OK I've had it with this equality BS, i can see how they'd justify it in the best of 3 sets tourneys but in grand slams?? equal pay for equal work my ass! they get paid the same for half as much time spent on the court! you want equal treatment? do equal amount of work, ohhhhh wait, you want equal treatment AND you wanna remain women... riiiight... smells like blatant ubiquitous double standard they re taking full advantage of. blehh
I really don't think the Slams or those parties encouraging equal prize money at Slams base their position on "equal work" at all. This comes up every time we debate equal prize money -- the issue of equal pay for equal work. I don't think the movement for equal prize money was
ever been about that.
And, for good reason. Everyone knows as an initial matter that the women don't "work" as hard as the men. At a Slam, the minimum sets a woman can play is 2, the minimum a man can play is 3, thus women's minimum sets is approx 66.67% of men's. The maximum a woman can play is 3 sets, the maximum a man can play is 5 sets, thus women's maximum is 60% of men's. Let's average those two numbers and say that women's workload at Slams is approximately 63% of men's. Those numbers are fact. No sane person would attempt to argue equal prize money because of those numbers. In fact, that number (63%) would dictate that prize money for women actually be decreased. For years before there was equal prize money at some of the Slams, the women made 80%, even up to 92% of what the men made, which was too much under the "work" theory of prize money. The "work" theory has never been a reason behind the push for equal prize money, though it seems to be the main reason to argue for against equal prize money.
I think the push for equal prize money came out of what I will call the "achievement" argument. This argument inherently recognizes that men and women are not the same. Men are stronger, faster, etc., and male players would beat female players of the same level all the time. The achievement argument accepts up front that men and women are not the same and even accepts that the work they put in (in regards to official match time anyway) is not the same. Instead, the argument is simply focused on the fact that, accepting that men and women are different, it's a remarkable achievement for either sex to be the best in the world at something, to win a sport's biggest prize. Thus, they are rewarded similarly. It's simply valuing being the best woman at a particular thing the same as being the best man at a particular thing (regardless of time spent doing it), when due to physical differences between men and women, they don't compete against each other in that context.
Whether you agree with equal prize money or not, I'm just amazed at how many people still argue about "equal work." We can all do the math. The Slams have known for decades that the workload isn't the same. It's not an amazing revelation that men and women don't usually play the same amount of sets or play the same amount of time. The Slams have had decades to consider this, yet have still moved towards closing the gap either partially or completely in regards to prize money. I don't think equal work is an issue.