As always, at this time of year, when tennis is still a hot topic throughout the world, attention turns to the subject of equal pay.

Wimbledon, until now, has always been the example used by those believing that pay gaps favouring men are a positive thing. It was Pat Cash who famously said that women’s tennis is “two sets of rubbish that last’s only half an hour”.

History proves that men can run faster, jump higher, and gain higher scores in trivia and intelligence tests. However, having a faster serve doesn’t make you a better tennis p_layer_ and remembering more World Cup trivia certainly doesn’t make you a better business person.

British tennis has at last recognised this fact by offering equal prize money to both male and female Wimbledon competitors and British labour laws have recognised this fact with the latest Equality Bill.

However, many HR professionals are arguing that the bill, which can be interpreted to read that women in the workplace should be hired and rewarded to the detriment of male applicants and employees, is a negative move that could lead to less qualified females being employed over more qualified males purely to abide by the latest labour laws.

How far should equality be forced upon the workplace and sporting world?

In my opinion, a female Formula 1 driver who is capable of competing against males in the same race should be given the opportunity to prove herself; and should be rewarded to the same degree.

A businesswoman capable of competing in a male dominated business world should be provided with the same opportunities and rewarded at the same level.

However, should a woman incapable of an equal standard of football as her male national counterparts be hired by a national football team purely _base_d on equal rights and labour laws? And, if hired, should she be rewarded to the same level despite her substandard level of ability?

Isn’t there a chance that the latest Equality Bill could force this position upon the business world?

I believe firmly in pay for performance. Regardless of your gender, age, ethnicity or anything else, you should be rewarded fro the work that is done. If you can run faster and hit harder then you are probably more entertaining to watch and, ergo, deserve a pay commensurate with your abilities. Whether in the boardroom or on the tennis court, you should be paid for what you can offer and not according to which bathroom you use.

The sporting world is so heavily dominated by marketing via sponsorship and ticket sales that, ultimately, whoever draws a larger crowd gets paid more money. No doubt you recall Anna Kournikova, the Russian tennis princess, who was paid not so much for her backhand, but rather her backside. Of course, I am not suggesting that such an attitude can be replicated in the workplace - sexual harrassment and unfair discrimination laws protect that - but it does remind us that the sporting and working worlds are very, very different. Unfortunately the term 'merit' in sports also means 'how well you draw a crowd'. It doesn't always correlate to fastest times.

In the workplace, however, remuneration _base_d on true merit is much easier to gauge.

I fully agree that there should be equal pay regardless of gender, race, etc. but it needs to be for equal effort and performance. In the tennis example; at the Australian open; women are offered the same prize money as their male counter parts, yet they only play best of three sets as opposed to best of 5 for the men. Dosen't this highlight the reverse discrimination that may creep into the business world if we are not carefull.