The US open is in town and it brought to my attention a few interesting facts. Namely that the top women's tennis player(Maria Sharapova) makes more in endorsement deals than the top mens player (Roger Federer) for reasons that don't have anything to do with tennis ofcourse. Though my tone might indicate otherwise I have no issue with that. I mean if you are still wondering why thats the case, you have'nt seen a photo of Sharapova. The market has decided that Maria Sharapova is more saleable than Roger Federer and its as simple as that.
Then why am I writing this post? Well not too long back women won pay parity with men on certain Grand Slam events(I don't remember that all the 4 grand slam's implemented a pay parity) after a long and hard fough battle. For them the principle at hand was how could a woman be paid less to do a job , play tennis in this case than men.
Now Since my reading on this matter is not extensive I apologise for any holes. But to me it would seem a misplaced argument. Surely the men were getting paid more cos more people turned up to watch them. Wonder what those women who fought the good fight think now. Was it worth it? Since anyway now women are on top for the very same reasons the men got more prize money.