July 3, 2007
It's the second week of the Wimbledon Championships tennis tournament and many of the great traditions of this historic Grand Slam event are being observed.
Play has been disrupted by summer rain, mug punters are shelling out £2 for a puny punnet of 10 strawberries, no British players have progressed into the second week, and people are talking about equal pay.
You might have thought that this year's debate about mens' and womens' prize money would be less heated than previously, given that the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club has finally bowed to pressure to equalise winnings.
But you'd be wrong. The backlash starts here.
Disciple Gary - a founder member of Guru's HR Wild Hogs club (for men over 40 working in human resources) - wrote in with the following observations:
I think it is time to revisit the question of equal pay, specifically regarding the changes to prize money for the 'very deserving women players' at Wimbledon. The question I would like to ask the HR community is as follows: would HR managers be happy to promote equal pay policies in the workplace where a man is expected to achieve 33% more in order to successfully deliver an outcome and where women can receive 50% more pay for the same result, with less effort?To illustrate - men have to win three sets per game and win a total of 21 sets over the tournament, while the women players need to win two sets per game and a total of 14 sets to be champion. This excludes fifth sets, which do not have a tie-breaker for men and can continue for some time (as seen with Tim Henman recently).
The pay scales effectively mean that male winners earn £33,333 per set won and female winners earn £50,000 per set won. Is the world of business ready for this?I know women will state that they have been underpaid for years in the workplace. However two wrongs etc…
The Daily Mail has picked up on this point too, guaranteeing that the equal pay issue will go on longer than a (poorly paid) Henman v Carlos Moya first-round, fifth-set decider.
Comments (4)
Disciple Gary is basing his argument on the mistaken premise that women were paid less than men because of the number of sets they played. This is incorrect.
The reason women got paid less was because less people watched their matches and therefore they did not earn as much money for the game. This trend has altered in recent years and the women earn as much, if not more, money for the game as the men. They should, therefore, get equal prize money.
Posted by Lynngus | July 5, 2007 12:52 PM
Posted on July 5, 2007 12:52
But, Lynggus, that would be akin to saying that an airline pilot who flies from London to Paris with a full plane should be paid more than a pilot who flies from London to New York with a half-full plane. We pay people for their work, not their audience.
Posted by Simon | July 6, 2007 1:26 PM
Posted on July 6, 2007 13:26
I agree totally with Simon. Surely the pay that people earn is based on either individual output, responsibility or a mixture of both. On this premise, male tennis players produce more output (more sets) and have he same audience.
No-one begrudges women equal pay or indeed men equal pay but surely where Wimbledon is concerned men do more, hence should 'earn' more.
Posted by Olly | July 11, 2007 1:38 PM
Posted on July 11, 2007 13:38
I doesn't matter what I think - it's what it is. Historically women were paid less than men because of the money they brought to the game. It had nothing to do with the number of sets that were played. To now decide that women should be paid on the number of sets played is, to use a sporting cliche, moving the goalposts!
Just out of a matter of interest on what basis are footballers paid? My understanding is that not all strikers in the Premiership get paid the same nor all defenders. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Lynngus | August 21, 2007 3:35 PM
Posted on August 21, 2007 15:35