Dunno if this has been brought up, but I didn't see a topic on it, so I figured I'd make one.
I think it's kind of ridiculous that women are given equal prize money and that the issue is pretty much closed up and done. The guys are out there busting their butts for much longer than the women, and the women get equal prize money? For example, at this year's Australian Open, Victoria Azarenka spent 10 hours and 24 minutes on court total. Novak Djokovic spent more time on court than that (10 hours and 43 minutes) in his last two matches alone.
Look to the record books. The longest women's match ever in a slam took 4 hours and 44 minutes. There have been 11 matches in men's slam history that have taken over 5 hours. As compared to 0 in women's slam history. The longest match in women's slam history, as in longest ever, completely ridiculous, was equivalent to a tiring marathon for a guy's match. But not anywhere near the longest in history.
The point is, let's say a woman goes out on court, and has a super tough match. She ends up winning 6-7 (3), 7-5, 6-3. It's one of the toughest of her career. A guy goes out on court and has a decently easy match. He ends up winning 7-5, 6-4, 6-4. The guy's match was a relatively easy one, somewhat close at times, but a straight sets victory. It contained one less game overall than the woman's match, which was supposedly extremely tough and she might have even had to save some match points. And yet, they spent the same time on court. So then let's look at a guy's match that's tougher. Say he wins 7-5, 3-6, 4-6, 7-6 (6), 6-4. He just went out there and had to exert himself for a lot longer than the woman did, but gets the same prize money. How is that fair? Why does a woman get paid more per hour (basically) than the man?
Now, I'm not being sexist here. I have no problem with women getting the same prize money as men. But if they want the same amount of money, they should have to do the same amount of work. Make them play best of 5 sets.