All is not equal for tennis stars
Thursday June 25 2009
I would like to congratulate Ian O'Doherty on his article highlighting the unbalanced nature of the pay structure for Wimbledon's annual tournament ('Some are more equal than others', Irish Independent, June 23).
It has been sticking in the back of my throat for the last year or so.
Ian O'Doherty has highlighted how the women players get paid equal amounts despite only playing a potential three sets, instead of the five played by men.
This boils down to the women players being paid more per hour than their male counterparts.
If this happened in an office in Dublin there would be uproar.
Playing a possible five sets was also suggested to the top female players to justify their apparent pay increase, but this was gunned down.
Some of these female players may put the argument forward that people turn out in equal measure for both the women's and men's matches and thus the gate receipts are the same.
My argument against this would be that it is consumers and live tennis fans that are being burned here as they are paying the same entry fee to see a possible two hours less of tennis, than if they went to see a men's match.
The last argument that I can think of, that I believe could justify this questionable raise that the women players have received, is that their top players are just as marketable as the top male players.
This is simply not the case. Most casual sports fans can name perhaps four to five of the top women players around at the minute, while they can easily name 10 to 15 of the top male players.
Ian O'Doherty, for controversy's sake, used the words, "we want the same money because we are women and we don't want to do the same work, because we are women".
It's a little over the top, but it does reflect what's going on here; and I want to congratulate him on having the courage to highlight it.
Conor Brennan
Kilmessan, Co Meath
