Bodo on Equal Pay for Equal Work

Peter Bodo writes:

Okay, so Roger Federer had match points against Rafael Nadal in Rome. But whether the match is that close, or one of those occasional love-one-and-love blowouts, it’s obvious that both finalists do an equal amount of work. So, if we assume that tennis is subject to the "equal work deserves equal pay" mantra, why did Nadal earn TK, and TMF a mere?

Just asking. . .

Look out with that there logic, fella.

That's what happens when people grab at straws for an excuse. As Bodo here shows, Wimbledon can't justify paying the women less on the grounds that they do less work.

This isn't labor, paid by the hour. It isn't even a salary. It's prize money.

If you award the women less, you're saying their performance is of less value than the men's. The only way to justify this is to show that the women bring in less money. And that just can't be done.

If Wimbledon ever does prove that, I will bow my head and say, "Right, pay the women less." But the system just isn't set up to guage that. So we have this clutching at straws for an excuse, instead.

On the other hand, if women play fewer rounds than the men, you could justify less prize money in the total purse. But only if each victory -- whether a man's or a woman's victory -- counts as of equal value. But why should the women play fewer rounds than the men? Then you'd have tournaments scaling down the women's draw just to rationalize a smaller purse for them.

Indeed, why should the women play fewer sets? Just to rationalize the old "the-men-do-more-work" line, that's why.

Bottom Line: If you can't prove that the men bring in more money, why not just do the right thing and pay the men and women equally? Why be so loathe to do that?