Why do the four major tournaments combine men’s and lady’s competitions? If there is a legitimate reason, then it has eluded me.

Tennis is often compared to golf. Both sports are individual sports, and nobody gets paid unless they win, or at least play well enough to place in the money. Players do not have million dollar contracts, like soccer or basketball players, nobody pays their expenses and nobody pays them when they get sick or are injured. Tennis players are on their own, and like golfers they are required to play a certain number of events each year, and they regulate their sport with their own elected players association. But unlike golf, the tournaments that comprise the four Majors are combined. Now when the British Open Golf Tournament is played at St. Andrews or some other equally difficult venue, the Men’s event is staged for Men only, and when the Women’s event is staged, weeks or months later, it is for Ladies only. So why don’t we initiate two separate tournaments for men and women at Wimbledon, or at Roland Garros, the US and the Australian Opens? The facilities stand empty for most of the year. Two events should increase the total attendance over just one, and it would provide an additional opportunity for some people who cannot make it to the one event, to have a chance to see professional tennis at another time. Wouldn’t it be great to have two Wimbledons? Two Australian Opens?

I know the reason this is not going to happen. And the answer will stir up a storm of controversy. Of course it all has to do with Money!

First let me state that I’m a firm believer for equal pay for equal work. I’m delighted that Billy Jean King managed to persuade the organizers and sponsors of Tennis tournaments to offer the same amount of prize money to both sexes. Federer and Serena both took home $1.2 million for their respective victories in the US Open. But here’s the rub, as Shakespeare would have said, Federer played 23 sets and Serena only played 14. The two runners up, Murray and Jankovic, played 24 and 16 sets respectively. Now I’m sure that someone keeps statistics on the time each player spends on court, but I’ll bet that both men finalists spent close to double the amount of time playing and entertaining the crowds as the two lady finalists. Is this fair? Should both receive the same remuneration? I believe that men’s tennis is subsidizing the lady’s tour, and that the lady’s tour cannot stand on its own, and continue to offer equal amounts of prize money. Fortunately for the US Open officials the lady’s final featured an American player, had the final been played between two Russian lady’s with unpronounceable names the stands would have been far from filled.

The upcoming 2009 Australian Open will be shown on TV in depth, I suggest you track the attendance of the lady’s matches in the early rounds, and then ask yourself why these players are being paid the same for playing just two sets of mediocre tennis as two men who hammer each other for five sets and 3-4 hours. It just isn’t fair!