Women to receive equal pay at Wimbledon

[Scott]

I know this isn't fashion,glam or celebrity but i think this is such an historic moment for women's tennis and women's sport in general....especially considering the most prestigious event in the world.

By Ola Galal
LONDON (Reuters) - Wimbledon will pay women and men equal prize money for the first time at this year's grasscourt grand slam, All England Club chairman Tim Phillips said on Thursday.
The tournament broke with its tradition to join the Australian and U.S. Opens in paying equal prize money across the board in all events and in all stages of competition.


"This year the committee decided unanimously that the time was right to move to equal prize money and bring to a close a long progression," Phillips told a news conference.
Prize money for the 2007 Championships will be announced in April.
Wimbledon, which dates back to 1877, went "open" in 1968 but had been criticized since then for maintaining a discrepancy in the prize money offered to its male and female competitors.
Last year Roger Federer earned 655,000 pounds ($1.28 million) for winning the men's title while women's champion Amelie Mauresmo took home 625,000 pounds.
"It's definitely a victory for women in general. I said it was a matter of time, and it was," Mauresmo said in Dubai.
"I think most of the people agreed it's not a matter of how long we (women) spend on the court. The men are always going to play longer because they play best of five sets. It's just a matter of being equal."
STAND DEFENDED
The All England Club had previously defended its stand by highlighting that women contested best-of-three-set matches while the men played best of five.
Wimbledon club chief executive Ian Ritchie said on Thursday: "We do listen to what everybody says to us. We consult with the various people involved and we've had discussions with the WTA, the ATP and with other partners involved in the game.
"The key thing to stress is that we're an independent group of people on the committee who make up their own mind at the time that we feel is appropriate and we feel this is the right time."
The French Open introduced equal pay for their men's and women's singles champions in 2006 but remain the only major tournament not to offer the same prize money throughout the rounds.
Wimbledon's decision to offer women parity was welcomed by the WTA tour and players alike.
"This is an historic and defining moment for women in the sport of tennis, and a significant step forward for the equality of women in our society," WTA Tour chief executive Larry Scott said in a statement.
WELCOME FROM VENUS
Venus Williams, a former triple champion at Wimbledon, added: "The greatest tennis tournament in the world has reached an even greater height today. I applaud today's decision by Wimbledon, which recognizes the value of women's tennis."
The battle for equal pay for women's tennis had become a perennial topic at Wimbledon.
Last year, Scott blasted Wimbledon for a "Victorian era view" while Britain's Sports Minister Tessa Jowell had written to Phillips urging him to end the disparity.
Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair weighed into the debate when he backed the equal pay campaign in parliament during the 2006 championships.
"When Wimbledon pioneered Open tennis in 1968, the ladies singles champion Billie Jean King got 750 pounds and Rod Laver got 2,000 pounds," Phillips said.
"So the ladies champion got 37.5 percent of the money that the men's champion got. By stages, that has moved up until in 2006 when Mauresmo won, the precise relativity was 95.4 percent."
King, who changed the face of women's sport by campaigning for equal rights, said: "This news has been a long time coming and I am thrilled Wimbledon has joined the club of grand slam events offering equal prize money for men and women.
"Wimbledon is one of the most respected events in all of sports and now with women and men paid on an equal scale, it demonstrates to the rest of the world that this is the right thing to do for the sport, the tournament and the world."
Phillips said 55 percent of Wimbledon's spectators are women so he hoped the prize upgrade would resonate with them. Ritchie said the new move would not affect ticket pricing.

*yahoo.com

 

[smartarse]

It's about time!

 

[Salvatore]

That's very good!

 

[Diamond Star]

It's about time!

Definitely, good news!

 

[taperjeangirl]

So if things are going to be equal will the women start to play five sets the same as the men?

 

[strawberry daiquiri]

So if things are going to be equal will the women start to play five sets the same as the men?

Indeed. As far I'm concerned, they play substantially less so they should get substantially less...

 

[justlooking]

^ I agree with TJG. They've got to get decent at playing best of three first.

I mean seriously- the womens game is sooo out of shape and has been for a few years. It's completely booring. I used to LOVE the WTA when it was Davenport, the Williams sisters coming up, Capriati returning, Hingis hanging in there. It was exciting.
The ATP Tour is where i get my tennis thrills and it never lets you down. The level of play is so high and the difference between the top twenty (after say Mr Federer - good old Roger) is no where near the massive gap in the top ten of the WTA.

I'm all for equality but seriously, the quality and the standard should be equal too.

 

[Diamond Star]

^I totally forgot they play less sets..

 

[Scott]

i don't even know if they took that into account,ultimately. i know during the battle,it was oft brought up but i think alot of it too is that women have substantially brought much attention to tennis.

but do you guys really think that's a fair arguement though? women i don't think have the strength,like men,to last in 5 sets(there are already so many injuries as it is). if they cut down the 5-setters on the men's side to three i can see that as they do only play best two out of three in alot of the smaller tourney's.

 

[Scott]

what do you mean,there's no quality? look at the fight of just the top three players...Sharapova,Mauresmo and Henin. Then you got a horde of younger,supremely talented yongsters fighting to get in the top 10...with great wins.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Far fewer people watch the women's - they're already earning out of proportion with how many people care...

 

[taperjeangirl]

For me the womens game is boring...they should play more sets now if they are to get the equal pay.

 

[pinkvogue]

I think this is a great moment for women's sports. To finally see them considered equal to their male counterparts is very inspiring. It shows that female athletes have a lot to offer and should be taken just as serious as the guys.

 

[taperjeangirl]

But they are not equal the women play best of three and men best of five and the pay should reflect that.

 

[pinkvogue]

Why not reduce the amount of sets men play. I'm sure the men would appreciate that more. Just because the women only play three sets does not mean that they don't play as well or as hard as men do. I sure they put their heart and soul in every game they play no matter how long or short it is. I think five is excessive anyway.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Why not reduce the amount of sets men play.

Because people watch five set tennis.

 

[pinkvogue]

People also watch three. Why is everyone making such a big deal about this? This isn't hurting the men in anyway. They play the same sport what's wrong with having equal pay. I'm sure they didn't just waltz out and say I'm only going to play three sets. Maybe, in the future they will increase their sets to five just like they increased their pay.

 

[Trista]

Exactly and as a sports fan, it's good for women's sports.

 

[jml2]

I don't think the pay standard should be based on how many sets are played, but what the audience numbers are. Sport is entertainment after all, not a construction site

 

[Scott]

^that's exactly everybody's arguement. women have attracted so many spectators to the sport so in that they indefinitely deserve some recognition.

it's not about how much time they spend on the court. i don't even find that a feesable arguement anymore. just remember when Venus won against Lindsay in '05 they spent more time on court than Federer did in his four or five sets. and as far as quality and depth,i am so sick of people saying that it's more boring than the men. i'm sorry but i think the men are one-dimensional....frankly,with federer dominating so much,isn't a bit of a contradiction to say women's is more boring? i like federer but nobody is really challenging him unlike on the women's where it is alot more competitive.....

the women deserve this. they have done ALOT for the sport.