EQUALITY, REALLY!

Following Wimbledon fortnight, and yes, it was refreshing to have a British winner in the Men's: Well done Andy Murray! What does baffle the author, however, happens to be the fact that the Women's competition is rewarded with the same prize money as the opposite sex. How can a 'best of three sets' be equal to the 'best of five', the latter generally played at a much higher tempo.

Should we pursue this illogical nonsense? Perhaps haberdashers, for example, should charge for 5yards/metres, even when only three are being purchased. Why not? This could be restricted for just the period of 'Wimbledon'.

The most interesting aspect regarding Murray's deserved success was a comment in the press, which suggested that he, Murray, should he have lost the final, his sponsorship deals would have been around £10million, whereas, in winning, he could garner something closer to £100million. This is difficult to comprehend, as the western world's economies are, at best, scraping the barrel.

MURRAY 3sets WESTERN ECONOMIES 0.