Skip to content

But I’m still an embryo, with a long long way to go, until I make my brother understand…

tennis pay.jpg

From CNNSI.COM:

“Less pay for more popular play”

“At Wimbledon, women still earn less than men despite having the game more people want to watch….All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club Chairman Tim Phillips, and some men’s players, defend the difference, saying that women don’t have to play as many sets: the women are a best-of-three format, while men are best-of-five. “We think our prize money is driven by market data and fairness,” Phillips said at an April press conference.”

Yeah, um, does anyone buy this excuse? The pay gap is not large, and I don’t think the All England Club is hurting for money—Wimbledon itself certainly isn’t, so why not have equal pay for equal work? They have to know this controversy is going to rear its ugly head each year, so why don’t they take care of it once and for all? I know it’s unreasonable at this point to think that the WNBA and Women’s Professional Soccer League can make anywhere near the men’s team, but when women are equalling or surpassing men’s sports, it has to be acknowledged.

Helen Reddy’s lyrics are still fitting, 35 years later…

[Helen Reddy Lyrics = 1]

{ 1 } Comments

  1. OutOutBlogger | July 2, 2003 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Playing longer sets? That’s such bullshit. If the prize money is market-driven, then the popularity of the matches should make women’s prize money equal. Just more lame-ass excuses for keeping things status quo. I’m gonna blog this also, thanks for the head’s up!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *