Thoughts on the US Open.
Last weekend I watched large parts of the US Open women’s tennis final on Saturday and the men’s final on Sunday. I saw some very good tennis.
At various points during both matches the camera showed it Billie Jean King and an announcer said in a celebratory voice that she was the one who persuaded the US Open organizers to award equal prizes to the male and female winners. This year the prize was a cool prize $3.6 million.
For the past 45 years I have paid attention to the call for ‘equal pay for equal work’. I don’t necessarily agree, for reasons that don’t matter in this context. But I always thought that the vast majority of people who were in favor of it believed in it.
Now I wonder. Why? Because the prize at the US Open is the opposite of equal pay for equal work. The men work much harder. To win, the men must win 3 sets. But the women only need to win 2 sets. And this applies to the entire 2 weeks. Every match between men is best of 5. Every match between women is best of 3.
Yet I don’t hear anyone making that point.
Was the call for ‘equal pay for equal work’ disingenuous? Is it bad if men get the same pay for less work, but great if women get the same pay for less work?