It has been a terrific year for tennis. For so many reasons, both good and bad, the sport reaffirmed its status as one of the most popular in the world. In fact, there has never been such a vast mix of nationalities, races and most importantly personalities playing the game.

We saw rivalries, histrionics, eye candy and controversies, and of course a number of great matches. But while all these were hogging the limelight, one event somehow never found the kind of attention that it deserves. It was the event which made 2007 a landmark year for sports - Wimbledon equalling the prize money for men’s and women’s competitions.

Consider the following: Pete Sampras finished his career with 14 Grand Slams and Steffi Graf, his contemporary, with 22. She also has 107 titles to her name, 43 more than Sampras. Yet Sampras finished with double the prize money of Graf. The reason is simple; men get higher prize money than women. The question, however, is why?

'If one were to talk efficiency here, then Graf was more profitable to tournaments than Sampras because she used to take much less court time on the same ticket'


There are a number of arguments extended in favour of this disparity. Two most frequent ones are that men play five sets (these days only in the Slams), that there is more depth in the field, and that women’s tennis is less popular. Now the second argument is the one that I find more relevant. Tennis, after all, is a sport and its primary motive is (and should be) entertainment.

I am not trying to take away any respect from the game or its players, rather stating the reason why sports exist. So going forward with the same argument, I would like to know if anyone thinks that Graf was a less popular player than Sampras. And we are not talking only about the US here, but the world over. And she has seven Wimbledon crowns, the same as Sampras.

Was her ability to fill the seats any less than Sampras's? If one were to talk efficiency here, then Graf was more profitable to the tournament than Sampras because she used to take much less court time on the same ticket. So what really was the argument?

The light seems to have entered the corridors of Wimbledon which, until now, has shamefully hidden behind the blinds of tradition. Some traditions and mindsets are necessary to be broken. And once that happens all one can say is “Finally!”