With the All England Club today expected to announce an ending to the inequality of pay at Wimbledon, John McEnroe argued last night that equal prize-money at the world's most important tennis tournament "would be setting an example to the rest of society in general".

First but not equals: Amelie Mauresmo and Roger Federer



Wimbledon has been the only one of the four grand slam tournaments not to pay the same to their men's and women's champions, with Roger Federer last year collecting £655,000, which was £30,000 more than France's Amelie Mauresmo. The women's game have attacked the All England Club for their stance, with the WTA Tour last year describing it as "morally indefensible" and "taking a Victorian-era view".

McEnroe, a three-time singles champion at Wimbledon, suggested that equal prize-money would help improve both the tournament's image and also how the world saw the sport.

"I think when you've got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay. It would be setting an example to the rest of society in general to have equal prize-money. There's probably no other sport, and very few professions in this world, where a woman can earn as much as a man," McEnroe told The Daily Telegraph. "I'm a father of two boys and four girls and I just think kids will see that and say, 'Hey, look at that, that's good what they are doing at Wimbledon'."

The All England Club have previously defended the imbalance by saying that women had best-of-three-set matches while the men had best-of-five contests, and that the leading women earned more than the top men as they also felt able to compete in the doubles. But McEnroe said that the rewards at Wimbledon should not be about how much time the player spent on court, but about entertainment.

"The old argument is that the guys are out there playing best of five, which is true. But I've seen a lot of three-hour movies which weren't as good as the 1½ hour movies, so that doesn't automatically mean if you are out there for longer that you deserve more money," he said.

"Physically, there's no comparison between men and women, and it's not as if they are going out there and beating the men. But that's not the point either. I just think having equal prize-money for men and women would be symbolic for tennis players. It would be a great notch on our belts that we are moving on."

The All England Club traditionally announce the pay deal for that year's tournament in April, but they yesterday called an "urgent" news conference for this morning. Officials and members yesterday declined to discuss what might or might not be on the agenda, with a high level of secrecy throughout British tennis.

It is understood that Wimbledon are most likely to copy the Australian Open and the US Open, where all their male and female competitors have been paid the same amount. The French Open last year awarded the same pay packets to their men's and women's champions, but that was seen by some as fudging the issue, as the women's runner-up, and all other female players, were paid less than their male equivalents.

Well its about time I guess.

That said , I find the mens game way better and more interesting than the women's game these days though.

I find them both of equal interest but... I am not too sure about this equal prize money thing. I guess I am being controversial here.
I am ll for equal pay and find it absolutely bizarre and beyond reason when it isn't, but only if the "job" is exactly the same.

I sorta understand the argument that the men play a lot more than the women, just in the sense it is the best of 5 sets whereas the women are best of 3.... so therefore that can sorta justify the difference.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is good it has happened but can see the argument against it.

I could see that argument if Wimbledon had ever given or would ever give women the opportunity to play 5 sets but they won't.

The 5/3 sets things was set in place 100 years ago and since it will never change (well if anything it's more likely the men will be reduced to three sets) it seems unfair to continue to pay the women less for something they have no control over.

At the end of the day the difference in pay is so minimal that it's more to do with Wimbledon being bloody minded than any real point being made.

Seems it is official..
BBC Article

I reckon they should lower the prize money too. £500k is enough imo. :devil:

I'd be a bit annoyed if I knew I was being paid the same for five days work, as a women was for four days work.

If the men are peeved off then they should listen fo Peter Fleming. :ok:

Yes, tennis has been so disgustingly unequal with the sexes ...

... all the pros on the ATP circuit can only dream of earning what Miss Lovelypova earns ... roflmao

[and yes, before anyone replies, i am really talking endorsements rather than prize money]