The Wimbledon fortnight is, for me, the highlight of my year as a sports fan.

As something of a racket sports fanatic, I could spend all day watching Wimbledon. Men’s tennis is flourishing, with the top four players in particular arguably the best top four the game has ever seen. The women are buoyed by the reappearance of the Williams sisters, but the women’s game is lagging behind the men’s in terms of quality. This year, both champions will take home £1.1m, but I believe – and feminists should look away now – that there should not be equal prize money for both men and women at the grand slams.

There can be little argument about the fact that the men have to work harder to get their hands on the trophy. The most compelling argument as to why the men have a more demanding fortnight is the simple fact that to win the tournament, they have to win seven best-of-five set matches compared to the women contesting best-of-three sets. This results in the men spending significantly more time on court and playing considerably more games than their female counterparts. Indeed, in 2010, both champions pocketed £1m but the women’s victor, Serena Williams, was rewarded much more handsomely for the amount of tennis she played in comparison to the men’s winner, Rafael Nadal. Williams earned £1938 for every minute she spent on court whereas Nadal earned only £951 for every minute played. Admittedly, still not a bad return. The record-breaking 11 hour, 5 minute John Isner versus Nicloas Mahut match meant these two players spent more time on court for this one match than Williams did for the whole tournament. This surely demonstrates that equal money is disproportionate. Until the women play best-of-five set matches, I do not believe that they should be awarded the same prize money as the men.

Badminton does enjoy equal prize money but this is a relatively recent development. The scoring system in the sport changed in 2006 to all disciplines playing best-of-three sets to 21 points. Until then, the men’s singles players played best-of-three sets to 15 points while the women played best-of-three to 11. When this was the status quo, even I, as one of the successful female athletes who was picking up a reduced purse, found it hard to argue for parity for effectively doing less work. I believe that the introduction of a single scoring system, with women’s matches often lasting as long as men’s, justifies the award of equal prize money.

There have been trials in tennis with the women contesting best-of-five set matches, most notably the WTA Tour Championships. From 1984 until 1998, the final of the tournament was played in the longer format. However, it reverted to the traditional best-of-three set up in 1999.

There is also the argument of value for money. Sport is, after all, an entertainment industry and it is valid to ask: should players be rewarded according to the level of entertainment that they provide? It would be a hard task to convince the majority of tennis fans that women’s tennis provides greater entertainment than the current men’s game. The women frequently stroll through the opening rounds of a tournament, playing in one-sided matches which often include love sets. The top men have much stronger competition to deal with. Last year’s Wimbledon saw both Nadal and Roger Federer taken to five sets in the early rounds. The men’s final attracted an average of 5.6 million viewers in the UK while the women’s final only managed an average of 2.3 million, highlighting where the public’s interest primarily lies.

I do admit, however, that this argument is contentious due to the subjectivity of entertainment value. While it is true that the men are currently commanding more attention, there was a time in the early 2000s as we witnessed the valediction of the Pete Sampras/ Andre Agassi rivalry, and prior to the emergence of the Federer and Nadal dominance that the women thrived. The Williams sisters, in particular, transcended their sport to become global superstars.

It remains to be seen whether this year’s Wimbledon will follow a similar script as previous grand slams, with the women being considerably more generously rewarded than the men for the tennis they play. However, until they bear a comparable workload, I will remain unconvinced as to the fairness of equal prize money in the game.

n Susan Egelstaff is Britain’s No.1 women’s badminton player