Equal pay for unequal work?

Let’s say there is a law firm that hires two people, one man and one woman. Both of them are offered the same contract and the same pay but for some reason the woman is being asked to do more work. The man hired doesn’t do as much as the woman does but still gets the same pay. For the last few decades many people (especially feminists) have not hesitated to call out this sexist act for the discrimination that it is. If she is doing more work, why shouldn’t she make more money for her efforts? Why is that lazy man getting the same pay for doing less work? If one person is doing more work than another, which do you think should get a raise when the boss does their annual reviews?

Now let’s apply that same standard to tennis. Earlier this month, Wimbledon caused a controversy, allegedly, by offered more prizes money to the winner of the men’s singles tournament. The winner of this year’s men’s singles made fifty-three thousand more pounds than the winner of the female singles tournament. He’s the problem; in tennis we all know women don’t do as much work as the men during singles tournaments, so by that rationale, should they be paid the same?

In grand slam tournaments single matches for men are best of five sets in each. If a match were to go five full sets, it can be exhausting and sometimes lead to injury if a player does a few rounds of that in a row. We all remember numerous examples of male players needing help with cramping calves or retiring for doing one marathon match after another. When was the last time you saw that happen during a women’s singles match? I’ve been watching tennis for decades and I’ve never seen a woman’s match have a player retire for being too tired. The reason for that is simple, they only play a best of three set match and never work as hard as the men to win their match. So why do they deserve the same pay? I’ll give you the simple answer: they don’t.

In order to determine the difference between the two singles tournaments, let’s breakdown what happened this year at Wimbledon. Let’s take a look at the statistics of each singles champion:

When you look at these statistics, can anyone really argue that Federer didn’t in fact earn that extra fifty-three thousand pounds? Nine extra sets, sixty-seven extra games and a total of over two-hundred and fifty extra points made over the women’s champion. There is a reason why the male champion made more money this year, he did a hell of a lot more work to get it! The only time I would support any kind of equal pay is if both people (regardless of gender) were doing the same work to earn it. If you are doing more work than your counterpart, then you do in fact deserve to get more pay. If Serena Williams wants to get the same pay as Roger Federer, than I think women’s tournaments should also be best of five sets. Until that happens, I don’t think female tennis players should get the same pay as male players.

What women of tennis are demanding right now is no different than the discrimination that I made an example of in the first paragraph. Women’s matches are so much easier to finish that many women participate in doubles and mixed doubles in an effort to win two tournaments which would double their prize money. Men are so exhausted from their marathon matches, they hardly ever sign up for anything else but singles. Men are often forced to pick one or the other, sticking to doubles or singles exclusively while women are free to fight for more than one tournament purse. How is this fair?

If women in tennis want the same pay as men,
then here’s an idea: do the same work for it.

I have an idea: let’s do two tournaments a year where both men and women are allowed to compete against one another. One tournament would best of three sets (like women play) and another would be the best of five. No special rules or handicaps, just the same rules of every other tournament and let’s get it on. Do you know what would happen? Same in every other grand slam, it would be Federer and Nadal in both finals every year. I would be quite surprised if a single woman managed to make it out of the first round of the five set tournament. I would even pay a lot of money to watch a five set match between Serena Williams and Roger Federer. I would happily make an order to my cable company (via Pay-Per-View) just to see who would win that match. I have a feeling I know who would win but I’d still watch not only out of curiosity but as a fan of the sport.

But let’s just be honest and by honest, I mean brutally: men are better tennis players. If women don’t believe that, try taking on men in a five set match and see how many actually make it past three sets let alone win any matches. There is a reason why men and women’s tournaments are separate to begin with; women would all get their asses kicked like a narc at a biker rally. The day we see women players actually do more than a pathetic three set match to win a tournament then I will fully support their right to get equal pay at Wimbledon. Until then, I have a message for every woman who is playing tennis right now: if you’re not doing the same work, then you don’t deserve the same pay.

Peter