equal pay for better work.

The All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club has, after years of semi-controversy over the issue, decided to offer equal prize money to the women. So, when Serena Williams utterly destroys everyone this year, she'll get paid the same as Roger Federer after he decimates all comers.

I've believed for a while that women's tennis has been a much better deal for viewers than the men's division (Federer's super skills notwithstanding). Three-set matches are just flat out better to watch and more exciting to play, because those points mean more, and some of the minor events on the men's tour are three-set events. Hell, I believe women could do five-set matches, but would it really be in anyone's interest? As it stands right now, Wimbledon is finally offering equal pay for better work. The women's field in tennis has had better players and matches (despite occasional lack of starpower) for at least the past decade, despite the best efforts of Federer, Sampras, and Agassi.

(Andy Roddick is a choking lout.)

While we await Roland Garros following suit for the French Open, let's institute a sliding scale for the men to increase their incentive, especially since not too many of them are putting up fights against Federer:

1) If you don't break Roger, he gets a quarter of your money.
2) If you lose 6-1 or 6-0 in a set to Roger, he gets a third.
3) If you lose by 6-1 or 6-0 in straight sets to Roger, he gets half your money.