Biting Back: Men and women should play same number of sets for equal prize money in tennis
Equal prize money is a strange one, and it’s not one I entirely agree with. As the sun set over Flushing Meadow and Serena Williams lifted the US Open trophy, I couldn't help but think about the money. All three million dollars of it.
Williams was sensational, beating Rory McIlroy’s former squeeze Caroline Wozniacki in straight sets to equal legends Martina Navratilova and Chris Evret's record of 18 grand slam titles.
Did she deserve to win the same as the men's winner Marin Cilic? In this instance, yes. In most other cases, no.
Both Williams and Cilic won their finals in three sets, and deservedly so, therefore earning equal pay.
But why, when women play two less sets than men in other grand slams, do they earn the same money? Why was Andy Murray branded a sexist moron when he questioned it? He was right.
These tennis players are in their prime and to suggest that playing five sets, like the men, is beyond their physical capabilities is both insulting and untrue.
You can't complain about male colleagues taking home more money than you do if you do less work than them.
Who wants to be a delicate little flower that only plays 60% of a match anyway? In swimming, men don't swim an extra length. In a marathon, women don't run 25.2 miles. In a 100m sprint, the clue is in the name. Tennis shouldn't be any different than any other sport.
Equality is about striving for equal opportunities.
So either men go down to three sets or women make the step up to five and prove they've earned every penny.
Otherwise it's inequality.