Anyway, lest I be accused of misogyny, I decry equal pay on principles we can quantify, since quality is indeed subjective. In Grand Slam tournaments for example, men play five sets to the women’s three. This means they have to train longer and harder and would be more prone to injury which would lead to higher medical expenses. Next, the number of fans. You can verify this but I would think the men’s tour has the higher number of paying customers, both in the stadium and on cable TV. A five setter would mean that advertisers get more exposure during the match and so the men should have a higher share of the advertising revenue. For tournaments were both men and women play three sets, sure; equal prize money is more justifiable, if youre not factoring the subjective criteria of quality.