i find it disturbing that the wimbledon organisers have finally allowed the equal prize money for both male and female. last year’s women’s singles champion, amelie mauresmo, earned $1.117 million, compared to the $1.17 million men’s champion roger federer. that's a difference of $53k.

honestly, i don't think the female players deserve the same amount of prize money. men play the best of 5 sets, meaning they needed to win at least 3 sets and losing 2 to seal the match while women play the best of 3 sets, allowing them to win the match in 2 sets and losing 1. this goes to show that the the male players spend a much longer time on court than their female counterparts. to be rewarded the same amount of money for more work is unfair.

in addition, the disparity in the standard of tennis between the top female players against their lowly ranked opponents is stark. the women's world no 20 is a german by the name of anna-lena groenefeld. she has won 1 career title and her best grand slam showing is a quater-final berth at roland garros. in contrast, the men's world no 20 is australian lleyton hewitt. hewitt owns 25 career titles, 2 of which are grand slam titles. to groenefeld's credit, she is only 21 while hewitt is a tour veteran at 26.

male players are almost even in terms of their quality of tennis that they bring on court. so it isn't suprising to see the higher ranked players crash out of tournaments to lesser-known opponents.

the wta claims that it wasn't about the money, it was about gender equality. well, if the prize money for men would have been $12k while women earn $10k, i highly doubt that this debate would even arise. $2000 is nothing compared to what they could get in reality, $53 000. and as mentioned by an article in today's straits times, tennis is a sport created by men, for men. while i thoroughly support the participation of both genders, the sport imposes different requirements for each gender.

it is for sports like soccer and billiards where equal prize money can be introduced, if not already done so. both men's and women's soccer require players to score and defend in order to win the game in 90 minutes. women's soccer does not impose a 60-minute halftime, and neither do each team field 13 players on the pitch. the rules and regulations of soccer are the same for both genders. so why don't the female players earn as much as the henrys and terrys of europe? primarily due to the lack of viewership and support for women's soccer due to no fault of the players, i presume. so how fair is this then? they play as hard as the male counterparts. so why can't they ask for higher prize money as well? in fact, fifa, the world governing body for soccer, does not offer cash prizes at the women's world cup. so if you want to talk about political correctness, how correct is that?

i feel really affected by wimbledon's new policy. the reality is, the men deserve more prize money. if equal prize money has to stand, then why can't the men play the best of 3 sets at grand slams too?