Originally Posted by JadeFox
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.
I honestly don't feel strongly about this topic one way or the other but I believe that part of Simon's argument was that the ATP generates more income than the WTA. I'm not sure if that is true and I also don't know how that works regarding the slams but if it is true I can see his point of view. This may be a poor example for the Europeans but look at the NBA and the WNBA. Few people would argue that the WNBA players should earn the same amount as NBA players due to the fact that the NBA generates much more money. I suspect that the gap, if there even is a gap, between the ATP and WTA is much smaller but if there is one I can see why it would bother some people. This is probably an impractical solution but if the incomes that were generated by each "league" were kept separate and the ATP monies divided among the men and the WTA monies divided among the women there would be no room for argument.
Regarding this question of yours "Why should a player, man or woman, struggling to make ends meet, be effectively punished just because one side generates more revenue?" I have a simple answer: capitalism. What if there came a time when the WTA was bringing in five, ten or twenty times the revenue that the ATP was? Wouldn't the women have a legitimate reason to demand a greater share of the profits? In that scenario they would be the ones that are drawing the fans/income so shouldn't they be rewarded for it?
I actually do agree with you regarding the length of matches. I often find the ATP matches to be too long and in the early rounds you very rarely have competitive matches involving the top ten players (Rosol/Nadal being a huge exception). On the other hand you can usually rely on the top men to come through to the quarters/semis/final where with the women things are completely unpredictable. I'm starting to ramble so I'll stop now.