Don't be confused by the heading. I am not a male chauvinist. I believe that all people are equal. But I came across some very interesting stats recently that made me sit up and think.
I am talking about the Australian Open 2012. Since the last year or so, all the grand slams have bowed to the suggestion calling for equal prize money for both men and women athletes. When it was implemented, I completely believed that we were going the right way. After all, as athletes, men and women should be treated equally. However, since the US Open final, I have come to realize that my thinking was wrong. It is a bad idea to give women money equivalent to men. They deserve less, much less.
It is not a wrong statement that the tennis world is riding high on the shoulder of the ATP, not WTA. Men's tennis is touching new highs every year while the women's tennis has been reaching new lows. Men's tennis has been in news for the great rivalries being created, historical matches being played, some all time greats being produced. Women's tennis is in news for producing four different grand slam champions in a year, the world no1 not having won a grand slam, the faulty ranking systems. I am not saying women's tennis is a mess, I am just saying that at the moment, men's tennis is at a much, much higher level.
Yet all this still has nothing to do with prize money. But now for a moment, think. For all those who saw the men's final and women's final, did Novak Djokovic after his stirring effort deserved the same money as Victoria Azarenka? The women's final lasted 82 minutes, two minutes more than the first set of men's final, which in itself lasted 353 minutes. To see Novak tear his shirt after the win made you believe that he had earned every penny of the $2.3 million.
The first argument that may come up is that I am picking the occasion in which men's final was the longest in the history of slam finals. But over the last year, no grand slam women's final has lasted longer than two sets. One the contrary, 17 sets of the highest quality have been played in the last four men's grand slam finals. Look back in the last five years and I can remember atleast seven finals of great quality from the men's side. From women's side, I just have one memory. And it is not just about the finals. It is about how the whole tournament panned out. You will come across phrases like-"She has dropped just 10 games in three matches" indicating a women's form. True as that might be, it also indicates the lack of depth in women's tennis. In the men's side, you had Andy Muray, the semi finalist who nearly took out the eventual champion, losing a set in the first round itself.
The second argument would be that the women's champion was so dominant that the match was one sided. But that is again a weak argument. Dominance that Federer, Nadal and now Djokovic have shown is much higher than any dominance from women's side. Yet they have not even won half of their grand slams in straight sets. They have been made to work hard by (mostly)each other or some other upcoming star. That is sadly not the case with women's tennis.
The weirdest thing is that even the tickets to the finals of each event are differently priced. For men's final it was $369 and for women's it was $289. Why were the tickets not evenly prized if the prize money is? Because even the organizers know which is the event that is bound to attract more people. Djokovic earned $6515 for every minute on court while Azarenka earned $28,048 for each minute on court. The men's final had 11 games per set and the women's final had a measly 7.5.
These stats clearly indicate that somewhere something is wrong. It is analogous to paying a women twice the amount for working half the time as her male counterpart in a corporate world.
Once again, in quest for equality, we are moving towards gross inequality.
I am talking about the Australian Open 2012. Since the last year or so, all the grand slams have bowed to the suggestion calling for equal prize money for both men and women athletes. When it was implemented, I completely believed that we were going the right way. After all, as athletes, men and women should be treated equally. However, since the US Open final, I have come to realize that my thinking was wrong. It is a bad idea to give women money equivalent to men. They deserve less, much less.
It is not a wrong statement that the tennis world is riding high on the shoulder of the ATP, not WTA. Men's tennis is touching new highs every year while the women's tennis has been reaching new lows. Men's tennis has been in news for the great rivalries being created, historical matches being played, some all time greats being produced. Women's tennis is in news for producing four different grand slam champions in a year, the world no1 not having won a grand slam, the faulty ranking systems. I am not saying women's tennis is a mess, I am just saying that at the moment, men's tennis is at a much, much higher level.
Yet all this still has nothing to do with prize money. But now for a moment, think. For all those who saw the men's final and women's final, did Novak Djokovic after his stirring effort deserved the same money as Victoria Azarenka? The women's final lasted 82 minutes, two minutes more than the first set of men's final, which in itself lasted 353 minutes. To see Novak tear his shirt after the win made you believe that he had earned every penny of the $2.3 million.
The first argument that may come up is that I am picking the occasion in which men's final was the longest in the history of slam finals. But over the last year, no grand slam women's final has lasted longer than two sets. One the contrary, 17 sets of the highest quality have been played in the last four men's grand slam finals. Look back in the last five years and I can remember atleast seven finals of great quality from the men's side. From women's side, I just have one memory. And it is not just about the finals. It is about how the whole tournament panned out. You will come across phrases like-"She has dropped just 10 games in three matches" indicating a women's form. True as that might be, it also indicates the lack of depth in women's tennis. In the men's side, you had Andy Muray, the semi finalist who nearly took out the eventual champion, losing a set in the first round itself.
The second argument would be that the women's champion was so dominant that the match was one sided. But that is again a weak argument. Dominance that Federer, Nadal and now Djokovic have shown is much higher than any dominance from women's side. Yet they have not even won half of their grand slams in straight sets. They have been made to work hard by (mostly)each other or some other upcoming star. That is sadly not the case with women's tennis.
The weirdest thing is that even the tickets to the finals of each event are differently priced. For men's final it was $369 and for women's it was $289. Why were the tickets not evenly prized if the prize money is? Because even the organizers know which is the event that is bound to attract more people. Djokovic earned $6515 for every minute on court while Azarenka earned $28,048 for each minute on court. The men's final had 11 games per set and the women's final had a measly 7.5.
These stats clearly indicate that somewhere something is wrong. It is analogous to paying a women twice the amount for working half the time as her male counterpart in a corporate world.
Once again, in quest for equality, we are moving towards gross inequality.
