ONCE again, the issue of equality in sport prize money is up for debate.

It is the seemingly age-old question of whether women should receive the same for winning events as their male counterparts.

In an ideal world, the answer would of course be yes, but it is not as simple and straightforward as that.

Chiefly, it comes down to popularity.

Complaints that the winners of this season’s FA Women’s Cup will pick up just £5,000 compared to £1.8 million for the men ignores the fact that hundreds more teams play in the latter, thus generating more funds.

Paying out £1.8m to the winners of a competition entered by fewer teams does not make financial sense and isn’t practical.

The same logic can be applied to most other sports.

Tennis has fallen into line, although you could make a case that the men are now losing out at the Grand Slams as they play more sets for their money.

Cricket and golf are making progress but there is still a large disparity between men and women.

Major sponsorship is needed for huge prize pots and sponsors aren’t attracted to sports that don’t pull in the viewers.

Much of the marketing is also aimed at men, which suggests advertisers know who watches the most sport.

Standard is also an issue.

A good example is snooker, a sport in which men and women should be able to compete against each other as equals.

Indeed, as with darts, both sexes can enter major events although both sports have their own women’s world championship.

Yet the women’s game at the top level in both is vastly inferior and the prize money significantly less. There is no logical reason why sex should be a barrier to ability so more needs to be done to attract women to those sports and keep them there.