Olympic show of strength

The opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics is only a couple of weeks away, and once again a whole nation will be trying to impress the world by putting on the biggest show on the planet. This year the responsibility falls upon China to organise and fund the Olympics, but will they be able to match Sydney and Athens, and even if they can what will the long term cost be?

China have been preparing and anxiously waiting for this since 2001 when they were awarded the Games. Ever since that day a massive PR wheel was started rolling and no stone has been left unturned and no flower bed untended in order to show the world exactly what China can do.

It is no secret that in recent years the country has developed into a super power, in all senses.

With a population of over one billion, they have the depth of resources to achieve anything and that is the message they are furiously trying to get across.

Project 119

Efforts to compete in all events, and make a serious impact upon the US dominance of the medal tables have been evident and it is more than likely that for the first time they will come out on top.

Having finished fourth and then third in previous Olympics before their second place last time around, a major push is still needed to overturn the Americans.

In order to do this the government launched "Project 119" eight years ago.

The idea was that if China was to topple the US it needed to compete across a broader range of sports. Five medal-rich sports were identified as athletics, canoe/kayaking, rowing, sailing and swimming.

And these five sports accounted for 119 potential gold medals (now 122), one third of the total available. If China succeed in this project, which it looks like they will, then they will sweep the floor, leaving the US to lick their wounds.

Sacrifices

In all honesty, a country with over a billion people should dominate, and it would be a shock if they don't.The sad element of all this is the cost the Chinese government has put on this success, not only have billions of pounds been invested, but people have been kicked out of their homes, businesses have been ordered to close and communities have been destroyed.

In order to create the biggest show on earth sacrifices have had to be made, and it appears the Chinese government are unfussed what these are. With chronic pollution, political frailities involving neighbouring Tibet and nearby Burma, the success and smooth-running of the games is not certain making viewing that bit more exciting.

Money, Money, Money

This year's Wimbledon is well underway and once again proving to be a huge success, but one thing has been griping my mate. Money.

This is the second year at SW19 that men and women have been awarded the same prize money, with this year's victors taking away a ridiculous, £750,000 each.

Pressure on the LTA to pay women the same as men had been mounting for some time, when they eventually bowed last year.

David Cameron, Tessa Jowell and Richard Branson all supported the change and with little room for manoeuvre, Wimbledon followed in line with the Aussies and the Yanks. (The French still only pay the winners the same)

Members of the women's tour including the Williams sisters and chief exec, Larry Scott made their feelings unequivocally clear, Scott said: "In the 21st Century it is morally indefensible that women competitors in a Grand Slam tournament should be receiving considerably less prize money than their male counterparts."

Strong words, especially from a guy, you suspect there must be a strong willed woman in his life somewhere, and he must have a hard time of it at home when he casually asks 'Whats for tea dear?'.

Hard Work

What gets my mate (and me if I'm being honest, and a bit brave) is that there is no doubt the men have to work considerably harder for their money.

In 2006 Federer won 202 games on his way to the title, compared to just 142 for Mauresmo, and Federer doesn't hang around much on the grass.

Five set games are considerably harder and more draining than a mere three, and this is the one reason why equal pay is absurd.

If you were at work, (something I am on the look out for) and your female colleague went home at lunch everyday while you slaved away into the night, you would be pretty peeved if she was getting the same pay as you.

Well why should tennis be any different? It is their job, their profession, why should they be getting paid for doing half the work.

Poor Quality

The other factor in equal pay, which is more subjective, is the quality of women's tennis. This year like many others the quality of the women's game has been poor.

All the big names have choked, leaving a bunch of no-hopers to be demolished by the Williams sisters who will undoubtedly be meeting each other again come Saturday.

As I said, the quality issue is subjective, and if it just came down to this then I would not dispute the equal pay, but this is not the crux of the argument, it is the time and effort involved in winning games.

Either they should make women play five sets, (could be good for a laugh) or admit their mistake and start paying them less again. We the punters are the ones who probably suffer, through increased ticket prices.

Anyway, hopefully this will have stirred up some anger amongst both those who are pro and those against equal pay (in tennis), and I expect a tirade of abuse from any feminist friends (I really must do something about them).