The Prizemoney Debate. The Final Word

The prizemoney debate is quite confusing, and Baum's article provides some very good arguments for women receiving equal prizemoney. The debate is irrelevant. Simply because after years of campaigning for equal prizemoney, upon receiving it, there is no way that women's tennis would even contemplate going back to receiving less prizemoney.

But after the Williams-Safina debacle of 59 minutes, debate we will. The epic 5 setter between Nadal and Federer one day later added weight to arguments that women don't deserve equal cash.

Baum points out that sportspeople, and entertainers in general, are not payed by the hour. Excellent point. Although sportspeople are not payed by the hour, it is reasonable to argue that the revenue that they generate (ticket sales, advertising, sponsorship, merchandise etc) which leads to and justifies their monstrous pay packets, is calculated in a more conventional way. Advertisers pay to have their product shown during a match. Sponsors pay to have their product associated with a spectactle. Members of the public pay to watch a game. So if one were to look at the prizemoney debate in a different way, they could argue that women's games generate less revenue for the tournament and so, women should be payed less. But is this true?

If, for example, an advertising spot for the women's final is cheaper than a spot for the men's final, then this is evidence. Keep in mind that men's games go for much longer so can generate much more advertising money for the tournament. If ticket demand is lower for the women's matches than the men's matches and the prices are subsequently lower, then this is evidence. Statistics like these are more compelling than the simple argument that women play for less time and so deserve less money.

But that argument, 3 verses 5 sets, also deserves attention. Don't male players have the right to complain? Why are they required to play longer? They put more energy, time and quite possible training, into winning games. They risk more injury and maybe their careers are cut short by the demands of 5 set battles. And they get the same pay as other sportspeople who play for less time, who spend less energy, and whose careers can possibly last longer (and allow them to earn more money). In many industries this would be considered unfair.

Perhaps the only way to really establish which sex generates more money would be to hold the tournament completely seperately. Like in Golf. That way we could see the revenue generated and award the prizemoney accordingly. This, obviously is also an impossibility.

So the debate is pointless. But here is my final word. Sexism and statistics aside, the common tennis fan wants to see great games. Not long games, but great games. Epic rivalries. Tension. Stirring comebacks and players showing heart. Competition, courage, stories... In this respect the women are not delivering. They are delivering a product and the product is poor. The men's product is better and so male tennis players could legitimately argue that they deserve a greater cut of the revenue.