Henry Imler February 23rd, 2007

I was hoping to beat Dave to this one, but I am 37 minutes short.

Wimbledon agrees to equal prize money

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) — After years of holding out
against equal prize money, Wimbledon bowed to public pressure Thursday
and agreed to pay women players as much as the men 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.”

Not everyone thinks this is a just system, however: Keith Burgess-Jackson :: Injustice.

If you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time,
you know that there are two kinds of injustice: treating likes
differently and treating unlikes the same. Read this.
Female tennis players are going to be paid as much as male tennis
players at Wimbledon. This is unjust, for men play five sets and women
three. If and when women start playing five sets, or men three, I’ll
stop complaining.

I am not so sure about this line of argument. Why not break it down
and prorate the monetary award by how many over all sets the player
took to win the tournament? That would be absurd, and so is basing the
pay on number of matches someone has to play. Say the first ranked
player got a “by” in the first round. If that person wins the
tournament, should they receive less money than someone who won and did
not get a “by” in the first round? Of course not. The status of winning
Wimbledon is the same for a women and for a man. It is the same
accomplishment. Hence, it should pay the same.

• Philosophy
• Comments(3)