Byline: IAN WOOLDRIDGE

THE WINNER of the women's singles at this year's Wimbledon will handbag [pounds sterling]625,000 for playing either two or three sets. The winner of the men's singles will pocket [pounds sterling]655,000 for playing three or five sets.

Both will minimally quadruple these sums when their agents set about rewriting their contracts for commercial endorsements.

Inevitably, the annual shenanigans have erupted again about the [pounds sterling]30,000 disparity between male and female prize money, apparently now a matter of such magnitude that it was the second topic Tony Blair had to deal with at Wednesday's Prime Minister's Questions.

Iraq, Afghanistan, criminality, health and education had to wait.

Naturally, probably fearing a smack on the bottom at home, Our Leader enthusiastically endorsed the clamour for millionairesses such as Venus Williams to receive equal pay.

The Tories are equally aware of the vital importance of the women's vote.

Indeed, two of them, one being the Shadow Sports Minister, Hugo Swire, were so indignant that they issued statements severely castigating the Lawn Tennis Association for perpetuating the pay differential.

Their indignation was matched only by their ignorance. The Lawn Tennis Association has no say in the distribution of Wimbledon purses. They are entirely in the keeping of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.

In the financial climate of sport these days - both Wimbledon winners will cash in by at least [pounds sterling] 2.5million overall - I would have thought that Wimbledon prize money involving a comparatively paltry [pounds sterling]30,000 would have been far down, if anywhere, on the agenda for parliamentary discussion.

Obviously
embroidered patches I had forgotten that there will be a general election within the next three or four years.

What a bunch of voteseeking creeps so many of them are.

Bookmark: