Originally Posted by DownInAHole
Generally speaking the men do put in more work (best of five vs. best of three) and the men are inarguably superior players (if the two current number ones played it wouldn't be a question of how many games would Maria win it would be a question of how many points). Personally I prefer to watch the women (best of five matches can take an eternity) but I think the only fair way to settle it is to make it merit based. If both the ATP and WTA take in an equal amount of money then it should be a 50-50 split. If one side makes more they should be paid more. Sexism has nothing to do with it and is a straw man argument.
I have to disagree. Sexism has everything to do with it. It's the root of the inequality to begin with. I asked myself why is anyone bothered by this and went through the arguments against equal prize money and none of them held up upon further scrutiny. The most popular one, the men play best of 5, the women best of 3 doesn't hold up either.
Roger Federer's first round match last a little over an hour, while Caroline's was longer than that in just the second set alone. Why should Roger's opponent get more than Caroline just because the men played a best of 5? By the time the third set came around Roger winning was never in doubt. And the only semi final at this year's Roland Garros that was actually competitive was the one between Sam and Sara. Why should they make less just because Novak and Rafa played just one more set in straight sets victories that everyone already knew the outcome? And these are not the only examples I can use.
And basing it on merit would not be fair. Why should a player, man or woman, struggling to make ends meet, be effectively punished just because one side generates more revenue? The current system really is the most fair in that no matter who wins they will get the same prize money. It can't and it should not be all about profit.
That's just my humble opinion.