Thoughts on the US Open.
Last weekend, I watched large portions of the US Open women’s tennis finals on Saturday and the men’s finals on Sunday. I watched very good tennis.
At various times in both matches, the camera panned to Billie Jean King and the announcer said, in a tone of celebration, that she was the one who persuaded the organizers of the US Open to give equal prizes to the male and female winners. This year the prize was a cool $3.6 million.
For the past 45 years, I have heeded the call for “equal pay for equal work.” I disagree, for reasons that are irrelevant in this context. But I always thought that most of the people who worshiped believed in it.
Now I wonder. Why? Because the US Open prize is the opposite of equal pay for equal work. Men work very hard. To win, the men must win 3 sets. But women need to win only 2 sets. And this is true for every 2 weeks. All matches between men are best of 5. All matches between women are best of 3.
However, I don’t hear anyone making that point.
Was the call for “equal pay for equal work” false? Is it bad if men get the same pay for less work but are fined if women get the same pay for less work?
Source link