Equal Pay for Equal Work

You know how the gender pay gap figures are worked out? On hourly pay?

Here\’s an intriguing statistic from Wimbledon. For winning the men\’s singles title, Rafael Nadal trousered a cheque for £750,000. Venus Williams, who took the women\’s singles and doubles titles, went home with £865,000. Yet because Nadal was obliged to compete across the best of five sets and Williams three, the Spaniard was on court for a total of 1,114 minutes while the American was out there for 1,029. It works out that she earned £840.62 per minute, Rafa £673.25. I wonder how long it will be before players on the men\’s circuit demand equal pay with the women.

Tsk, such injustice.


3 thoughts on “Equal Pay for Equal Work”

  1. If I may be allowed to argue with a humourous post, I would say the number of minutes is not really the issue.

    Nadal is expected to play for three sets per match, if he makes hard work of it and drags it out, that’s his fault. You don’t pay someone extra because they pad the job out. Likewise Williams and two sets.

    So Nadal has to play 21 sets to Williams’ 14.

    Nadal received £35,714 per compulsory set. Williams received £53,571 per compulsory singles’ set, though only £8,214 per compulsory doubles set.

    Eight grand a set? You can see why the players don’t take the doubles so seriously.

  2. When this unequal “equal pay” was first proposed in the 1970s, the male professionals responded that if women wanted the same money as men they could play against them.

    BTW, the principle wasn’t “equal pay”, it was “equal pay for equal work” which is clearly not the case at Wimbledon.

    It’s bad enough that the women players get paid proportionately better than men, their tennis is second rate. That’s the only reason there is “womens’ tennis” in the first place.
    Why do people think it is ok to segregate sport on sexual lines and then argue for “equal pay”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *