Wimbledon Prize Money – Equal or Not?
“What are we teaching the children?” As a parenting coach, a coach to children and a parent myself, this is always my first question.
Last week at Wimbledon, the Men’s champion and the Women’s champion both received the same amount of prize money. Was that fair, or is it an example of rewarding one sex more than the other? And what is this teaching our children?
To answer this question, consider how pay is decided in the world at large. There are three ways, one of which is most relevant to elite sport:
“Modern Wimbledon Finals average 90 minutes for women versus 150 minutes for men, and this pattern is repeated throughout the rounds. So the men play around 60% longer for the same money.”
1. Pay per hour
We all know what this means. Does it apply in tennis? Modern Wimbledon Finals average 90 minutes for women versus 150 minutes for men, and this pattern is repeated throughout the rounds. So the men play around 60% longer for the same money. But of course being a professional athlete is about much more than time spent on court, so what about the other ways of determining pay?
“This year’s Women's champion, Elena Rybakina, played 164 games. Men’s champion Novak Djokovic played 242. He played nearly 50% more games than she did. For the same money.”
2. Pay per piece of work
When I pay a baker for bread, I pay per loaf. When I pay someone to wash my car, I pay per car. Does this "piecework" apply in tennis? In Grand Slams such as Wimbledon, women play best of three sets, men play best of five. This year’s Women's champion, Elena Rybakina, played 164 games. Men’s champion Novak Djokovic played 242. He played nearly 50% more games than she did. For the same money. Again, the argument can be made that “games on court” is not what counts in sport, which brings us to what really matters…
“On the UK’s BBC this year, peak viewing figures for the Women’s Final were 3.1 million, while for the Men’s Final the figure was 7.5 million. The men get more than double the viewers, which means the men add over 100% more value. For the same prize money.”
3. Pay for value added
When brands pay Leonardo DiCaprio or Scarlett Johansson to wear their clothes, they don’t pay for hours worked or pieces completed; they pay for value added. They ask, “How much is this endorsement worth to the brand?” Sport is also an entertainment business – nobody gets paid without an audience – so does this “value added” calculation apply in tennis? It applies to tennis endorsements, but what about the actual playing? Here “value added” is easily measured by viewing figures – and this is certainly what advertisers, and thus broadcasters, care about. On the UK’s BBC this year, peak viewing figures for the Women’s Final were 3.1 million, while for the Men’s Final the figure was 7.5 million. The men get more than double the viewers, which means the men add over 100% more value. For the same prize money. So whether it's per hour, or per piece, or per value added, the fact is that at Wimbledon, like the other Grand Slams, the men make way less money than the women.
“Firstly, it sends our daughters a terrible message. It tells them that the world will pay them - or should pay them – just because they are female. […] Secondly, it sends our sons a similarly bad message – that they deserve to be paid less than women for the same time spent or the same value added.”
So what?
Let’s return to my key question: what is this teaching the children? What does it mean for our sons and for our daughters? Firstly, it sends our daughters a terrible message. It tells them that the world will pay them - or should pay them – just because they are female. It tells them that adding value and producing results are secondary to being a woman, when in reality they are the ONLY things that employers and customers pay for. If our daughters expect people to pay them simply out of kindness for the rest of their lives, they are going to be disappointed!
Secondly, it sends our sons a similarly bad message – that they deserve to be paid less than women for the same time spent or the same value added. Imagine being a young boy and having that penny drop.
And thirdly, it sends a false lesson to both sexes that extends far beyond money, because the basis of all human relationships is reciprocity and fair exchange whether it’s in business / customer relationships, employer / employee relationships, or even personal relationships, such as friendships or husband/wife. If one party doesn't feel like they are giving and receiving fair value, if they perceive that things are out of balance, that relationship – whether commercial or personal – won't last. And yet Wimbledon’s prize money allocation implies the opposite.
What can we do about this?
As concerned citizens, we can share articles like these so that people think more deeply and understand what is happening, and realise that the current situation is bad for girls as well as bad for boys.
And as parents, we can talk this through with our sons and our daughters so that they see it for what it is – our unconscious, possibly innate, tendency to not only protect women, but sometimes to put their needs ahead of the needs of men. By highlighting this phenomenon, you protect your daughters from a Victimhood / Entitlement mentality, and you protect your sons from a Victimhood / Low Self-Esteem mentality. Which means you put them both in the driving seats of their lives. Which is an invaluable gift to them.
Mixed Martial Arts star Ronda Rousey said it best when a journalist asked her for her view on the Australian women’s soccer team asking to be paid the same as the men. She said, “I think that how much you get paid should have something to do with how much money you bring in. I’m the highest-paid fighter not because Dana and Lorenzo [the promoters] wanted to ‘do something nice for the ladies’ – they do it because I bring in the highest numbers, they do it because I make them the most money. And I think that the money that they make should be proportionate to the money that they bring in.”
The justification of equal prize money for women and men is that it sends the message that “women are of equal value to men”. But it actually sends the message that “women are more important than men”. And, as father to a son and to a daughter, I, for one, do not believe that.
Scroll down to join the discussion
Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.
Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.
Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.
.
