Sounds fair enough ...

A more reasonable response would perhaps be "how much money, in advertising, licensing, TV rights etc does the women's game pull in, and thus how much shoud be distributed through prize money?"

Actually, the number of sets they play is, for me, nothing to do with it. Following that logic, test cricket players deserve to be the highest-paid sportsmen in the world, whilst boxers should get very little..

The question is, do women players draw the same crowds? I don't actually know the answer, although I suspect the Williams sisters and Anna Kournikova help somewhat but that's the bottom line in sport these days.

---

by In a State of Dan
Actually, the number of sets they play is, for me, nothing to do with it. Following that logic, test cricket players deserve to be the highest-paid sportsmen in the world, whilst boxers should get very little..

---

Unless you take it literally to mean "number" then as Cricketers only get say 2 of innings per match, whereas a boxer might have to go 15 rounds, it kinda could work the other way UNLESS of course it's how many overs per cricket match?!

---

by In a State of Dan
The question is, do women players draw the same crowds? I don't actually know the answer, although I suspect the Williams sisters and Anna Kournikova help somewhat but that's the bottom line in sport these days.

---

Yes, they do. Personally I only follow the men's tour, but the business of equal pay has been going on for decades. The problem at present is that the difference between the women in the top 10's ability and most of the rest of the WTA tour players is quite marked, and one of the main complaints is that the early stages of women's tournaments are boring because its almost always a practical walkover for the top players. The likes of the Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, Seles, Capriati and Clijsters don't meet until the later stages, so its hard to sell tickets for the early rounds. (This is a generalisation about the tour in general, not just the grand slams which always sell out at that stage because they have the mens matches as well and those can be exciting. The pay problem merely shows up in the slams because those are the only tournaments that most people hear about).
The mens tour on the other hand is more exciting in the early rounds as its more open. There are far more good players, there isn't such a marked difference between the top 10 and the rest of the field. (point in case the Aussie Open earlier this year - it was won by a player who was about 17th in the world, and Ivanisevic was about 123 in the world when he won Wimbledon last year. That just doesn't happen in the women's game).
I could go on... oh wait, I already have! Sorry!

If you want true equality then instead of competing separately, shouldn’t the men and women compete in a single tournament.