Tennis Equal Prize Money: Men Play 50% More Sets

We frequently hear that American women earn only about 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. Whatever the merits of that familiar comparison, professional tennis offers a striking reversal. At the 2026 US Open, the male champion earned approximately 52 cents for every dollar earned by the female champion—at least when prize money is divided by the time each spent competing on court.

Elena Rybakina and Alexander Zverev each received $5.5 million for winning their respective singles championships. Rybakina spent 12 hours and 4 minutes on court over seven rounds. Zverev played for 23 hours and 11 minutes. That works out at approximately $456,000 per match-hour for Rybakina and $237,000 for Zverev.

Put in the language ordinarily used to dramatise disparities unfavourable to women, Zverev earned just 52 cents for every dollar earned by Rybakina. In other words, Rybakina earned $1.92 for every dollar Zverev earned.

I am not suggesting that tournament officials discriminated against Zverev illegally. I also realise that prize money is not literally an hourly wage. A champion is paid for winning a tournament, and a dominant player should not be penalised for winning quickly. Individual paths also vary with opponents, long sets, tiebreaks, injuries, and other such factors.

However, the 2026 gap at the US Open was not merely a quirk of two players’ paths. It was rooted in a structural inequality built into Grand Slam tennis. Women play best-of-three-set matches, whereas men play best-of-five. A woman must win two sets to advance. A man must win three—50 percent more.

Over seven rounds, therefore, a women’s champion must win 14 sets. The men’s champion must win 21. The gap can grow larger because a man may concede two sets and remain in the tournament, while a woman who loses two is finished. Rybakina played 17 sets and 159 games on her way to the title. Zverev played 26 sets and 271 games. He spent 11 hours and 7 minutes longer on court—92 percent more time—for precisely the same championship prize.

The comparison between the two champions illustrates the disparity in tangible terms. The data covering the entire tournament document its systematic nature.

The system is rigged