14/07/2019
The fight for equality in pay for women is definitely one worth supporting.
When a woman performs the same job as a man, she should expect and, importantly, she should receive the same pay. There is no doubt that a person's gender should not be a factor when deciding how much to pay them.
This has been a focus in the news for some years, including some discussion about the salaries of the top earning BBC talent.
Whilst the improvements in reducing the gender pay gap are welcome and absolutely the right thing, there is an area where the situation has become rather skewed.
To be fair, this isn't a startling revelation; it's been known about for years. However, today, with the final of the men's tennis at Wimbledon, we have been reminded of the issue.
Some years ago, after long-standing protests, the prize money for Wimbledon (and I guess other tournaments) was equalised for men and women.
In 2019, this meant that the winners of both the mens and women titles will each receive £2,350,000.
That's a staggering amount of money, obviously.
The issue, for me, is that there is a huge difference in the amount of tennis played by men and women at Wimbledon and the other 'Majors'.
Throughout the tournament, the men play a best of five sets, whereas the women play a best of three sets. This means that the women generally play significantly less tennis than the men. So, the equal pay means the women actually earn significantly more (on an hourly basis) than the men.
As an example, Novak Djokovic won the men's title this afternoon. He beat Roger Federer by three sets to two, with the final set reaching 12-12 in games, before going to the tie-breaker. The women's final, by contrast, was won in straight sets by Simona Halep. Their match lasted 16 games in total and was completed in less than an hour. Just the fifth set in the men's game was more than 50% longer than the entire women's final.
The men were slugging it out for more than five times as long as the women's match.
By further comparison, the winners of the doubles tournaments get far less; the women's doubles champions share a prize of £540,000. The mixed doubles champions share a prize of £116,000 between them.
If the women deserve £2,350,000 for a best of three tennis match, then how can they justify £270,000 each for the women's doubles champions or just £58,000 each for the mixed doubles champions; who also play best of three matches?
And, why would't the men deserve more money for their increased activity and the extended entertainment this provides to sports fans?
I'm sure someone has the answer.
Just not me...
Comentários