Last July I wrote about the inequity of prize money between women and men who play at Wimbledon. The twist is that women play the best of three sets, while men play best of five. So women champions spend much less time on the courts:

Over the past five years (2001-2005), Wimbledon Men’s Champions - usually Roger Federer - have played 53% more sets (and 66% more games) en route to the championship than the women’s champions during the same period. If the averages hold up for 2006, the Gentlemen’s Champion will have earned $51,376 per set played while the Ladies Champion would take home $75,126 per set played at Wimbledon. There you have it: women earn 46% more than men at Wimbledon.

Yesterday, Wimbledon announced that it will pay equal prize money to men and women. While I support equal pay for men and women, I also support equal play. Women should play best of five sets just as men do. It makes for some of the most exciting, suspenseful tennis matches on the men’s side. And too many women’s tennis matches are lopsided 45 minute affairs - hardly ideal for the TV ratings. Introducing the stamina factor might even out the women’s field.

There is no physiological reason that female tennis players couldn’t pull through a grueling five hour match as some men do. Women run the same marathons that men run, play on the same sized soccer fields, and work the same 40 hour week that men work.

But what if the Wimbledon standard were applied to life? What if equal pay could be earned by someone even though it only required 66% less work? Or put another way, what if women paid the same amount but received 51% more in services or products? Courts would be smaller, hoops wider, bank lines shorter, sandwiches more delicious. The world would certainly be easier (I especially support the new Wimbledon holidays and the longer Wimbledon hot dogs), but would it be fair?

.

Packed on the number 7 subway line to the U.S. Open, tourists ignored the New York custom of not chatting with strangers on the train. Everyone was abuzz about Agassi. Was he scheduled to play during the day or night? He had another cortisone shot? Can he win another match? But the most common phrases overheard were the clichés familiar to anyone who has watched the breathless U.S. Open television coverage of Agassi: “He has given so much back to the game” or “It’s really what he’s done off the court.”

Even if you’ve never followed tennis, it’s hard to ignore Agassi’s career. It has spanned 21 years and he has won every Grand Slam tennis tournament, a feat that eluded Sampras, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, even the great Federer (thus far). Beyond that, however, you probably know Agassi by his nearly $200 million in endorsements. About ten years ago he thankfully traded in his “image is everything” faded denim shorts and a classic 80s hair-metal coif for a shaved head, two children with Steffi Graf, and his work with the Andre Agassi Foundation in Las Vegas.

Commentators have fallen over themselves lauding what Agassi has given back to the game. But during the interminable rain delays last week, John McEnroe as commentator would inevitably turn about the sorry state of American tennis: Who is the next star? Where is the next batch of American rivals? The next Pete vs. Andre, John vs. Jimmy?

So what has Andre given back to the game? He produced TV ratings at last year’s U.S. Open final versus Roger Federer that were 92% higher than in 2004. His victory against Pavel last week broke records for first round TV viewing. And he provided late-night thrills versus Baghdatis in a match for the ages. But has he inspired any new interest in tennis?

The retirement of Agassi’s cult of personality reveals that tennis is a fading sport in the United States. An informal survey of urban tennis courts in southeast Washington, DC finds them empty on beautiful, sunny days. A few of the preppier neighborhoods often have tennis players waiting, but most of the competition for urban play space revolves around soccer fields or basketball courts. The TV viewership reflects this. NASCAR attracts nearly twice as many viewers as a Grand Slam final without Agassi. Even with Agassi, the NFL draft attracted almost as many viewers as the 2005 U.S. Open final between Federer and Agassi.

So as we bid Agassi farewell, we may also be bidding farewell to the last generation of U.S. tennis superstars. Prove me wrong, James Blake and Andy Roddick.

Today Wimbledon will crown a new women’s champion, either Amelie Mauresmo from France or Justine Henin-Hardenne from Belgium. Two things are certain: the winner will speak French and the winner will take home less than her male counterpart.

Wimbledon is the last remaining Grand Slam tennis championship to pay different purses to the men’s and women’s champions. The Gentlemen’s Champion will receive £655,000 ($1,212,469) while the Ladies’ Champion will receive £625,000 ($1,156,936). Why the $55,000 difference? Don’t men and women compete equally? Not really. In Grand Slam tennis tournaments, men play best of five sets, while women play best of three. Sports writers, sports feminists, even proud economists, have spilled (or typed) much ink on this subject. But is it even fair to compare wages when men and women are playing a fundamentally different games?

Let’s have a look at the statastics. Over the past five years (2001-2005), Wimbledon Men’s Champions - usually Roger Federer - have played 53% more sets (and 66% more games) en route to the championship than the women’s champions during the same period. If the averages hold up for 2006, the Gentlemen’s Champion will have earned $51,376 per set played while the Ladies Champion would take home $75,126 per set played at Wimbledon. There you have it: women earn 46% more than men at Wimbledon. It is, perhaps, one of the few examples outside the adult film industry where women earn more than men.

Statastico would like to see equal pay for equal play. This is not to suggest that they should cut women’s purses at the Grand Slams. Give us more tennis! Women and men run the same distance in marathons, swim in the same Olympic pools, and play on the same sized soccer fields. Pay them identical purses and let the women also play best of five sets at the Grand Slams. That is true equality.

Source: Statastic research