At the U.S. Open Tennis Championships this year, the United States Tennis Association is celebrating 50 years of paying equal prize money to women and men competitors. But the celebration is shortsighted given the reality that women tennis players still earn significantly less than their male counterparts, even at the upper echelons of the game.
In 1973, the U.S. Open became the first major sporting event to pay equal prize money to male and female athletes. The initiative was sparked by the activism of tennis legend Billie Jean King, who, the year prior, led fellow players by threatening to boycott the tournament unless women and men received equal prize money. In response, the tournament pledged to increase the payout to the women’s event champion by $15,000, meaning the men’s and women’s champions would each receive $25,000.
It then took until 2007, 34 years, until there was pay equity at all four tennis grand slam tournaments. (Australian Open in 2001 and French Open and Wimbledon in 2007.) Venus Williams, who, at 43 years old, recently competed in her 24th US Open, was instrumental in those efforts.
Despite progress at the four most prestigious tennis tournaments, inequity remains. The tennis season spans nearly the entire calendar year and spreads across the continents. There are many other tournaments beyond the big four, all of which offer varying prestige, prize money, and points to earn towards the players’ ranking. These other tournaments are crucial because there is significant prize money and ranking points at stake. A player needs a high ranking (more points) in order to qualify for more prestigious tournaments.
Beyond the four grand slams, the next largest tournaments are called “1,000” events. That means that the winning player typically receives 1,000 points towards their ranking. (In comparison, the winner of the U.S. Open grand slam would earn 2,000 points, while a winner at a “500” level tournament would earn 500 points, and so on.) It’s also important to note that most smaller events only feature men or women athletes. There are fewer combined events at the lower levels, but more combined events at the higher levels.
In 2023, there have been 15 combined tournaments other than the grand slams. Of those 15, only four have awarded equal prize money to women and men: United Cup in Australia, BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells in California, Miami Open, and Madrid Open. Eleven other combined events have severely underpaid the women athletes compared to the men.
Here are some examples:
At the Rome Open 1000, the male winner Daniil Medvedev received €1,105,265, while the female winner Elena Rybakina received €521,754.
At the National Bank Open 1000 in Canada and Western & Southern Open 1000 in Cincinnati, the male winners Jannik Sinner and Novak Djokovic each received $1,019,335, while the female winners Jessica Pegula and Coco Gauff each received $454,500.
At the Mubadala Citi Open 500 in D.C., the male winner Dan Evans won $353,445, while the female winner Coco Gauff won $120,150.
The pay disparity is even worse at tournaments that are considered different levels for women and men.
For instance, the Dubai Duty Free Tennis Championships was a 1000 level event for the women but a 500 level event for the men. Women’s winner Barbora Krejčíková received $454,500, while men’s winner Daniil Medvedev won $533,990. The men’s tournament winner won more money than the women’s tournament winner despite the men’s even being considered a lower level tournament.
And the Qatar Open tournament was a 500 level event for the women but a 250 level event for the men. Women’s winner Iga Swiatek took home $120,150, but men’s winner Daniil Medvedev won $209,445.
Sure, the women tennis players at the top of the game still win a lot of money regardless of the disparity between their prize money and what the men earn. But what about the lower-ranked women who are only able to play smaller tournaments or tend to lose earlier in the larger tournaments? These women are also less likely to have lucrative endorsement deals.
For example, a woman who lost in the first round of the Rome Open 1000 would take home €7,828, while a man who lost in the first round of the same tournament would receive €16,340.
A woman who lost in the first round of the Qatar Open 500 would earn $8,310, while a man who lost in the first round of the 250-level-version of the same tournament would get $14,770.
And a woman who lost in the first round of the tournament in Cincinnati 1000 would receive $12,848, while a man who lost in the first round of the same tournament would get $26,380.
It’s hardly financially feasible for lower-ranked women players to travel across the globe for these tournaments and pay coaches and other team members unless they are winning the events.
Women’s equity in sports, of course, isn’t unique to tennis. The U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team recently prevailed in their high-profile, years-long effort to earn equal pay as the men’s team. Despite winning multiple World Cups, the USWNT was severely underpaid in comparison to the USMNT—a team that performed so poorly they failed to qualify for a recent World Cup.
Opponents of women’s equity often make abstract arguments that male athletes draw larger audiences and higher revenue. But time and time again, we are seeing that when women athletes are given the opportunity to perform on large stages, they deliver. Just this week, a world record was set when 92,003 fans watched a University of Nebraska Cornhuskers women's volleyball game.
And in tennis, the 2022 U.S. Open set ticket sales records when Serena Williams announced that she would be retiring from the sport after the tournament. Today, one of the biggest stars in the sport is 19-year-old American Coco Gauff. Fans have packed the tournament grounds to watch Gauff play at this year’s U.S. Open. Gauff is so popular that she filled the “granstand” stadium when she played a doubles match in that arena (doubles is typically less popular than singles matches). When I attended the event this week, I couldn’t find an available seat to watch Gauff play with her partner Jessica Pegula.
It’s about time that tennis leads by example and pays the women what they have earned. More players should call on the tennis governing bodies, the International Tennis Federation (ITF), the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), and the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) to step up to ensure equity among all players. As Billie Jean King recently said, "Our work is far from done.”
What’s your take?