a tough choice, cut their own pay and decrease their own slice of the pie, or cut the women's pay to appease the men on utilitarian value-added grounds, eschewing engineered artificial equality. If the men compel organizers to fork over more revenue and share it with the guys by striking in solidarity united as men, what other choice can the organizers make? I think we're going to see the men move to always three sets only as long as the women are making the same pay yet more of it by being objectively better aided in playing both doubles and singles which the men cannot do without running their bodies down. In the example below, A has more than doubled B's earnings in this year. A. http://legacy.tennis.com/players/player_stats.aspx?player_name=Sara+Errani B. http://legacy.tennis.com/players/player_stats.aspx?player_name=Philipp+Kohlschreiber Anyone objective who has watched B play knows this discrepancy is patently unjust. Before anyone says, "Well maybe B is just not good enough to hack in doubles," I will preempt with saying "maybe so--but next to the women, the men are treated like slaves in terms of the physical demands placed on them by having to deal with five sets."