Wimbledon gives ladies love

The grass will be greener for women at Wimbledon this year. The All England Club announced Thursday that female players will be paid as much as male players, falling in line with all other Grand Slam events.

Last year, men's champion Roger Federer received $1.170 million while women's winner Amelie Mauresmo got $1.117 million.

(Poor Amelie, right?)

Now both men and women will get the same winnings at every stage of the tournament.

The U.S. Open and Australian Open were the first Grand Slams to pay equal prize money. And, for the first time last year, the French Open paid both winners the same, but the overall prize fund is still bigger for the men.

Tennis is one of the few sports where men and women compete at the same events, making it an easy target for outcries against the disproportionate payouts.

There's been a longtime argument as to why men should get more money than the women: men plan five sets, women play three.

I totally agree with that idea, but I'd venture to guess that the audience draw for men and women is the same in spite of match lengths. I doubt Joe and Jane Fan say, "I'm going to the men's match because I'll get more bang for my buck."

Something the women do have going for them is competition unlike the men where Federer is utterly unstoppable (OK, except for at the French). Women's matches are especially more entertaining than the men's at Wimbledon. Instead of ace, ace, ace, the women have these things called rallies.

When it comes down to it, the issue here isn't about match lengths, entertainment value or which side draws more fans. This is about women being equal to men on the largest stages in tennis. If women aren't equal there, where would they be?

So should they get equal pay? I don't see why not. Should they be viewed as equals? Absolutely...