Subject: Equal Prize Money for Women at Wimbledon

I still think the women get a good deal, playing 60% of the amount of time that men do if it goes to the full length. Added to the fact that there's a massive gulf between the top female tennis players and the next tier which means that a lot of the games are decided in the minimum length of time (2 sets), the lack of comparative athleticism from the women makes me assume a lesser payment for the chicks is the right thing. I have no idea what argument they use/used for equal prize money.

Consider this a bump.

I've had arguments with people on this, and my point is, if women want to be classed as equals then they have to do everything to the same level, for the same amount of time, tbh the men should start something up saying they feel they are being discriminated against, taken it to the court of arbitration and I'm pretty confident they would win.

All it really means is that the big rich fat cat sponsors have to shell out a bit more cash, no point in getting our knickers in a twist about it :)

If its the same pay it should be 5 sets too. And he is right about the quality too. When Chris Evertt was at the top of her game and world champ, she said she often played her husband - bobbins UK player David Lloyd - and could never get a game off him.

Whilst I think the likes of the Williams sisters etc. would have whipped him silly, I still don't think the quality, fanbase (outside of gentleman's magazines) or competition is high enough to justify it.

If I was a bloke tenniser I would complain about sexism.