Posted: 9/9/18 at 4:44pm
Jay Lernez-Z, the number of sets contested is very much the apple of discord in the ongoing debate over the pay disparity between the two professional tours. The French Open and Wimbledon tournament organizers are ultra conservative and continue to award the men more prize money than the women. However, the Aussie Open and US Open went to the other extreme by awarding equal prize money which made several male pros object based on the disparity in the number of sets played per match. The two tours have never been able to agree on a suitable metric on which to base prize money. Both Williams sisters stepped into the fray years ago advocating for equal prize money at all 4 majors. If the number of sets per match is not a reasonable metric then what exactly is with respect to equal pay?
Venus, Serena Williams join Billie Jean King's equal pay push
ETA: The players can only command the prize money that the marketplace is willing to offer up. Tennis as a spectator sport has grown immensely over the course of 40 years. It now competes with the big three sports in the US for ad revenue generated from eyeballs glued to screens and butts in seats. And the top players earn far more off the court in sponsorship deals, endorsements, and product placement, especially high-end brands like Maria Sharapova and Roger Federer.
Updated On: 9/9/18 at 04:44 PM