Ladies Final.

[Sqad]

So one sided, not even a match and lasted less than an hour.
Congratulations to Halep but how can these women command the same salary as men?

[JimF]

"how can these women command the same salary as men"

Because men and women are equal - different, but equal.

Trot on, dinosaur.

[saintpeter48]

JimF; Ladies only play best of 3, men best of 5, how is that equal!

[EDDIE51]

Ever heard of 'sexual equality Law' Sqad ?
Anyway, opinion polls say that Womens tennis is FAR more popular with TV viewers than 'Mens' .
So it can command far higher payments for the adverts !

[Sqad]

JimF

Still waiting for a reply to saintpeter's post.

[bobbs202]

Regardless of the money aspect ,that was a great match and a very deserved winner

[Sqad]

bobbs...I disagree....it was FAR from a great match....it was one sided.

[campbellking]

1881- shortest mens final lasted 36 minutes, Fred Perry won in 40 minutes in 1936. Both of these had the potential to go to 5 sets.
However, would agree that men and women should play over the same number of sets.

[elliemay1]

Quality is more important than quantity!

[dannyk13]

6-2 6-2 Sounds more like a drubbing than a great match..

[THECORBYLOON]

Should the prize be based on the closeness of the result?

[bobbs202]

I probably misused the word 'great' it was very good in as much as the Romanian girl played a blinder on the day, yes I concede it was one sided,Serena wasn't in it at all but it was good having a new champion

[JimF]

"Ladies only play best of 3, men best of 5, how is that equal!"

That's just the rules of tennis!

[Sqad]

Corbyloon...the prize should be given to the winner...however long the match....BUT that isn't my point.
Women play the best of 3 sets and the men play the best of 5, so why is the prize money the same? Is that fair?

Eddie.

"Anyway, opinion polls say that Womens tennis is FAR more popular with TV viewers than 'Mens' . "

Just show me a link....any link to show that Grand Slam popularity is greater for women than men.

[Sqad]

JIm.....LOL....LOL

[ladybirder]

Halep was absolutely brilliant. Well done her. I was expecting Serena to up her game but when she did, her opponent upped hers as well and was far better.

I'd like to see proof that women's tennis is more popular than men's. I prefer watching the men any day. As for the money side, I don't think I agree with equal money for fewer sets.

[ichkeria]

Brilliant well done Simona.
She’s the champion of her sex and as such worth every penny the men get.
They’ll play best of five if they have to but that’s irrelevant

[anneasquith]

Not a great game, SW looked so tired. I saw Meghan in the royal box, I just averted my eyes, so as not to get in ‘trouble ‘ lol

[Sqad]

Ichtheria...;-)...that's that sorted then.

[JimF]

"I don't think I agree with equal money for fewer sets."

So, suppose the men's final is decided in straight sets - should the prize money be reduced by two fifths? What if the match is won three sets to one? That's only four sets - what happens then?

What if the match is 6-0, 6-0, 0-6, 0-6, 6-0? That's 30 games over five sets, which is fewer games than 7-6, 7-6, 7-5.

The number of sets argument is patently nonsense!

[ichkeria]

It’s been sorted at Wimbledon for the last 12 years.