http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

Wimbledon pays equal prize money

The Wimbledon Championships will hand women and men equal prize money for the first time at this year's tournament.

The announcement by the All England Club brings the tournament into line with other Grand Slams following criticism from officials and players.

Wimbledon joins the United States and Australia in paying equal money across the board, from the champions down to the first-round losers in all events.

The French Open only offers the same cheque to the champions.

The All England Club had previously defended the difference by saying that women had best-of-three-set matches while the men had best-of-five contests.

On Thursday, Tim Phillips, chairman of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, announced that the championship committee had decided "that the time is right to bring this subject to a logical conclusion and eliminate the difference".

"We believe our decision to offer equal prize money provides a boost for the game as a whole and recognises the enormous contribution that women players make to the game and to Wimbledon," said Phillips.

"We hope it will also encourage girls who want a career in sport to choose tennis as their best option. In short, good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon."

Phillips stated that the cost to the club would be £600,000 and that the decision taken on Wednesday night was unanimous.

Triple Wimbledon champion Venus Williams expressed her delight at the news, saying: "The greatest tennis tournament in the world has reached an even greater height today.

"I applaud today's decision by Wimbledon, which recognises the value of women's tennis.

"The 2007 Championships will have even greater meaning and significance to me and my fellow players."

Another former champion Maria Sharapova said: "Wimbledon has always been a leader in so many ways in the world of tennis. This decision will only strengthen the bond between women players and one of the world's great sporting events."

Three-time men's Wimbledon champion John McEnroe also backed the decision.

"I think when you've got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay," he told the Daily Telegraph.

"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."

Fellow American Billie Jean King, one of the leading campaigners in the move for equality, said: "Women's tennis is the leader in women's sports. Equal prize money is a no-brainer."

Peter Fleming, with whom McEnroe won four Wimbledon doubles titles and three US Opens, told BBC Five Live: "The difference last year was so small - it was a symbolic gesture for the last couple of years - but finally the club have realised it's not worth the effort to maintain it."

Fleming said he hoped that any male players angry at the decision would see the light.

"They'll grow up at some point," he said.

Last year Prime Minister Tony Blair and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell joined the Lawn Tennis Association, the governing body of British tennis, and the Women's Tennis Association, the rulers of the women's game worldwide, in calling for an end to the inequality.

Larry Scott, the WTA's chief executive, praised the decision and urged France to copy Wimbledon.

"I'm hoping this really helps convince them that they need to go the whole way," Scott said.

Reigning Wimbledon champion Amelie Mauresmo said: "It's great that they did it and now the French Open is going to struggle staying back."

Prize money levels for this year's Wimbledon will be announced in late April.

So about time :D

Finaly, parity and equal recognition for tennis :bow:

Wow, I didn't think it would be across the board :o

Well done Wimbledon :D

More money for Venus or Serena this year roflmao

so they're going to play best of 5?

No but apparently they're not petty and sexist anymore ;)

No, but they're going to be working and fighting just as hard ;)

As if they needed it roflmao

But the point is, finally recognition for so much effort from the WTA over the years at Wimby. It was a joke when Venus and Lindsay were getting paid less than the men after their brilliant final in 05 :rolleyes:

I liked Vee's comments :D

You could tell Sharpie's came straight from her publicist :rolleyes: roflmao

Yeah, that '05 final lasted longer than the men's one :wacko:

yep, for approximately 65 minutes ;)

Venus has been trying to get this movement passed for a while :D

Yeah sharpy aaint that articulate :rolleyes: roflmao

Beats Fed's 25 mins roflmao

Isnt that usually how long Fed is on court these days :rolleyes:

the women work just as hard, and anyway people come to watch 3 set matches for women and 5 set matches for men, it doesnt make it anymore different :shrug:

Exactly, they generate the same amount of money, so they should get an equal slice of the fund :)

Remember Rome 2006?

the last time Fed got taken to 5 sets in a 5 set match? Shall I get out my calendar to see when that will happen again?...it's looking good for 2009 :lol:

Remember Wimbledon 2005 :shrug:

To me this is the bottom line, if the above is true then i think they made the right decision.

:lol:

I wonder if raising the monies paid will mean a good excuse to raise entrance fees.

:)

Wimbledon will be historic this year now :D

Now c'mon RG, pull your finger out :rolleyes:

Well I think this is more a move to be "politically correct" than anything else.

I think if they are serious about this they should start women playing best of 5 set matches, and if this means extending GS Tournaments by an extra week then so be it.

