Steve Deane: Sharapova's value made a mockery of equal pay claims

Maria Sharapova. Photo / Getty Images

Women don't deserve equal prizemoney in tennis.

Sometimes they deserve more than men, more often less, but the notion of pay equality based on sex in professional sport is bonkers.

What's sex got to do with it? Well everything, in the case of Maria Sharapova. Which is why her visit to Auckland this year is one of the rare cases when a female player deserved to be paid more than her male counterparts.

The Russian scream queen put bums on seats at the ASB tennis centre, with the day sessions sold out for the entire week. That is pretty much unheard of for a WTA event.

Nobody could seriously suggest Sharapova didn't deserve her pound of flesh in return for showing off a bit of hers. By all accounts she received it.

With her appearance fee estimated at somewhere just north of US$100,000 ($130,000) and her prizemoney for making the quarter-finals US$5340, Sharapova was the best paid player of Auckland's annual fortnight of tennis.

Even with a winner's cheque of US$72,600 and a tidy little appearance fee to boot, Heineken Open winner David Ferrer failed to match Sharapova's earnings.

Of the pair, Ferrer played far better tennis, not to mention far more tennis. Is it fair that Sharapova earned more than him? Absolutely.

In terms of the publicity her presence generated for sponsors and the sport, Sharapova earned every cent - even if she did kind of suck on the court.

Ferrer put on a masterclass but people came to see him for what he could do, not who he was, and he got paid accordingly.

Tennis isn't always so fair about how it dishes out the squillions it generates.

The forthcoming Australian Open will be a monstrous exercise in unfair pay.

Since Wimbledon toed the line in 2007, all four grand slams have offered equal prizemoney for men and women (although the French held out for a bit by initially offering an equal cheque only to the winners).

Given the sort of sums we're talking about here - A$2.2 million ($2.8 million) for winning in Melbourne - unfairness may not be the correct term to describe the inequity.

The men's matches are longer, of a higher standard and attract a bigger audience. Quite simply, the men are cheated out of a deserved greater share of the prize pool.

Fans are also cheated. In 2009 I attended the both the men's and women's finals. Ticket prices for both nights were the same - admittedly for me it cost nothing thanks to a kindly sponsor, but the average punter forked out A$289.90.

In the women's final - tellingly in front of a three-quarters full stadium - Serena Williams belted Dinara Safina 6-0 6-3 in under an hour. The following night Rafael Nadal reduced Roger Federer to tears, beating him in a five set classic that lasted 259 minutes.

The gulf in the quality and quantity of entertainment isn't always that pronounced but often enough it is.

Melbourne organisers have all but admitted as much. This year a ticket to the women's final is $50 cheaper than the men's.

Yes, women are underpaid in comparison to men in just about every field. That's wrong. But one more wrong doesn't make a right. It's hard to believe that knowing women tennis players are overpaid is much consolation to your average underpaid nurse.

* * *

The switch of Auckland's tennis tournaments from state broadcaster TVNZ to pay TV operator Sky next year isn't a done deal yet. Until now Auckland Tennis has paid TVNZ to broadcast tournaments. With Sky to put in a bid for the rights, that situation is certain to change but it remains to be seen whether TVNZ will join a bidding war.

Sponsors Heineken and ASB may also have a say. The word is that Heineken would be happy with a switch to Sky, while ASB believe they get more value out of the event being on free-to-air, particularly with One News delivering nightly sports bulletins live from the tennis centre.

Personally, I'm always more comfortable with Sky handling sporting events. TVNZ pins its colours to the mast every time it switches away from a match at a vital stage. In 2009 the broadcaster cut away from a classic between Phillipp Kohlschreiber and Juan Carlos Ferrero deep into a third-set tiebreaker to bring us Food-in-a-Minute. A match people had been watching for 230 minutes lasted two more points. It was over by the time Allyson Gofton had taken the first can of beans out of the cupboard.

This year the contemptible nonsense continued with defending champion John Isner's decisive tiebreak against David Nalbandian deemed less important than the news. Enough is enough.