Sophie Acklin of Logan Park High School has strong views on whether women tennis players should be paid as much as their male counterparts.

January 29, 2012, the first Tennis Grand Slam of the year. Rod Laver Arena - Melbourne, Australia.

This was the setting of the pivotal Grand Slam final of the Australian Open between old foes, world number 1 seed Serbian Novak Djokovic, and 2nd seed Rafael Nadal of Spain.

These two players had already met in back to back finals in 2011, with Novak coming out on top in both the U.S Open and Wimbledon.

Nadal was hoping to finally defeat Djovokic after 6 straight losses to him, but it just wasn't meant to be.

Novak Djokovic successfully defended his title in 5 hard-fought sets 5-7, 6-4, 6-2, 6-7, 7-5.

He entered the season as reigning world number 1 for the first time in his career. The game was the longest match in the history of the Australian Open and in fact the longest final in the Open era in Grand Slam history. It marked the 5th Grand Slam of his career and 3rd Australian Open title.

But as I sat watching this enthralling rivalry between these 2 opponents I couldn't help but compare this battle to that of the Women's singles final played the night before, between Victoria Azarenka of Belarus and Maria Sharapova of Russia.

This match paled in comparison to the physical skill and fight that the men endured over 5 sets of well played tennis.

The women's match played out in only 2 sets, lasting for an hour and 22 minutes; vastly different to that of the men's final.

The time it took for Victoria Azarenka to defeat Sharapova and claim the title of Aussie Open Champion 2012 was only 2 minutes longer than what it took for Nadal to claim the first set over Novak Djokovic.

Although the differences between the 2 matches are rather obvious, the 2 champions both left with a whopping winnings cheque of (AU) $2,300,000, with the runners up receiving (AU) $1,150,000.

I don't think the equal pay was justified.

Maria Sharapova in the final gained 3 games altogether in her loss to Azarenka and won only 38 points. That works out as a tidy $30,263 a point.

Men's runner up Rafael Nadal left with the same cheque as Sharapova but his calculations were a bit different.

Nadal won 25 games, which works out at $46,000 a game. He won 176 points which equals $6534 a point.

No matter how you dress that up, the simple fact is the difference in the two amounts is outrageous.

The Australian Open started handing over the same winning cheques in 2000. It wasn't until 2007 that Wimbledon and the French Open joined the party while the US Open has been doing it since 1973.

The debate about whether women's tennis players should be paid the same as their male counterparts at Grand Slam tournaments has been kicking along for years.

And judging by all the questionnaires and polls all over the internet, most people think women should get paid less.

On the tennis ATP tour, it makes complete sense that the women get paid the same amount of money for winning their final matches because they both have to play the best of three sets.

But as soon as they reach Grand Slams, woman play best of 3 and men play best of 5.

So is it fair that if a woman wins the final of a Grand Slam in two or three sets she gets the same amount of money as a man who wins his final in five sets?

If women want to get paid the same, they should have the same rules as men and play the same amount of sets. It's as simple as that.

Should the women really be getting equal prize money for doing "arguably" less work over the two week period of a Grand Slam?

Surely, if the Williams sisters can finish their singles matches and then go off and play doubles too, they clearly have enough in the tank to play five sets.

A lot of female players play doubles and even sometimes mixed doubles because three sets is manageable.

If men can change up the tempo to play an extra set or three in a Grand Slam, why can't women play five sets if they work just as hard as men?

But if we look at the bigger picture, the argument is really about who brings in the cash.

Who gains better ratings on television? Who do the crowds come to watch? The clear cut answer - the men.

The Djokovic-Nadal final was watched by an average of 1.86 million people nationally, and with a peak of four million viewers world wide.

Who do you think Australia's Channel 7 executives prefer to show in prime time? This is also why Australian Open organisers charge an extra $80 for seats to the men's final compared with the women's.

They know the demand from the market is there. They know they can charge more because on a value for money scale, no one will complain because the fact is, they're going to see more entertainment watching the men's final.

The days of women being underpaid and undervalued have surely gone. It's 2012, not 1952.

This is simply an argument about one particular sport.

The women's final was over and done after 1 hour 22 minutes in Melbourne compared to the epic 5 hour 53 minute marathon of the men's final.

In conclusion there was an absolute Grand Canyon of difference between what Victoria Azarenka had to endure to lift her Championship Trophy compared to what Novak Djokovic had to go through to win the Norman Brookes Challenge Cup.