Summer is coming and the tennis Grand Slams will soon be upon us with the excitement that keeps us glued to our television sets. But already a disputed call is disrupting the action. A group of female professionals is demanding equal prize money with the men at all four Grand Slam events. If the Australian and French Opens and Wimbledon fail to fall in line, the women pros have threatened to boycott these future tournaments.

Among the petition signers are such stars as Martina Hingis, Monica Seles, Lindsay Davenport, and Jana Novotna, none of whom is playing for peanuts. The U.S. Open awards women the same prize money. At the French and Australian Opens, respectively, women earn 90 and 94 percent of the men’s take. Last year women at Wimbledon earned 80 percent of the men’s prize money, with new rates yet to be announced. But the stars want across-the-board parity with men or they will walk out.

What’s wrong with this picture? I can tell you from experience because I come from a long line of competitive tennis players. One of my uncles, Charles Rollins, was known in Canada as "Mr. Tennis," and the other was an accomplished tournament player. My cousins, Victor and David Rollins, competed at Wimbledon and I played the junior circuit for my university.

I often wondered why my final singles matches would be early on Saturday morning with a much smaller viewing audience than the junior men’s finals, which usually took place Sundays at noon before a packed house. Finally, the light came on. The spectators enjoyed the faster pace and excitement of the boys’ finals much more, and I never thought that the time slots of our matches should be switched. In fact, the superior ability of men over women really hit home when my male cousin who in the mid-70s had lost in the first round at Wimbledon, trounced the reigning female world champion 6-0, 6-0.

While I support equality of opportunity and equal pay for the same work, the women pros seek "equal pay for less work." In tennis terms, this kind of special treatment is out of bounds.

Women play the best two out of three sets while men play the best three out of five. Men’s matches tend to be much longer, more grueling, and remain the preference of tennis fans. Until recently, men’s events at the Slams have drawn more viewers in both the stands and on television. Therefore, the men’s events have generated much more revenue, which goes into the prize pool. The men deserve to be paid more.

If women are outdrawing men, then the issue of equal pay is worth investigating. But I do not think the women wield the same drawing power because they cannot outperform the men. While it is true that Billie-Jean King in her prime managed to beat an aged, overweight, and washed-up Bobby Riggs, the number-one-ranked woman is still no match for the man ranked 150, and those threatening a boycott know it.

Athletes are role models and, instead of throwing John McEnroe-like tantrums, they should be seeking to send positive messages. As a former tournament player, I can assure you that demanding equal pay for less work is a negative message and bad principle for tennis, promoters, and the viewing public alike.

— Sally C. Pipes

President & CEO

Pacific Research Institute