UK Forum News Politics & Current Affairs - View Single Post

Sid · 03-12-2007, 02:48 PM

I think these figures are more appropriate with regard to women getting equal money.

Last year, for instance, Roger Federer had to play 202 games on his way to taking the title, whereas Amélie Mauresmo took the women's crown in just 142 yet she was paid only 5% less than Federer (£625,000 to his £655,000). That's equivalent to £4,401 per game instead of £3,094 per game, and the disparity might have been greater if Federer had dropped more than a single set on his way to the title.

That works out at 30% more pay per game, I think the men should get more money or reduce the money the women get!

Guardian Unlimited: Sport blog: All things not equal at Wimbledon

If the women played as many games then maybe, but as it is they already get more money than men per game. Why should they get more?

03-12-2007, 02:48 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sid Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,088	I think these figures are more appropriate with regard to women getting equal money. Last year, for instance, Roger Federer had to play 202 games on his way to taking the title, whereas Amélie Mauresmo took the women's crown in just 142 yet she was paid only 5% less than Federer (£625,000 to his £655,000). That's equivalent to £4,401 per game instead of £3,094 per game, and the disparity might have been greater if Federer had dropped more than a single set on his way to the title. That works out at 30% more pay per game, I think the men should get more money or reduce the money the women get! Guardian Unlimited: Sport blog: All things not equal at Wimbledon If the women played as many games then maybe, but as it is they already get more money than men per game. Why should they get more?