From "I" newspaper, 30th June 2012

By Alice Jones.

"The French tennis player Giles Simon has trotted out the old warhorse that men deserve more prize money at Wimbledon than women. Women finally achieved parity at the tournament in 2007 but the No 13 seed, knocked out in the second round this week, thinks it is already time to go back to the bad old days. "In Grand Slams men spend twice as much time on court as the women", he said. True, women play the best of three sets rather than five, but winning is about more than hours put in on the grass. If it wasn't, John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, whose match in 2010 lasted 11 hours over three days with a 70-68 final set, would be crowned the champions and be billionaires several times over.

Simon also claims that men's tennis is 'more entertaining' than women's tennis. Whether he's right or not, is he then suggesting that the prize pot should vary according to how much viewers enjoy a match? In that case, Pete Sampras who thunked his way to 14 predicable Grand Slam titles should be penniless and Lukas Rosol's giant-slaying og Rafa Nadal this week would have earned him a huge bonus. But that's not how it works. The top prize goes to the player who beats everyone else and nothing - not how long it takes, how good it looks or whether they wear shorts or a skirt to do it - should change that.