Last year's Men's Wimbledon Final took three hours to play and was watched by 9.2 million people. Less than half that tuned in to see Serena Williams (pictured) beat Garbine Muguruza in straight sets

Would you Adam and Eve it?

Anger always brings out the latent cockney in my husband, obliging me to grab a shearling jacket and walk like Fagin from Oliver Twist in preparation for the big news.

'We've only gone and landed tickets for the Women's Semi-Final...

...I wonder if Tony the Tout will take them off my hands.'

And off he went, ranting to himself about a crap two-setter with grunting women, praying for rain so we might get the chance to see a postponed male semi.

I can't say a male semi has ever really got my juices flowing. But the prospect of watching women play tennis is not on my list of fun things to do in the sun — a universal attitude reflected in ticket sales and viewing figures for the Grand Slams on TV.

Last year's Men's Wimbledon Final took three hours to play and was watched by 9.2 million people. Less than half that number tuned in to see Serena Williams beat Garbine Muguruza in straight sets — which took less time than it takes for me to get my highlights done.

So the CEO of Indian Wells was NOT wrong to point out the disparity between the two sexes, suggesting the lady players of the WTA should get on their knees every night to thank Nadal and Federer for carrying the game.

As with all public figures who lose their bottle after speaking their mind, he has subsequently apologised for his remarks, acknowledging them to be in poor taste.

In one way, they were. The last thing Federer needs is Serena crawling around after him on her knees with her tongue out. It's the stuff men's nightmares are made of.

But behind the hyperbole, his basic premise is correct. Female tennis players do not deserve to get the same prize money as the men. They don't earn it. So they shouldn't be paid it.

Pay parity in sport is not equal treatment, it is inequitable by any commercial measure. The men are subsidising the women's game.

The CEO of Indian Wells was not wrong to point out the disparity between the two sexes, suggesting players of the WTA should get on their knees every night to thank Nadal (left) and Federer (right) for carrying the game

What sort of progress for women is that? Being judged by our ability to stand really close to interesting boys in the hope that some of their sunshine will give us a tan?

It would be the equivalent of the Chelsea Women's Soccer Team being paid the same as the men's. Which makes no sense at all, despite women's football being shoved down our throats at every opportunity because the BBC thinks it can make us care.

If your tickets are worth less, your viewing figures are terrible, your advertising revenues are smaller and your share of voice is lower, how can you possibly demand pay commensurate with the men?

Female tennis players do not deserve to get the same prize money as the men. They don't earn it. So they shouldn't be paid it

Unless we are recruited on merit, paid on performance and rewarded on results, what metric are women measuring our success by? Just because you have a vagenda, doesn't make you worth it.

Some will argue that in certain competitions men play three sets as well. But all evidence shows these tend to be battles of strength lasting hours, rather than the Indian Wells final where Azarenka beat Williams in straight sets in a match lasting less time than your lunch break.

Other sports don't change the standards required for men and women. The marathon is not shorter for women.

At work, your day doesn't finish early just because you are a woman.

Novak Djokovic, who is essentially an automaton, ploughed into the debate to highlight that, given that quantitative metrics exist to back up increased pay for male tennis players, they should fight to earn even more

Novak Djokovic (pictured) ploughed into the debate to highlight that, given that quantitative metrics exist to back up increased pay for male tennis players, they should fight to earn even more

More confusingly for the greatest tennis player of our time, women have managed to pull off something inexplicable. They get paid more for doing less. Pictured is Katie Hopkins' tweet about Novak Djokovic

No one could accuse Novak of being over-emotional about anything. He had to be taught to understand the meaning of a smiley face because his world is based on process and evidence. Women are anathema to him, what with their 'hormones and everything'.

God only knows how his wife got pregnant.

But more confusingly for the greatest tennis player of our time, women have managed to pull off something inexplicable. They get paid more for doing less. They asked for equal treatment and got special treatment in return.