needs to get with the times: professional women tennis players are capable of being top athletes and can certainly go the full distance.

    2. Even so, to the person who thinks Serena could beat any man outside the top 6, I’m afraid you are deluded. There is huge strength in depth in men’s tennis (didn’t we just see Nadal beaten by the world number 100?) and I think she would struggle against most men in the top 100. Really. But she’s undeniably a great athlete.

  6. Never mind the 5 sets. If women want the same pay, they play the men. No more men’s and ladies, one group, combined pot.

  7. Female pro golfers don’t play 12 holes and the last time I checked female marathon runners didn’t run 16 miles. So let the whineing bitches play 5 sets if they want extra pay. Whilst I’m at it, the Mad Grunter’s justification that “i’m hotter than you” is childish in the extreme and most certainly not true when one of the Williams sisters or WTA lessos is on the court

    • By all means make your point for or against equal pay in sport, but kindly don’t refer to women as bitches…these are women dedicated to their sport, making sacrafices to make it to the top o their game…there is a debate on their pay salary, fair enough – but don’t be derogatory to the female species please. Thank you.

  8. There are numerous deficiencies in the women’s game, including:
    Players reaching the number one ranking without winning a Grand Slam
    Too many short-lived careers
    Overall lack of depth results in uncompetitive, short matches
    Current absence of ‘stellar’ players
    Media values players’ images over skills
    IMO there’s no way they deserve equal pay.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.