All sports are equal but some sports are more equal than others

Have you ever seen the movie ‘The Tourists?’ No me neither, but it's an important starting point on our voyage into the murky waters of gender equality in sport. In the "flop" (it still grossed $280million) Angeline Jolie does something then Johnny Depp does something else. Initially they hate each other before, after two hours of neither wearing much clothing, they fall in love. Or presumably that is what happens. Anyway, both Depp and Jolie were leading lights in the film, yet Depp was reportedly paid $20million for this movie whilst Jolie only a paltry $10 million. Someone get the ombudsman on the phone because we have here a clear case of gender discrimination.

During the Wimbledon Ladies’ final last week, NBC reminded viewers that it was Billie Jean King’s birthday. They went on to remember the great lengths to which she went for women's tennis and aired a snapshot of modern superstars paying tribute to this great lady. Leaving aside her obvious phenomenal talent, she is best remembered for playing Bobby Riggs in a match dubbed the "Battle of the Sexes". While history glosses over the point that he was 26 years her senior, King’s victory is said to symbolise that women's tennis was just as good as men’s and as such should have equal pay. This debate rumbled on with the Williams sisters maintaining they could beat any man ranked over 200th in the world. (The fact that when challenged and subsequently beaten by 203rd ranked Karsetn Braasch is neither here nor there!)

Eventually in 2007 under immense media pressure the chauvinistic pigs, the All England Club, agreed to pay the Women's or should I say Ladies’ Champion the same as the Men’s Champion thus ensuring that all major championships paid their winners, male or female, equal amounts. And since then - well nothing. The cornerstone argument is still the same - men play 5 sets while women play 3. So, (blogger takes a deep breath), this is inherently unfair on men.

I have never accepted the argument that women’s tennis is an inferior game. During the Sampras era men’s tennis became a game of who-could-serve-the-fastest, and it was finesse players like Justin Henin who brightened up dull tournaments. However, in the last few years, the quality of men’s tennis has spiked while women’s has, well, not. Yet last Saturday my faith was restored as Maria Sharapova and Petra Kvitová battled it out in a competitive Ladies’ grand slam final. Both of these finely tuned athletes look like they could comfortably manage a five setter and if you think they couldn't then you are simply sexist. Let them at it is what I say.

Watching the Women’s World Cup and the quality on offer is evident. Anybody who has seen either Hearther O'Reillys thunderbolt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PKwVcFpoa0) or Erika’s immense bit of skill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfuRzbzrps) will acknowledge that it is as entertaining as men’s international football. So why no “clammer” from the feminist lobby for equal pay? When James McCarthy scored a similar-all be it less impressive-goal he was lauded as Ireland's next superstar. But I'd wager he comfortably earns ten times what Erika does. Yet she plays the same quantity of football that James does.

The point isn't that Ladies’ sport is any less entertaining or that they train or try any less. You most likely haven't heard of her, but Yani Tseng has won four golf majors before her 23rd birthday. She's currently ripping up female golf and is a good shout to win this weekend’s US Open. However, as she is somehow not as "stylish" as a Michelle Wie, she is not as popular. Herein lies the inherent problem for women’s sport stars. Even though they are sports star by their own right, and should be viewed as such, they still get rated on their attractiveness. Anna Kournikova or Victoria Pendelton cashing in on their attractiveness is lending women’s sport no help. A quick voxpop of all the girls I know (3 including my mother) believed that Rory McIlroy is no oil painting. Whether he is or he isn't doesn't matter. If a journalist wrote this it would be weird but when it’s a female athlete it’s fine to speak disparately of their appearance.

This is where the battle lies, and not in the debate surrounding equal prize money. Tennis was an easy target for a feminist lobby who believed that sport was like all other forms of employment. If John, as an assistant manager in Dublin gets €40,000 and Mary as an assistant manager at the same firm in Waterford only gets €35,000 then this is inherently unfair. It is naivety in the extreme if anybody from the Equality Commission believes that Serena Williams would beat Novak Djokovic. That doesn't mean we should not celebrate female sport, but rather simply that equal pay is not the solution. The solution lies in the public at large-and that includes other women-fully appreciating their achievements.

Seamus Mc Daid is a sports agent living in New York City. You can follow me @fbspecial.