Equal Prize Money at Grand Slam Tournaments

As most of us are enjoying the 2018 US Open, there are those who, rather than just appreciate what the athletes produce, prefer to raise the issue of equal prize money for mens and womens singles, questioning its legitimacy.

I’ve long been a proponent of the concept and reject outright the base argument against, which suggests that playing best of five sets matches at majors should carry with it a dollar premium.

I have a number of problems with this attempt at logic.

• Firstly, there is an assumption that because men are required to play until one has been victorious in three of the sets played, one more than for women, then the physical demands on the men’s bodies will always be greater, and heaven forbid, we can’t allow that without extra monetary compensation.

This is unfounded - the rigorous training undertaken by all exponents of the game means that any possible extra demands of the men, in terms of set(s) per match, should be handled comfortably.

In most instances, men will play longer, but in reality time on court, both in terms of sets played, and minutes off the clock, depends on each individual match.

e.g.  Novak Djokovic, in his third round match against Richard Gasquet this year, spent 131 minutes, three sets, and 26 games of his valuable time in winning.

.On the same day, Carla Suárez Navarro, when defeating Caroline Garcia, spent 144 minutes, three sets and 34 games (plus a tie break) of her valuable time in winning.

Yes, Carla only needed to win two of her sets, but the effort was at least equal in the key areas to that exhibited by Novak

• Then we look at first round losers.  Can we seriously accept the justification for a bigger cheque being drawn in favour of a man who has been defeated in his opening round, compared to a woman suffering a similar fate, is simply because he lost an extra set ?  It is ludicrous in the extreme.

• I haven’t talked quality yet, but it warrants discussion as it is one of the strongest arguments in favour of equal prize money

Playing best of five sets matches guarantees longer affairs in the majority of instances, but the guarantee cannot extend to standard.

There have been many memorable contests over the years which have gone to four or five sets - the 2008 Wimbledon final won by Rafa Nadal over Roger Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7 comes to mind - but on the flip side others fall into the ‘wish this was over’ category.  When watching one of the latter, I’m convinced that length of matches certainly shouldn’t automatically translate into additional dollars.

Great women’s matches through the years have provided evidence enough for equal money - whether decided over two or three sets is immaterial; quality is paramount.

e.g. This years Australian Open where Caroline Wozniacki defeated Simona Halep 7-6(2) 3-6 6-4

Also, the 2013 Roland Garros final, where Maria Sharapova played terrific tennis but Serena Williams was even better, winning 6-4 6-4

One final point - men are naturally stronger than women, and are capable of withstanding longer periods in a sporting contest, all other things being equal.

This doesn’t give them an authority to demand a greater pay packet.

At the Olympic Games, men compete in the Decathlon - an event comprising 10 individual track and field disciplines.

The women compete in the similar Heptathlon - 7 individual track and field disciplines.

Both are awarded the same set of medals.  No discrimination.

Just a reasonable recognition that men are physically more capable of a larger programme.

Remember this when talking prize money for professional sports, including Grand Slam tennis.

I’d pay Serena the same as Roger any day of the week.