Should Wimbledon prize money be equal?

AS A great tennis fan, I find the men’s matches much more interesting and exciting to watch than the women’s. When it comes to the amount of prize money paid to players, I believe the men should receive more. This is because of the better entertainment they provide, and because their matches can be considerably longer, up to five sets. The women’s matches can be only three sets. The women seem to want the same money as the men for less work.

MARLENE ASH, Tetbury, Glos. FEMaLE tennis players are not, in my opinion, serving their sport well. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if they acknowledged that there are huge differences between the sexes? But if they insist on eliminating all differences, the authorities should call their bluff and let them play the men over five sets.

PATRICIA DUNWORTH, Guernsey, Channel Islands. THE WHOLE argument over men’s and women’s tennis — and pay rates — is a mistaken one. Tennis, like society as a whole, has males and females with differing attributes and skills, all of which should be equally valued. A proper tournament has both men’s and women’s competitions, singles and doubles — even mixed doubles. They attract audiences according to popularity and women’s contests aren’t doing too badly. I believe the controversy has arisen partly due to a change in the men’s style of play. Since the tennis authorities changed the ball, the men’s game, once dominated by big serve-and-volley exponents, has developed into more of a base-line contest, with lengthy back-court rallies. This had characterised the women’s game, but now the men do this, too, a more ready comparison can be made between them. Those who say real ‘equality’ means making the women play five sets are misogynists in disguise. There are differences between the genders and these should be recognised — but not at the cost of making one gender the poor relation.

W. WILLIAMS, Eastbourne, Sussex.