Wimbledon chiefs have denied that the fear of a possible boycott by top women players was behind their decision to agree at last to equal pay at this summer's championships.
They object to any suggestion that pressure to change forced them into a move they did not want to make.
The about-turn by the All England Club - a year ago they stood firm when accused again of sex discrimination and holding a position that was ''morally indefensible'' - will cost them around £600,000.
But chairman Tim Phillips was adamant yesterday that it was ''good for tennis, good for women players and good for Wimbledon''.
He said: ''We believe it will help Wimbledon's reputation and we want it to signal to young, talented athletes that tennis is the sport they should go for if they are looking for a career in sport.''
The championship's new stance, following a decision taken unanimously on Wednesday night without a vote being called for, will see equal prize money for both sexes from first round losers to champions.
That brings Wimbledon into line with the Australian and United States Opens. At the French Open, only the two winners receive the same on the basis that the men play five rather than three-set matches and face harder contests in the earlier rounds.
Phillips said that the French option was discussed, but his committee felt equality for all was the right way to go.
Last July, men's champion Roger Federer received £655,000 while 95 per cent of that - £625,000 - went to women's winner Amelie Mauresmo. How much will be on offer this year has yet to be announced.
The two figures have been moving closer together in percentage terms since the start of the Open era in 1968, when Rod Laver's cheque was £2,000 and Billie Jean King's £750.
In 1884, when women first competed, their champion's silver flower basket was worth 20 guineas and the men's gold prize was valued at 30.
Both Phillips and All England Club chief executive Ian Ritchie said the gap was becoming so small that it was almost a logical progression to bring them into line. It was going to happen at some point and that point happens to be now.
But the decision will be seen as a triumph for all those who have been campaigning for parity.
Last year, Larry Scott, chief executive of the women's tour, said that Wimbledon held a ''Victorian-era view''.
He added at the time: ''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.''
As pressure for equal prize money mounted, Scott's criticism was echoed by former men's and women's champions.
Venus Williams said: ''This is not just about women's tennis, but about women all over the world.
''At Wimbledon, we would like to have equal prize money to prove that we are equal on all fronts.''
Billie Jean King added: ''Over the years, Wimbledon has always been one of the leaders in our sport in so many areas.
''Because of that it is truly amazing to me that all of these years later they still have not stepped up and done the right thing on the prize money issue."
John McEnroe said: ''There should be no argument when they are at the same event at the same time that there should be equal pay.''
Sir Richard Branson, a member of the women's tour advisory council, added: ''The outdated position adopted by the All England Club tarnishes the good name of the world's greatest tennis tournament and sends a completely negative signal to women everywhere.''
Last year, Phillips said: ''This issue is one of a judgement on fairness. We believe that what we do at the moment is actually fair to the men as well as to the women.''
In 1999 his predecessor John Curry stated: ''We do surveys of all the people who come on a regular basis and, in three surveys over the past ten years, 70 per cent of the people say that first they want to watch is men's singles.''
Now a different conclusion has been reached, and Phillips added: ''The fact is that we listened to the arguments, looked at the data and think now is absolutely the right time to make this move,''
Besieged in the past by questions about why there was not equal prize money, Phillips expects to be quizzed from now on about why there is.
Federer played 202 games to win his title last summer while Mauresmo needed only 142, and the women's game sees more easy matches for the top players in early rounds.
But Phillips said: ''I think there's much more depth in the women's game than there was ten to 15 years ago.''
As for whether women will ever be asked to play five-set matches, Ritchie said it was not on any agenda he had seen.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article