I read the whole New York Time's article to try to find who makes more money for Wimbledon--men or women. Couldn't find it.
To me, it's not a matter of gender equality, it's a matter of market equality. If women have more fans, scores more ad revenue, they should get paid more and vice versa. If the seats are sold out for the same price whether a man or a woman is playing, why would one gender make more?
I did find this at Economist's View:
What is the product here? They are selling entertainment and compensation to inputs is based upon the added entertainment value provided by men and women players. It doesn't matter if people come to the stadium or tune in on TV to watch tennis or a swim suit model, all that matters is that they watch. The argument that tournament sponsors can sell less adds during women's matches stated above is relevant as that affects revenue, but if the ads are more valuable because of higher viewership, its not necessarily the case that compensation should fall. It's interesting that when confronted with higher viewership for women's matches, the writer argues that men should be paid more because "There was a time, and it will come again, when the male players are the bigger television draw."The idea of men getting paid more because their matches are longer is ridiculous. Five minutes of Michael Jordan is worth more than five hours of Steve Alford.
If you find any info about the nuts and bolts of tennis economics, let me know.