[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Billcat

Another thought - apparently, TV audiences for the women's finals have been larger than those for the men in most recent tennis Grand Slam events - and their audience is growing faster, too. Small wonder then, that the women are asking for, and getting, equal treatment.

In sports, players don't get paid for playing longer matches. You get paid for winning, and the entertainment that it provides to the audience, as measured by audience size.

In the UK a TV company buys the rights to televise a sport for a fixed fee, although I accept that some deals might include TV audiences. However audience viewing figures are always a guesstimate based on a few monitors so I can’t see a TV company agreeing to pay more if the sport attracts more than the expected viewers or less if fewer people view. I doubt if it is any different in the states. But then what do I now?

The only people who gain from large audiences are the advertisers and the TV company.

The players at Wimbledon get paid for being in a match and the winner of a match gets more. The entertainment value doesn’t come into the prize money equation.