Why should women tennis players get paid the same as men?

Men can certainly do the second of those, if you mean what I think you do. It's a smaller but still thriving industry.

Yes women will always start off on the back foot and playing catch up.

Why is it that the only 2 jobs that women can do that men can't are either unpaid or come with a risk of being murdered?

Also best of 5 sets is naturally going to have the capacity to provide more entertainment.

What is entertaining is also subjective and viewed through a lens of traditional misogyny. Women would always be starting on the back foot.

By what criteria should people be paid? If effort and skill were the criteria, top tennis players would all be due a big pay cut as other professions would be due a rise. If societal usefulness was the criteria, top tennis players would be due a big cut also. And applying the same worldwide we'd all be due big pay cuts here in the UK. In a capitalist system, paying people on merit means paying them according to their financial value, in the case of pro tennis players, this is how much they raise for the tournament organisers. The women's and men's tournaments are separate in many ways, so comparing the pay across each, you could argue, is not a useful comparison.

Of course if your problem is capitalism, that's a different and further reaching issue.

Tennis isn't a salaried profession so the argument around sets played makes no sense. Ultimately it comes down to economics, women should be paid according to the income they bring in for the tournament organisers. Whether that is more, less, or the same as men.

Thanks Buffy! Sorry to get so mad - it's just it really pisses me off this constant having to justify.... McEnroe was saying the other day how tennis should be proud of the fact that it is one of the only sports that really offers equal opportunity to women.

I wanted to jump through the tv screen and hug him - the thought of a man actually being happy that women are afforded the same dreams as men.

"Sorry, I appear to have been misinformed about pay at Wimbledon. But, if women really want equal rights, equal pay, and yes I am a woman, then we should be prepared to do the same amount of work or training etc as the men, that way no one can say we do not deserve it as we are equal."

-FFS how many times do we have to point out that the WTA have offered to play 5 sets but it was refused due to scheduling issues? It would be better for the women to have 5 sets especially in the final because the matches could turn around more. So yes they want to play 5 sets - but they're not allowed - it's NOT THEIR FAULT.

-Women tennis players train just as hard as the men, dedicate their whole fucking lives to it , but yes men have the good fortune to be born with superior muscle strength - NOT THEIR FAULT

• and WHY oh fucking WHY the ONE time that women get a good deal and are treated with some respect do we get people coming down on them? What about male football stars who get shitloads while the women players have to fight for funding, have to get a bloody petition to get the same seats on the flight home? What about women's football being banned in the 30s because it was too popular? And men's football benefitting from their absence whilst women spend decades trying to get back in the game? WHAT ABOUT THAT?

What the fuck do you want? A random draw so that all the women go out in the first round? Would that make you happy? Think about girls who look up to the tennis players and thinking "hey I could be her!"- Is that what you want? To pat them on the head and say "Well you'll never make it past the first round and you'll never be as good as a boy!" Is that seriously what you want? To rub their inferiority in? To shit on their dreams?!

It's more than prize money - it's about symbolism - it's about telling women & girls that they should be the best in their field, in their group, without this constant assault on their confidence by telling them they can never be as good....

They deserve the equal pay for just having to put up with this shit all the time. Jesus...

Djokovic won the 2013 Dubai Tennis Championship by winning five 2-set matches. He played fewer sets than Kvitova who won the women's event. Kvitova played the same number of matches, but she needed a third set to win the final. I believe they received equal prize money. Was that fair?

The world's top-ranked male tennis player, Djokovic, has played 47 single matches so far this year.

2 sets = 40% (19 matches)
3 sets = 45% (21 matches)
4 sets = 9% (4 matches)
5 sets = 6% (3 matches)

He has only had to play more than 3 sets in 7 matches. Should he have received less money because he has not played "enough" sets?

Most tennis tournaments (non GS) are single sex and the male tournaments generally pay out more than the womens.

You could make an argument that in banning women from playing 5 sets you are discriminating against them. Look at the number of 5 set matches played this Wimbledon. In fact look only at yesterday's first semi and Murray's quarter final - the two finalists tomorrow have both had to come through 5 setters in the draw to get there. Many Wimbledon finalists have had to come through 5 setters in the past to reach the final (and to win the final - think e.g. Nadal/Federer's final in 2008, one of the greatest of all time).

For women they have no chance to come back from a two set deficit. That is discriminating again them.

There is also the argument that sports where endurance (as opposed to explosive power) becomes a factor women excel - think long distance swimming, ironman, triathlon etc.

All this argues in favour of best of five sets for women. It's the stubborn people in charge who aren't letting it happen.

Having said that I think Billie-Jean King has a point when she said that reducing the men's to best of three might keep older players in the game longer. Though given that it is only the slams that have 5 sets the difference could be marginal.

That's a point actually. In the men's singles semi-finals yesterday Djocovic won his match in five sets, Murray in four. Djocovic is clearly therefore the superior entertainer and should receive a higher prize. That's right, isn't it?

An awful lot of the men's matches don't last to five sets. Do you want their pay docked? With the length of rallies and tie breaks a lot of the time a women's three set match lasts as long as the men's.

This is all so stupid.

It's a commercial tournament, if the women's games sell out and attract equal viewing figures as the men's games then that justifies equal money. Who cares about the number of sets?

In the days of Sampras and Lendl banging the serve down the men's game was unwatchable so until the recent rise of Murray I've mostly watched women's games and I don't think I've been alone, there weren't many calls to cut the men's prizes at the time despite the awful spectacle served up.

I only ever watch Wimbledon though.