Commentary: Have market forces really decided men’s tennis is more valuable than women's tennis?

LONDON: When the opening serve is struck at Wimbledon next week, it will mark the 15th anniversary of equal prize money being offered at all four of tennis’ Grand Slam events. The men’s and women’s singles champions will each receive £2 million (US$2.5 million) in prize money, while any who falls in the first round will walk away with a cheque for £50,000 (US$61,400).

Though Billie Jean King’s successful campaign for equal rewards came into effect at the 1973 US Open, it was not until 2001 that the Australian Open followed suit. Wimbledon and the French Open finally came on board in 2007.

To the casual observer – the type who catches the Wimbledon highlights every July and is perpetually expecting Roger Federer’s next title – it may seem like the story ends there. But professional tennis extends further than the Grand Slams. Regrettably, equal pay in the sport does not.

Consider the world’s current standout tennis player, Iga Swiatek – Poland’s 21-year-old double Grand Slam champion, utterly dominant world number one, and most likely the best since Serena Williams. 

Since late February, Swiatek has entered six tournaments and won every one – most recently the French Open – equalling a 22-year-old record with her 35-match winning streak and amassing US$5.7 million of prize money. Not much cause for complaint, surely.

Except that, had a male player achieved the same feats over the same time period on the men’s tour, he would have earned almost US$2 million more – a 34 per cent premium.

Away from the four Grand Slams, men’s prize money is frequently higher than women’s – even at joint tournaments – and men are also given more tournaments to play in.

As a case in point, last February’s tournaments in Dubai, while nominally of