Why do women only play 3 sets in tennis?

Tennis fans will once again fill Melbourne Park for the 2025 Australian Open an all-time visitor number record in 2024.

The Australian Open is one of four annual Grand Slam events, alongside the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open, that bring together the world's best men's and women's players.

These athletes strive to not only claim the championship trophy, but… precious ranking points as well as huge paycheques: this year's Australian Open prize pool is $96.5 million and the winners of the men's and women's singles events will each take home $3.5 million.

But why are the lengths of the men's (five sets) and women's (three sets) matches different?

Discuss the differences

There has been lengthy debate about the correct length of tennis matches for men and women.

At Grand Slam events, the men's matches last five sets, while the women's matches remain best-of-three. In most other tournaments, men and women both play best-of-three sets.

This difference often emerges during the assessment equal prize money at some events, with some argue women should not receive equal prize money if they play shorter matches.

Women are paid equally at all Grand Slam tournaments not all lower level events.

Fortunately, tennis prize money is not based on an hourly wage system. That's why women don't get less if they dominate their opponents in straight sets.

But what if the women played best-of-five?

Women's history with five-set tennis

More than 130 years ago, women competed in best-of-five competitions.

The United States National Championships from 1891 to 1901 featured five women's set matches. The New York Times described the clash between Mabel Cahill and Ellen Roosevelt in 1891 as follows: fought with tremendous tenacity to the end.

But these women's matches were shortened to best of three sets in 1901 by the United States National Lawn Tennis Association Council, an all-male body.

The decision was made despite women's demonstrated ability to play five-set matches, and appears to parallel similar examples of men deciding without evidence that women are unsuitable for a particular sport.

This mentality led to the almost 50 year ban on women playing football from 1921 to 1970.

In athletics these were women from 1928 to 1960 prohibited from participating in the 800 meter raceat least in part because the media seemed shocked that during the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics some women fell to the ground in exhaustion after sprinting for gold in the 800 meters.

It wasn't until 1967 that the first woman ran the Boston Marathon Kathrine Switzer had to do this in secretfighting men who try to push her off the track. But her efforts led to the women's marathon being included in the 1984 Olympics.

Back to tennis.

In 1984, the Women's Tennis Association final featured a best-of-five set format from 1984 to 1998famously emphasized by the decision maker between Monica Seles and Gabriela Sabatini in 1990 at Madison Square Garden.

Then in 1994, the Australian Open briefly considered introducing a women's best-of-five final. the first Grand Slam to do so.

Supporters of the measure believed it would provide a more complete test of skill and endurance, and provide a more compelling spectacle. However, the experiment did not go ahead.

Women can push the boundaries of physiology

Preparation and recovery management of women in tennis has continued to improve since the Australian Open proposed the experiment in 1994.

But the question should never have been whether women's physiology could handle longer events.

In reality, evidence supports women may be built for it. By marathon records continues to drop to women who excel in ultra-endurance eventsThe longer the event, the better they perform.

So perhaps the endurance required for a best-of-five set is ideal for women.

Read more: The longer the race, the closer it gets: Women are closing in on men when it comes to ultra-endurance events

Rephrasing the question: are best-of-five sets better?

While society debates whether women should play five sets, a better question might be: do five sets produce the best outcome for all players and fans in the era of shorter versions of sports?

During five-set matches, there is evidence that aspects of performance can stagnate in the middle phase speed of the first time has a parabolic approach, meaning servers hold back during the middle sets.

This is likely due to the athlete conserving energy, which often leads to a less dynamic match in the middle phase in preparation for the final set, raising the question of whether men actually only play best-of-three sets.

Tennis fans will likely continue to debate the value of those third and fourth sets from an attention span versus tradition perspective.

What is undeniable is that men have the opportunity to demonstrate their mental strength and endurance in best-of-five matches.

Why don't all players get this opportunity?