Originally Posted by Allstar
I understand your point but unfortunately life doesnt work like that. Even if women are performing to the best of their ability they will never be as good as men, which is directly related to entertainment and utility to the viewer. In an ideal world perhaps pay would be equal.
I think you're still not quite seeing it - high quality women's tennis is just as competitive and entertaining as men's tennis of similar quality. This is why in 3/4 slams, the women get paid the same as the men.
Even though people recognise the women's game might not have the same speed or strength as the men, there are more interesting rallies and greater use of strategy. Basically, the weapons are different due to the gender difference, but the entertainment value is still high.
As for the statement I highlighted, you might want to watch your words - you're getting onto very dangerous ground here. Speed and strength aren't everything, even within the men's game. Actually now that I think about it, that's what the problem is, you're still thinking of it as 'men vs. women' as opposed to 'one quality vs. a different quality'.
Here's my analogy: 'Picasso' vs. 'Rembrandt' . Totally different artists with different reasons as to why their work is so incredible, each offering something different, but of a suffiently high quality that you cannot call one 'better' or 'as good as' the other.