Thoughts on the US Open.
Last weekend I watched the US Open women’s final on Saturday and most of the men’s final on Sunday. It was some great tennis.
The camera was on at various points during both games. Billie Jean King The announcer announced in a congratulatory voice that it was she who convinced the organizers of the U.S. Open to give equal prize money to the men’s and women’s winners. This year’s prize money was cool. $3.6 million.
For the past 45 years I have been focusing on the demand for “equal pay for equal work.” I have not always agreed with it, for reasons that are not important in this context, but I have always thought that the majority of people who promote it believe it.
So the question is, why? Because prize money at the U.S. Open is the opposite of equal pay for equal work. Men work a lot harder than men. Men have to win three sets to win, but women only have to win two. And this is true for two weeks. Every match between men is best of five. Every match between women is best of three.
But no one seems to point that out.
Was the demand for “equal pay for equal work” disingenuous? Is it bad for men to get the same pay for less work, but good for women to get the same pay for less work?
