Question

For many years in professional tennis at least until recently, the winner's purse for the women's championship matches was less than what men were paid for winning the same championships, such as Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. One of the arguments given for paying women less was that women play only the best out of three sets while men had to win three of five sets for their championships. Since men played more games, it was argued, they should be paid more. Does economic analysis support such a claim? Why or why not? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

Answer: the claim should not be supported. In economic term this is known as wage discrimination.

Explanation: If men and women are working in the same category, they must be paid equally. This is what an economic term suggests and must be followed. But, this is not happening here – men are getting more than women although they are playing the same game, tennis.

The argument of number of “sets” doesn’t stand here, since this might be a creation of making ways how more monies could be delivered to men. Once they (men and women) are playing the same game, in the same court, in the same environment, and in the same facilities, there must not be any difference in outcomes. Therefore, the difference in sets is only a creation and it should not be entertained – men and women must have equal sets in a match (either 3 sets or 5 sets). This is very much required for parity.