Tim Dahlberg: English have point regarding unequal pay

For those of us who live on the other side of the pond, the Brits have always seemed a quirky sort.

They break for afternoon tea, drink warm beer and endure endless queues and bad plumbing without complaint. They cling stubbornly to their money and share a strange fascination for the sun when it shines.

And, more often than not, they love their sports figures better when they fail than when they succeed. Tim Henman has never made it past the Wimbledon semifinals, but he’ll always be known in England as “Our Tim.”

So how surprising is it that, in an age of equality and political correctness, they continue to pay women less money to play tennis than men?

About as surprising as the rain that fell Monday, disrupting the first round of play at the All England Club for yet another year.

You see, the people who run the most famous tournament in tennis tend to be a stuffy sort. They make players wear white, continue to play tennis on green grass, and until only recently required everyone to make a cute little curtsy whenever the royals were in town.

Pay women the same as men? Jolly well, mate. Next they’ll want cold beer and a roof over Centre Court.

Actually, they are putting a roof over Centre Court, though it won’t be ready for another three years. And, for the first time, on-court officials and ball kids are wearing blue uniforms.

Even at stodgy old Wimbledon, the times are changing.

Some traditions die harder than others. So, once again this year, Maria Sharapova will be playing for less than Roger Federer, and Venus Williams won’t have a chance to make as much as Andre Agassi.

The other major tennis championships – the U.S., French and Australian opens – all pay their champions the same. But their winners are men and women. At Wimbledon, the titles are won by ladies and gentlemen.

Some of those ladies don’t exactly act ladylike when it comes to wanting prize check equality.

“For us, it’s not about earning more money or becoming any more well off. It’s really about an equality issue,” Williams said. “At this point, it’s become really that we represent women around the world. We’re the premier sport for women. We would like to empower women around the world by showing that we are willing to fight for equality.”

This isn’t exactly a fight for equality, though. More like a chat about it.

The draw sheets still show Williams and the other top players in the world scheduled to play Wimbledon. There’s no talk of a boycott, no chance of anyone not playing because she believes so much about the social issue of equal pay.

When you look at the money involved, you understand why. The men’s champion will earn some $1.2 million this year, and the women’s winner will pocket $1.15 million. You have to be awfully committed to the notion of equality to pass up a chance at that.

Why the All England Club can’t throw an extra 50 grand into the ladies’ pot is a mystery known only to the gentlemen in blazers who run it. Sell a few more strawberries and cream and the thing will pay for itself.

The mere suggestion of equal pay is met with such astonishment that you would think someone wanted to begin driving on the right side of the road. The blazers the other day defended themselves by trotting out statistics showing last year’s women quarterfinalists earned $2,635 a game to $1,827 for the men.

That’s because, they said, the men work harder for their wins. They play best-of-5-set matches to best-of-3 for the women.

The blazers also noted that Wimbledon pays women 87 percent as much money as men, while the top women’s regular tour events pay just 63 percent as much as the top men’s tournaments.

The logic of the English can sometimes be as baffling as their love of bad food. But they have a point.

In an entirely politically correct world, women would be earning the same as men in all sports. Sharapova would make as much as Federer, the WNBA would be paying Sheryl Swoopes $14 million and female soccer players would be superstars instead of being unemployed.

None of that is happening because women’s sports is still, well, women’s sports. They’re worth less because men in general don’t watch them and they have yet to gain a big footing even among their own gender.

That’s why the women’s pro soccer league failed, and the WNBA is kept alive only by the grace of NBA owners. Women’s golf exists only as a niche sport, and even the Williams sisters and the telegenic Sharapova haven’t been enough to make women’s tennis must-see TV.

The concept of equality in sports is an admirable one. Unfortunately, a different reality exists in the marketplace.

It will take a lot longer than a fortnight at Wimbledon to change that.