In the last year I have taken up the oh-so bourgie sport of tennis. Not just taken up- but become addicted to the thwack of my racquet on a little green ball (no snickering allowed from the peanut gallery about my love of smacking around balls-really.)

Mephistopheles (the brave boy that he is) and I are taking lessons together from a little French guy who likes to address my breasts. Last Saturday most of the class ditched, so there were only 4 of us and the devil was the only boy. Tennis is great because it is one of the few sports where women can compete with men (remember Billy Jean King anyone?) and it is the women who are the current superstars- though I salivate over James Blake.

Then I read this:

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) Wimbledon remains the only Grand Slam tournament that pays the men’s champion more than the women’s winner.
The All England Club announced Tuesday that the men’s winner this year will receive $1.170 million and the women’s champion $1.117 million, a difference of $53,000. It’s a four percent increase in British currency. The French Open announced earlier this month that it would pay the men’s and women’s champions the same amount for the first time, although the overall prize fund is bigger for the men. The two other Grand Slam tournaments,the Australian and U.S. Opens, have paid equal prize money for years.

So why is it that Wimbledon is one of the last tennis events to pay men and women so unevenly? To read their convoluted reasoning and a damn fine analysis go check out Zuzu’s post at Feministe.