People have been going on (again) about equal prize money at Wimbledon. Lots of people have been saying (again) that it is right that pize money is now equal. Lots of people have then been responding (again) by saying that this is silly because the men play 5 sets while the women play only 3.
No-one seems to have noticed (again) that the prize money for the junior section is even less than the prize money for the women... how can this be fair? They play the same number of sets!
And the prize money for the World Tiddlywinks Championship (spot the familiar face, for those at QM...) is even lower!
In fact, the prize money for the annual 'working at MacDonalds for 40 hours a week' championship would barely pay for Andy Murray's chicken baguettes, and yet no tennis player would dream of playing 40 hours in the entire two weeks of Wimbledon - how can this be fair? The '5 sets' crowd seem to adhere to some bizarrely warped form of the Labour Theory of Value (inasmuch as they have any principle at all) - why not insist on equal prize money for burger flippers?
Seriously, how can anyone possibly imagine that the prize money for a tennis tournament is proportionate to the amount of work put in, or that the prize money for two entirely different tennis tournaments should necessarily be the same?
I am not an economist, so I don't want to try to explain how the prize money *is* determined. All I know is that neither the "equal prize money" crowd nor the "but they play 5 sets" crowd has captured the full story.