Originally Posted by Rosie
Even though I am a woman, I totally agree with Dokigor, - I have lost count of the number of early round Grand Slam matches where the likes of the Williams' sisters win their matches 6-0, 6-1 in less than an hour, while Top 10 male players have been forced into 5 setters. If I found out a colleague at my office was working less than half my hours and earning the same money I would be extremely upset and angry - this is no different. Equal pay for equal work is great - but 2 sets taking 50 minutes is in no way equal work to 5 sets taking 3 hours or more in my opinion. And I don't know about the ticket sale issue, but I do know that when I go to a Grand Slam event such as Wimbledon or Roland Garros, more fans are there for their favourite male player (whether it's Hewitt, Agassi, Federer or whoever), than seem to be there for the female matches. Most of the female matches seem to be an excuse for people to get food, walk around, buy souvenirs etc.
LOL. And if their work was just as valuable, would you have a case then?
Your experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture.
And why don't you compare fair with fair? 2 sets taking 50 minutes versus 3 sets taking an hour and twenty. I didn't see much difference between the early rounds of Federer and Serena at Wimbledon this year. Or would you like to use only the extreme match lengths that suit you?