Feminists Rejoice!!!!! Woo HOOOOOOO

[NotanOtter]

about time too!

[paulaplumpbottom]

Why not get rid of doubles? Does anybody actually watch it?

[Freckle]

Isn't Wimbledon the only Grand Slam tournament that has 5 set matches? I thought the others were only 3 sets for both men and women (where it does make sense for money parity).

[Caligula]

I think they should cut them all down to three sets so there's more time to spend in the tent...

[nearlythree]

If that's right, coppertop, then the organisers should scrap the interminable doubles matches so that the women can play five sets. I'm not a big tennis fan but I often feel cheated watching the womens' game.

[Freckle]

To be honest, the better value for money is probably the drink-it-in-the-tent option. How far would £100 go at Wimbledon - if you opt for no strawberries??

[Caligula]

LOL. That's the thing Freckle, lots of people prefer the women's game, because they say it is less boring than the men's one. (personally I'd just sit in the entertainment tent and drink the pimms, I think they're all boring.)

I mean nice as opposed to Wagner, Marina!

[coppertop]

Sue Barker was on the news saying that the women have offered to play 5 sets but were turned down because the organisers can only just manage to fit everything in with the 3 sets they play now.

[Gingerbear]

But if they had to play a minimum of 3 sets, wouldn't they need to loosen their stays, or else they would have an attack of the vapours?

(Think that was Tim Henman's argument?)

[Freckle]

I said entertainment of similar style and entertainment value. I wouldn't compare a circus with a film.

My personal view is that, if I have £100 to spend on a tennis ticket, I'd probably rather spend it on a men's game than a women's game as it provides better value for money.

[Marina]

nice Verdi? Steady there caligula

[Caligula]

Er, I wouldn't judge an entertainment by how long it is, tbh. Just because Wagner's operas go on for 2 days, it wouldn't make me pay more for the ticket than a nice Verdi!

I also don't think many people would be impressed by the argument that they should pay more for a ticket to see a two and a half hour film, than an hour's circus show. And if the NT started to do Shakespeare's plays unedited and charge more for the longer versions, no-one would go.

Surely you judge each entertainment on its own terms, not on how long it takes versus another form of entertainment.

[Spidermama]

Fantastic. About time indeed. In a few years we'll look back and say, 'And do you know, it was only a few years ago that men got paid significantly more than women at wimbledon' and our kids will go

Let's hope employers take a look and it leads the way for a pay revolution which is also ridiculously overdue. Don't get me started on this as I can feel theblood pressure creeping up.

[glitterfairy]

Brilliant news and about time too.

[Blu]

Are Wimbledon tickets cheaper for women's games?

[NotanOtter]

wonder if the 'trophy' will still be a plate

[TeetheCeeofDavedom]

I can't believe that this has only just happened. It's just so stupid and archaic to pay women less and give them shorter playing times. It's just pathetic. Oh a woman can go through hours and hours of labour and push a child out of her vag but she can't play a game of tennis for the same length of time as a a man. Oh kiss my arse!

[Freckle]

At the end of the day, tennis is a form of entertainment. Would you expect to pay the same price for a ticket to see a show that only lasted 30 minutes as you would for one which lasts 5 hours? Shows of similar style and entertainment value? No, you wouldn't. You'd expect to pay more for the longer show.

It is the fans who end up paying a large proportion of the winnings and, if I were paying £100 to see a match and were given the choice of a men's match or a women's match, I know which would be better value for money.

[paulaplumpbottom]

I do agree that women can play five sets. Women who play tennis are so athletic now. Venus Williams could probably do more than that no bother.

[nearlythree]

Sorry, but to say that women can't play five stes of tennis just goes back to the dark ages when they weren't allowed to run marathons or even take part in 10,000m or triple jump. If Paula Radcliffe can run a marathon then Amelie Mauresmo can play five sets of tennis. Agree with Freckle, it's women expecting special treatment, not equality.

[paulaplumpbottom]

This is good news. Its something that has gotten up my nose for a long time.

[Caligula]

No, it's acknowledging that men and women are different but equal.

Saying that they should play the same as men do, is like saying that the man's game is the norm. It's not. Women are 50% of the population. And they're different from men, so of course their game is different. Doesn't mean it's inferior though.

[mm22bys]

Agree. Equal pay for equal work. Imagine the uproar if we only worked part-time but still got full-time salaries / wages.

I am all for equality, but if they want the same pay as the men, make them play best of 5 sets too.

Would be very dull though, even alot of the best of 3 sets are so one-sided!

[Freckle]

I don't think this does women any favours at all. It's like saying we are worthy of equal money, but not of equal work.

If women want the same money, they should be prepared to do the same work for it - i.e. minimum of 3 sets, max of 5.

[donnie]

woman can play two sets but men always play a minimum of three.

[Eleusis]

Do women play shorter games? I thought they just played fewer games?