People do want to see women's tennis. Sorry you don't and you spend your time here on a forum to discuss women's tennis. Furthermore, how exactly is equal pay not justified? The men are paid to win a match and the women are paid to win a match. You can't even use the more sets argument, since both men and women play best two of three here in Miami (as at Indian Wells). The ship has sailed on paying women less in the slams and at these joint events. The tournaments are invested in offering the same money to the men's and the women's tours. How the tours divvy up the prize money is up to the individual tours.
If it makes you feel better, most of the men's tournaments offer more prize money than do the women's tournaments.
Therefore, the men still make more money than the women generally. Happy now?
Proving my point and you don't even realise it.
Ok first of all, I said that I preferred women's tennis over men's but you know I can actually look at something objectively and not have my judgement affected by personal preferences. Strange that, isn't it? If you made that comment as some sort of suggestion that if women weren't paid equal women's tennis wouldn't exist for me to watch, then that is complete rubbish.
Secondly, it's not about how much effort they put in or how many sets they play. Those are stupid reasons to argue against equal pay (in fact they are more stupid than the reasons for equal pay). Why don't we turn this into a discussion about any other sport played by men and women? Let's say, Football (soccer). The effort put in is fairly equal, they are both "paid to win". Why don't they get the same? Oh right, it's because one is clearly less popular (largely because of the lower standard of play). Granted, the popularity difference between them is far greater than in tennis, but in tennis there is still a difference and that difference should be reflected in prize money (as it is alot of the time by TV coverage and court allocation and always is by tournament schedules). Do you really think Errani deserved the same prize money from the 2012 French Open as Djokovic? Or Schiavone the same as Nadal two years earlier?
Now, I really don't want to argue about this (primarily because I can't be bothered) but I really don't want to get into a situation where I come across as anti-women's tennis (or, even worse, anti-women), because that's not what I am. I am a huge fan of it and have been since I was a kid and I wish it was as popular as it deserves to be, but it isn't. The only reason the women get what they get is because they play alongside the men. Take the men away, and their money goes down without a doubt (as suggested in the last statement you made). I would honestly put my life on that.
There's nothing we can do about this whole thing now, because decreasing women's prize money would be wrong and increasing men's is unnecessary just for the purpose of making the difference. So you could say I'm forcibly in favour of equal prize money as it is, even though the women have been fortunate.