Many of the top women fit in doubles matches around their singles matches because they play best of 3. Many of the top men do not do this. They get prize money from the doubles as well as the singles, what kind of prize money do the ladies get from the doubles? Does this help even things out? I would be interested in stats on that one.

If at work women worked 3 days and I worked 5 and they were paid the same as me, I wouldn't be overly impressed to be honest.

I can see why it has been done, but I don't have to agree with it.

Well, that thing that crossed my mind but as long as the profitability equals, it makes no difference

I'd like to see that proven. At the moment that is simply opinion.

Thats true I suppose :)

The way I look at it also is, they are getting paid for doing a professional job. If you get to the final and win you should get paid the same regardless of gender or how many hours of work it took you to get there. Other professionals such as doctors and teachers get paid the same amount each month regardless of how many hours they have to put in that month. I see no reasons why it should be different for professional tennis players :shrug:

Plus there is the whole PC element...and being politically correct can be a good thing, and BJKing said, it means you are sending out the right message.

Well I have seen some stats that prove more people watched the Wimbledon Final in 2005 for the women than the men's final. Of course that isn't conclusive but it does seem to be accepted these days that the WTA makes as much money as the ATP :shrug:

I'd just be a happier bunny if women played 5 set matches as well. That would send out a much more "equal" message for me. After all, in athletics women compete at 100m sprint just like the men, they don't shorten the distance.

I know it's the organisers that need to change this and it's not up to the players, and I know it won't ever happen as it would be too big a change. But to me it's the most equal way of doing it.

Well that's a fair comment, but I think 5 set matches would make it too much of a test of endurance for the women rather than tennis, even at Wimbledon with the shorter points. Afterall women are more physically fragile...it's a very difficult tight rope to walk.

But all in all I definitely feel the right decision has been made :)

This is true as long as the performance is comparable but that's not always that simple. Some male professionals can't be compared with women in the same profession (Michelle Wie/Tiger Woods?)

Women more physically fragile? :o :o I'd wager Serena has bigger arms than Gonzalez!!! :P :P

In reality, its a tough decision and one can argue that with the amounts they get it won't bother the high earner anyway. I just hope the ones that get hit by this the most aren't the fans and their wallets.

Yes poor me :( Im on a budget as it is :(

I used to enjoy the equal pay arguaments on the BBC!!! I wonder if anyone can dig any of those up.....

About bloody time. :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

Sad it took them about 40 years to listen to Billie Jean King! roflmao

errrr ... no! Did somethign remarkable happen in women's tennis perchance ;) :D

This is a disgrace. If you want someone to cook you average food, go to the chippy. If you want good food, go to a restaurant; just don't expect to pay the same price. Men's tennis is superior to women's tennis in every way, even with the joke top 10 we currently have in the ATP.

As for the argument about women drawing in equal viewing figures as men, I'd love to see some statistics. It's still a pathetic argument even if it is true, but I'd be interested to see if it even qualifies as an argument in its own right.

The bigwigs at Wimbledon should be ashamed of themselves.

But by that argument, should there be equal pay for the junior, over 35 and doubles champions? The only thing that really makes it the "right" thing to do is political correctness. It really should have more to do with the kind of revenue both bring in. If that is, indeed, equal, then the pay should be equal. If the men's game is a bigger draw, they should get paid more. If the women's game is a bigger draw, they should get paid more.

Of course, this probably was the right decision by the organizers, as it had become such a distraction, with them being the only slams left with a pay difference, and the fact that the pay difference had shrunk to such a small percentage that it was largely symbolic, anyway.

You have a point there. But I thoroughly believe that the quality of the women's especially in the latter stages is AS high as the quality in the men's tournament, and therefore comparable 'jobs' are done along the way to the final. Whereas this is not true of the juniors etc. the quality of play isn't as good therefore not comparable...

Accepted by whom? I think the ATP definitely makes more money. I was going to add up all the prize money on the ATP calendar vs. WTA, but that was too many numbers to fool with, so I just did it for Jan. and Feb. (excluding the AO, where I know the men and women were paid equally). The totals:

WTA $6.6 Million
ATP $10 Million

So . . . about 50% more prize money for the men. If the women are really bringing in as much as or more money than the men, I think the WTA tournaments need to up their prize money. I suspect that the truth is, WTA tourneys don't bring in quite as much money.

Ok well I didn't know the difference was that much :rolleyes:

Perhaps it's closer in the Grand Slams, I don't know though :shrug:

Maybe as competitive in the latter stages (or maybe more so at times), but I don't know about as high quality. I think the men's junior champion would generally have a good shot a beating the women's champion. :whistle: