Well, looks like Wimbledon has FINALLY caught on. They released a statement indicating that they will now be offering equal prize money to men and women at the tournament.

Took them long enough, but glad to see it happen.

I just saw this story and am actually surprised. Wimbledon seems so staunch in its refusals to pay equal prize money to the women in the past several years. I'm happy to hear it! It's a great move for the tournament and for the sport of tennis itself. Wimbledon already seemed like enough of a relic. At least in respecting the women's contribution to the game as a whole, they are keeping up with modern aspects of sport without diminishing the grand tradition to which they hold dear and which makes Wimbledon the biggest title in tennis.

Interestingly enough, now the only major that doesn't pay equal prize money throughout the entire event is the French Open. Roland Garros only pays equal prize money to the champions.

There's talk that at the next Federation meeting that will be brought up and will probably follow Wimby's lead.

this is great news. now i am hoping the ensuing 3 sets vs. 5 sets prattle will lead to the men pushing to only play 3 set matches. i seriously think that would help the sport be more interesting to the fans. why should the men get the luxury of knowing they can just blow off a set?? meanwhile, so many of the men's matches are over in 3 sets anyway.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think the women should get equal prize money as the men. My thoughts have nothing to do with gender. For me, it is about who plays the most tennis.

The men play best of five sets at the four major tournaments. The women play best of three. This means that the men play more tennis, which means they should get more pay.

I think it should be all or nothing...either men and women play best of five or best of three.

Due to the current tournament schedule, the playing styles of today, and injuries, maybe every men's and women's tournament should be best of three for all matches, except the final. Perhaps the finals should be best of five?

I've never felt like the best-of-five vs. best-of-three argument stood up all that well. I understand where people are coming from with it, but for me the length of the match isn't reflective of the quality/entertainment value of the tennis. The women attract just as many (if not more) fans to the game of tennis as the men do. Ultimately, the revenue reflects how many butts you can put in the seats. Tennis is cyclical that way - sometimes the men have the juicy match-ups and other times the women do. And certainly there are more "star" women players than men in terms of advertising potential. Fans are always on a first-name basis with the top women, but not so much with the men. With that in mind, the women contribute equally to the sport of tennis and pay should reflect as much.

More importantly, though - regardless of stats, hard numbers, or direct comparisons - I applaud the decision because in this day and age it's simply the right thing to do.

The length of matches has never really held any water for me either. The practice of paying men more then women was put in place when women were routinely discriminated against, not because they were playing less tennis then men. To me, it has always seemed like an after-the-fact justification for paying women less. This belief was only reinforced when Wimby so adamantly refused to pay women equally, when only a few thousand dollars was the difference between what the mens winner and womens winner earned.

I am glad they took this step to bring a bit more equality to a sport that is looking to offer more combined mens/womens events.

P.S. I know I am going to get clobbered for this, but I don't really like "The Championships". It has always been my least favorite slam, by far.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying Wimbledon is your least favorite major. We still love ya, Shep.

Meanwhile, some of the men are weighing in on the issue. Tommy Haas doesn't think it's fair that the women will get equal prize money. Ugh. But Andy Murray and Mardy Fish say it's a good thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6388351.stm

Can someone explain why the women do not play best of five?

It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, but women only play best of three because it was thought that women could not sustain over the course of a best of five set match. This is similar to how women's basketball used to be played with 10 players on a team (five on offense, who could only stay on the offensive end of the court, and five on defense, who could only stay on the defensive end of the court).

While the merits of whether men's matches should be played best of five is a good question, but it's always been a non-factor, to me anyway, in the discussion of equal pay for women.

I sure do sound all high and mighty about this, but it really isn't something I feel passionately about. It's nice that they did it though.

Wow, Haas is a jerk, huh? Is he not making enough money to have to complain about the women getting the same?

Good to know that the younger ones got it right, especially Murray. Now if only he could do something with his hair!

The guys on PTI talked about this today and I agree with Kornheiser. Its equal pay for equal drawing potential but its not equal pay for equal work. The guys play best of 5, the women play best of 3. Therefore, I'm not inclined to agree that they deserve equal pay. Then Kornheiser suggest that in the semis and finals the women play best of 5. I actually wouldn't mind that but it will never happen. Haas is only saying things that many of the other ATP players I'm sure feel.

The real problem with suggesting women play 5 sets is that it's an impossible request. Grand Slam tournaments are packed to capacity with men's singles, women's singles, men's & women's dubs, juniors, mixed, et. al. There isn't time enough to add two more sets to all the women's matches without elminating or altering some of the other events ... which, as we saw with doubles experiments, just causes even more of a headache. It's not really fair to penalize the women based on a request of them to which they'll never be able to comply.

Again, I truly think it's worth noting that giving the women equal pay didn't change the amounts they're awarded very much. Percentage wise, it was already very close. Not paying them equally was more a symbollic issue than a financial one. The tournament(s) would incur alot more financial strain by asking the women to all play five sets than does by simply acknowledging their value to the sport of tennis as a whole.

If anyone truly wanted the tournaments to be equal work/equal pay, the men should cut back to best-of-three. But the macho ego would never let that happen either. I'm not a huge fan of three-of-five sets anyhow, because they more often than not are wars of attrition that exceed entertainment value. I used to love when the women's Virginia Slims final was three-of-five, because it was the last match of the year, with the last two women standing having to go the distance. It was special. But more often than not I much more enjoy a condensed, taut three-setter ... regardless of whether it's men's or women's tennis.

good points Gaga...I didn't think about them having to shuffle everything. My not wholeheartedly agreeing with the equal pay has nothing to do with being sexist or anything. But, again...the men play best of 5...the women play best of 3. I mean geez...Serena made all that bank for basically a warm up with Sharapova at the Australian Open final. It just doesn't seem right. But that doesn't mean I'm unhappy with it. I don't want to come across as sounding that way. But in looking at it from a truly objective standpoint its not equal pay for equal work.

I was pretty shocked to hear that Wimbledon changed its policy. I guess they no longer need the extra cash for petunias. I totally agree with those who said the inequality in pay had nothing to do with the men playing more sets. If it were, the women should actually receive less.

The slightly smaller amount they got paid was completely arbitrary and not proportional to the actual playing time. Just a way for them to let the women know they are less valued. To me the biggest draw during the majors is the fact that the best players in the world, both male and female, are competing. If you take one out of the equation then the event loses its specialness. So they have equal value for me and for many spectators. Slighting the women is not fair and sends a poor message.

The women could have changed this years ago if they had just forced Wimbledon's hand and staged a boycott. It would have sucked for the fans but imagine if Venus, Serena, Hingis, Seles, Davenport etc. had all said "Listen guys we're not coming to Wimbledon this year unless we get paid."

As for the idea that women should play best of 5 I say NO WAY! Could you imagine some of those early round matches? Ugh! They did try it for several of years at the season-ending Viginia Slims championships when it was still at Madison Square Garden with mixed results. The Championships match was best of 5 from 1984-1998 but it only went to 5 sets 3 times ('90-Seles over Sabatini, '95 Graf over Huber, '96 Graf over Hingis). I watched alot of those matches and they were more wars of attrition than great tennis. By the end, at least one of the women could barely move. It was kind of pathetic really. Maybe today's women could make it more interesting but I doubt it.

What I find so shortsighted about attitudes like Haas's is the lack of recognition of what the women's game has brought to tennis as a product. Prize money has grown significantly in recent years due, in large part, to the popularity of the women's game. The appeal worldwide of players like the Williams sisters and Sharapova is immeasurable. So for a guy like Haas to complain about the money he's making is ludicrous.