Today, the All England Club announced that it would begin giving equal prize money to male and female competitors at Wimbledon, the most prestigious event in tennis (last year the discrepancy was a little more than $50,000--in favor of the man). All other Grand Slam events in tennis pay male and female champions equally. Until now, Wimbledon had been operating under some pretty shaky lines of reasoning: 1. First, Wimbledon officials argued that women players often compete in Doubles matches as well as Singles and therefore could conceivably win more than the male champion at a tournament, which they felt was unfair. This is crazy. (By this logic, Wimbledon would have to perfectly pro-rate its prize money based on how many competitions a player did or did not win, on how many they entered, and on how many sets were played.) But why on earth would a player deserve less for winning one competition just because they might win yet another competition? Any given player may or may not play Doubles sets in addition to Singles. True, most elite men don't compete in Doubles, but that is neither here nor there. The prize money for one match has nothing to do with the theoretical likelihood of that player competing or not competing in another match. 2. Wimbledon officials argued that women only play the best of three sets whereas men play the best of five. See how easy the women have it? They only have to compete in three measly sets. Why should they get paid more for less tennis? But, of course, this is perfectly fair. Women don't play fewer sets because anyone is giving them a break; they play fewer sets because that is deemed fair and equivilent to a man's five sets. Women players aren't getting paid by the hour after all; they aren't on the clock. Women competitors are paid to play at the highest level of tennis in the world. If Wimbledon doesn't think three sets of women's tennis equals five sets of men's, then why not ask women to play more or men to play less. If they really believe the rules of tennis are unfair, then change the rules--not the prize money. But if the rules are fair, then the pay should be reflective of that and paid equally amongst male and female champions. 3. Wimbledon officials have argued that because men play more sets they are giving a better value. Maybe to the viewer whose only concern is seeing as much tennis as possible for as little as possible. Though in an age of massive celebrity for players and stark differences in levels of ability, watching Serena Williams is probably a better value than watching the 100th-ranked men's seed. And watching Serena Williams may be a draw over Roger Federer to some. Value is relative. Besides, it could be argued that the women's shorter matches are more cost-effective for Wimbledon itself, in terms of maintenance and the cost of keeping the courts open. Ultimately, both women's and men's sets are sold out at Wimbledon. At the highest levels, tennis truly enjoys a bit more parity between the sexes than other sports. The women's and men's sets are both played at the same tournament, and most fans are thrilled to see the top seeds no matter their sex. It's nice to see that WImbledon has finally changed its tune. --Sacha Zimmerman