Posted on: May 6, 2008 4:23 pm
Edited on: May 6, 2008 4:24 pm

Parity in Pay

Parity in pay is an interesting question. Why shouldn't the women get paid as much as the men? At Rome this week the prize money is not the same. At Wimbledon they do get paid the same. Let's also ask the question why don't the doubles tournaments pay twice as much as the singles tournaments? I don't have the figures at hand but I am going to assume that twice as many people are involved in doubles. They should be paid twice as much. Instead they are paid much less.

The figures for Wimbledon are as follows - Men and Women Singles champions get 750,000 pounds apiece (don't ask me to convert pounds) . Men and Women Doubles champions get 230,000 pounds apiece. The mixed doubles champions get 92,000 pounds. Keep in mind the doubles have to split the prize between them.

Why the disparity in pay? I am guessing that more people follow the men's tournament than the women. I don't doubt that more people watch the singles than the doubles. I don't have attendance figures at hand. Do they publish stats on attendance figures broken down by women's and men's matches. Personally, i would rather watch the Bryan brothers play than Federer. I would rather watch Henin play Serena than Nadal versus Ferrer. I am used to swimming upstream. What do the numbers say? If the attendance for the women overall equals that of the men then a change in pay would be warranted. If not then a change in pay would be a crime. The one who draws the most should get paid the most. Any opinions out there?

Category: Tennis
Tags: Doubles, Money, Parity
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com