It all started with Maud Watson in 1884, at a time women began playing tennis at the world's most recognizable tournament - Wimbledon.
Watson was the very first female tennis champion at Wimbledon.
And her prize? A silver flower basket worth 20 guineas, while the men's winner (William Renshaw) received a gold prize worth 30 guineas.
It's quite amazing how long the unequal pay policy has run and why it hasn't been changed from its 'Victorian-era' ways.
But finally - 123 years later - equality is served.
Or is it? And if so, is the decision justified?
Equal rights issues have been a hot topic for decades. The decision made by Wimbledon (All England Club) agreeing to pay women players as much as the men was a giant step toward eliminating gender discrimination in professional sports once and for all.
This new declaration now puts Wimbledon in sync with the other Grand Slams.
The U.S. Open and Australian Open have been paying equal prize money for years, but the French Open paid the men's and women's champions the same for the first time last year. (But the overall prize fund remained bigger for the men.)
Roger Federer, the men's champion from last year, received $1.17 million, while the women's winner, Amelie Mauresmo, got $1.117 million.
Although this decree will be great for tennis, I do not necessarily agree with its entirety. That being said, there are several pros and cons pertaining to this new pronouncement.
Let me clarify my opinion: I'm all for equality, especially recognizing the vast amount of contribution women players give tennis. Just the principle alone - paying men and women equally - should be reason enough to enact a change, and I applaud the 'suits' for finally caving in to the pressure which has been applied by the public.
But my concern is the differentiating workloads between the men's players and women's players at Wimbledon.
With the new rule, women can actually make more money than men because a) women play best-of-three matches (two fewer than men) and b) women still have the strength to compete in Grand Slam doubles events, earning much more money than the men.
Several reasons why women have to perform less than men include tight scheduling and wear-and-tear on the grass courts.
Another raison d'être cited why women players compete in best-of-three matches is because of less strenuous demands, but this notion is preposterous. Female tennis players are usually in top shape, and are certainly capable of maintaining their level of stamina.
But due to the physical demands of the men's best-of-five matches, the top players rarely play in doubles events; therefore, they are unable to earn as much as women.
That being said, if we are to accept men and women as equals at Wimbledon, then why are we suggesting women are weaker than men on the tennis court? Why don't women compete in best-of-five matches, as well? Or why don't men compete in best-of-three matches? Wouldn't this be fair?
It should also be noted the top 10 women last year earned more from Wimbledon than the top 10 men, thus proving my point mentioned earlier.
So, what does this mean? Will women play in as many doubles events now since they're paid equally? Or will they continue to compete in doubles because they have to play fewer sets than men?
Women need to make a stronger stand, particularly the women's WTA Tour, to compete in best-of-five-set matches to validate their winnings.
If the work is the same, then yes - the pay should absolutely be the same no matter what sex a player is at Wimbledon.
But in this particular case it isn't, and I don't believe that's exclusively fair to both men and women.
Watson was the very first female tennis champion at Wimbledon.
And her prize? A silver flower basket worth 20 guineas, while the men's winner (William Renshaw) received a gold prize worth 30 guineas.
It's quite amazing how long the unequal pay policy has run and why it hasn't been changed from its 'Victorian-era' ways.
But finally - 123 years later - equality is served.
Or is it? And if so, is the decision justified?
Equal rights issues have been a hot topic for decades. The decision made by Wimbledon (All England Club) agreeing to pay women players as much as the men was a giant step toward eliminating gender discrimination in professional sports once and for all.
This new declaration now puts Wimbledon in sync with the other Grand Slams.
The U.S. Open and Australian Open have been paying equal prize money for years, but the French Open paid the men's and women's champions the same for the first time last year. (But the overall prize fund remained bigger for the men.)
Roger Federer, the men's champion from last year, received $1.17 million, while the women's winner, Amelie Mauresmo, got $1.117 million.
Although this decree will be great for tennis, I do not necessarily agree with its entirety. That being said, there are several pros and cons pertaining to this new pronouncement.
Let me clarify my opinion: I'm all for equality, especially recognizing the vast amount of contribution women players give tennis. Just the principle alone - paying men and women equally - should be reason enough to enact a change, and I applaud the 'suits' for finally caving in to the pressure which has been applied by the public.
But my concern is the differentiating workloads between the men's players and women's players at Wimbledon.
With the new rule, women can actually make more money than men because a) women play best-of-three matches (two fewer than men) and b) women still have the strength to compete in Grand Slam doubles events, earning much more money than the men.
Several reasons why women have to perform less than men include tight scheduling and wear-and-tear on the grass courts.
Another raison d'être cited why women players compete in best-of-three matches is because of less strenuous demands, but this notion is preposterous. Female tennis players are usually in top shape, and are certainly capable of maintaining their level of stamina.
But due to the physical demands of the men's best-of-five matches, the top players rarely play in doubles events; therefore, they are unable to earn as much as women.
That being said, if we are to accept men and women as equals at Wimbledon, then why are we suggesting women are weaker than men on the tennis court? Why don't women compete in best-of-five matches, as well? Or why don't men compete in best-of-three matches? Wouldn't this be fair?
It should also be noted the top 10 women last year earned more from Wimbledon than the top 10 men, thus proving my point mentioned earlier.
So, what does this mean? Will women play in as many doubles events now since they're paid equally? Or will they continue to compete in doubles because they have to play fewer sets than men?
Women need to make a stronger stand, particularly the women's WTA Tour, to compete in best-of-five-set matches to validate their winnings.
If the work is the same, then yes - the pay should absolutely be the same no matter what sex a player is at Wimbledon.
But in this particular case it isn't, and I don't believe that's exclusively fair to both men and women.
