By Blair Henley

Photo Credit: Getty

(June 28, 2012) -- Despite his second round exit at Wimbledon, 13th-seeded Gilles Simon ensured an extended stay in the headlines by announcing that he opposes equal prize money for men and women. The Frenchman claimed men’s tennis “provides a more attractive show” and cited the “greater popularity” of the men’s game as well as their longer match times.

While men may expend more energy during majors in terms of sheer time on the court, fans are still packing the stands to see the likes of Maria Sharapova or Serena Williams. And you’d be hard pressed to find a more exciting first round match than that of Caroline Wozniacki and Tamira Paszek earlier this week. As world No. 5 Sam Stosur explained, fans are more interested in quality over quantity.

“I think people come out and watch us play because they want to watch us play,” she said. "I don't think the duration means it's better.”

According to Simon, "men spend twice as long on court as women do at Grand Slams." But in many cases that’s a gross overstatement. Consider this: French Open finalist Sara Errani played just five less sets than Rafael Nadal in the same number of matches at Roland Garros.

The opportunities for women in sport have come a long way since the start of the Open Era when women were taking home a third of what their male counterparts made. In fact, the Williams sisters’ father, Richard, taught his girls to play tennis simply because he knew the game offered them the greatest chance of individual stardom and success.

There are few other sports, if any, where the women’s side is just as prominent as the men’s. And the opportunity tennis affords for promising players is something to celebrate. This year Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, and Li Na were the only female athletes on the Forbes list of most powerful celebrities – a fact that all but confirms the entertainment (and therefore monetary) value of the women’s game.

But don’t expect everyone to be on the same page.

"It's just a matter of who believes what, and then that is an endless debate,” said Roger Federer. “So whatever you believe.”

American Sloane Stephens was not so diplomatic.

"I don't care what he says about anything,” she said of Simon. “He hit me with a ball the first time I was a ball kid. He hit me in the chest, because he lost a point and lost the set. He turned around and slammed the ball with his racket and hit me ... and I've never spoken to him since then.”

While it’s impossible to deny the marketability of the riveting rivalries on the men’s side, Simon’s comments are difficult to swallow for one reason: equal pay for the women does not have a detrimental effect on prize money for the men.

Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are still receiving astronomical amounts for hoisting trophy after trophy. And if men’s tennis is, in fact, more attractive, players can pad their already bloated bank accounts with additional endorsement dollars. Not that Simon, who has never survived beyond the fourth round of a Grand Slam, would know much about that.

As WTA CEO Stacey Allaster put it: "Tennis, including the Grand Slams, is aligned with our modern, progressive society when it comes to the principle of equality. I can't believe in this day and age that anyone can still think otherwise.”