I still think it's wrong that the ladies get the same prize money as the men - not because of any sexist [email protected] but because they only play 3 set matches.2million!!!
I tend to think that the prize money is the reward for all the years of dedication, training, playing, practicing etc etc.
On that basis, you might want to pay less for a 6-1 6-1 than a long tiebreak followed by a 7-5. Isner at Wimbledon in 2010 should have been paid a fortune.
They pay the violas?On that basis, you might want to pay less for a 6-1 6-1 than a long tiebreak followed by a 7-5. Isner at Wimbledon in 2010 should have been paid a fortune.
If you listen to Handel 's messiah, there is a very prominent Timpani part, but only in the last 10 minutes. Would you pay the timpanist less than, say, the violas? Would you pay your dentist or a surgeon more because they are ham-fisted and take ages or would you pay a premium to the really good one who does it in half the time? Is a painting worth more because it took longer to paint? Would you pay winning F1 drivers less than others because, by definition, they are working for less time? Or a golfer who gets round in 67.much quicker than a 75.
(On court time is only a fraction of total tournament time anyway.)
I can see the argument, but it's results and audience that matter.
Oh, go on!Don't get me started on premier league earnings!