Sky Sports.com wrote:Wimbledon officials have decided that women will earn the same prize money as their male counterparts for the first time in the tournament's history this year.
The prize money structure at the All England Club is the only one of the Grand Slams which does not award the same winner's cheque to both male and female champions.
The Australian Open and US Open operate the same prize money right through the draw for men's and women's tournaments, while the French Open gives just the female champion the same as the men's.
Leading women players and legends of the game such as John McEnroe have called for an end to the inequality, while the Lawn Tennis Association, the governing body of British tennis, and Prime Minister Tony Blair have also been backers of level pay.
Officials at SW19 had argued that the pay differential was correct because women play best-of-three-set matches while men played best-of-five, but they have now relented to public pressure to hand women the pay boost.
Women at this year's tournament will receive the same as their male counterparts right through the draw, as with the Australian and US Opens, right down to the first round losers.
Last year men's champion Roger Federer pocketed £655,000 while women's champ Amelie Mauresmo earned £30,000 less with her cheque of £625,000.
All England Club chairman Tim Phillips announced that the championship committee had decided "that the time is right to bring this subject to a logical conclusion and eliminate the difference".
Phillips added: "Tennis is one of the few sports in which women and men compete in the same event at the same time.
"We believe our decision to offer equal prize money provides a boost for the game as a whole and recognises the enormous contribution that women players make to the game and to Wimbledon.
"We hope it will also encourage girls who want a career in sport to choose tennis as their best option. In short, good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon.
"When Wimbledon pioneered Open tennis in 1968 the men's singles champion, Rod Laver, won £2,000, while Billie Jean King, the ladies' singles champion, won £750, only 37.5% of the men's prize.
"Over the years we have progressively increased the ladies' prize money so that last year Amelie Mauresmo received £625,000 - 95% of the money received by Roger Federer.
"As in every other year the Committee has again analysed all the relevant information and then made a judgement."
I think this is a good idea in principle - at least it will put an end to some people moaning ( ) - but now, it does make the prize money unfair in a way - maybe women players should now play the same amount as the men do?
Well they do play the same... just not as much It's always boggled my mind why we (the men) need to make up special rules for women.
EXC recently had the "first professional" MMA fight between two women. And they had to go 3 rounds of 3 minutes. Men got 3 rounds of 5 minutes.
Several sports did not originally have specific rules for women, but some introduced new rules when the women began equalling and surpassing the men at "their sport"... Silly.
However another thing that bothers me and is totally unrelated to sports is that in this day and age it's almost impossible to apply for a job in my chosen profession unless you are female or an immigrant... *sigh*...
) - but now, it does make the prize money unfair in a way - maybe women players should now play the same amount as the men do?
It's always boggled my mind why we (the men) need to make up special rules for women.