Winbledon enters the 21st century
From AP, via the Jacksonville (NC) Daily News:
After years of holding out against equal prize money, Wimbledon yielded to public pressure Thursday and agreed to pay female players as much as male players at the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament.
The All England Club fell in line with other Grand Slam events and offered equal pay through all rounds at this year’s tournament.
“Tennis is one of the few sports in which women and men compete in the same event at the same time,” club chairman Tim Phillips said at a news conference. “We believe our decision to offer equal prize money provides a boost for the game as a whole and recognizes the enormous contribution that women players make to the game and to Wimbledon.
“In short, good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon.”
Last year, men’s champion Roger Federer received $1.170 million and women’s winner Amelie Mauresmo got $1.117 million.
“It is a victory for women’s tennis, and a victory for women in general,” Mauresmo said Thursday after reaching the semifinals of the Dubai Open. “It was really a matter of principle. It is a question of equality.”
The U.S. Open and Australian Open have paid equal prize money for years. The French Open paid the men’s and women’s champions the same for the first time last year, although the overall prize fund remained bigger for the men.
The WTA Tour lobbied for years to get Wimbledon to drop its “Victorian-era view” and pay the women the same as the men.
“This is an historic and defining moment for women in the sport of tennis, and a significant step forward for the equality of women in our society,” WTA Tour chief executive Larry Scott said. “We commend the leadership of Wimbledon for its decisive action in recognizing the progress that women’s tennis has made.”
…
“When you’ve got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay,” three-time men’s champion John McEnroe told The Daily Telegraph. “It would be setting an example to the rest of society in general to have equal prize money.”
The move with cost Wimbledon $1.1 million dollars, to be taken out of tournament operating costs rather than a reduction in the overall purse.
The French Tennis Federation is expected to follow suit with equal pay at all levels, though no action is planned before their March 16th meeting.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
Now if only we could get this to happen in corporate America…
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
My initial thought was “huzzah!” I did hear some negative comments from a few of the male competitors, noting that they play 5-round competitions rather than 3-round competitions, i.e., they’re working harder for their prize money than the women. It does raise a valid question (I don’t know enough about tennis to speak in any way authoritatively about it). Are you “paying” the same amount for unequal work?
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
That’s a reasonable question, Dave, and one that’s worth thinking about. Men play 5 sets, women play 3, although there’s a popular movement among women that they should be allowed to play the 5, too.
However, the other side of the discussion is that women’s tennis generates just as much income as men’s does, so the pay should be equal.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Interesting. I would feel a lot better about women playing 5 — if they can’t, then I don’t have a problem in the equity of men and women being paid different prizes. (One might still argue that the men can beat the women if they went head to head, and so deserve still higher prizes — that’s an ethical/practical issue I’m still working on, but it’s hard to talk about treating men and women equally for doing unequal things — it’s like arguing that the prizes/bonuses given for professional championships should be made equal to those of NCAA championships, because otherwise we’re being age-ist.)
As to how much income is generated (to the networks) — that’s different. If we’re going to allocate prizes based on popularity, vs. athletic achievement, let’s say so openly. “The women deserve an equal cut because they’re providing an equal share of the profit.” That’s probably a different sort of “equality” than a lot of folks are touting (utility vs. respect), though it’s not necessarily wrong.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I think we need to consider professional sports as a business model, which I believe it already is. If 2 people hold the same job but one is limited to a lower number of working hours by management (example, the tournament owners) but both people bring the same amount of revenue into the company, shouldn’t they receive the same pay for it? Women’s tennis, though fewer sets than the men generates dollar for dollar as much money in ticket revenues and tv contracts as men’s tennis does. In that sense it’s already equal work, deserving of equal pay.
As for whether professional women players can hold their own with male players, we’ll never know until the rules change to allow it. The Billie Jean King/ Bobby Riggs match, much as I loved it, meant nothing beyond an oddity. I’d like to see it happen.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Equal Pay for Equal Service?…
My initial reaction is huzzahs to the folks at Wimbledon for equalizing the prize money between the men and the women competing at the Big Tennis Shindig there. Genteel and……
May 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Actually, women’s pro tennis generates far more revenue than does the men’s circuit. These revenues come from sales of tennis accouterments such as shoes, head + wrist bands, sweaters, rackets, and products endorsed by the athletes. Maria Sharapova generates millions in revenues from her endorsements. The endorsements generate sales that bring revenue to the WTA (women’s tennis governing body) and to the ATP (men’s governing body). The monies are then distributed to the players when they win at the tournaments.
I do not have an actual figure but estimate that the women’s circuit generates about 70 % of all the income in pro tennis. It may even be more. Therefore, the women pro tennis players have been short changed for many years.