less sweat = less money?
Trying to stick with the QotD central theme ... I've never been comfortable with the female tennis players get paid the same ( or almost the same? ) prize money at Wimbledon than the men?
The men have played several matches , each the best of 5 sets to get to the final whereas the women have played best of 3.

Whilst I think the prize money is obscene regardless, I still think the men have 'earned' the right to more money.

Looking forward to it this summer in HD tho!
(d2d2t, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 17:48, 4 replies)

I think it's
more to do with audience numbers and how much sponsorship they bring to the event, rather than how long the spend playing with balls. I've no idea if they do bring the same amount, or more money as the men.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Sun 3 Jan 2010, 18:09, closed)

Hmm
I quite agree. It's unfair that men only get 60% of the perving time that women get. (Not counting homosexual perving, for ease of arithmetic)
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 19:58, closed)

damn, thats an angle I'd never thought of. The ladies get to pretend they're interested in tennis - so long as Nadal is playing - for up to 5 sets - but we only get a max of 3 sets to look for any "gusset-blush".
still not worth the same money though.
(d2d2t, Tue 5 Jan 2010, 8:43, closed)

What about
Juniors? Doubles? Mixed Doubles? It's supply and demand.

The pay is not for effort expended, but for value.
(LickOutTheJamsMotherfuckers!, Tue 5 Jan 2010, 5:45, closed)