He has a point, although I disagree with his reasons for it. Ridiculous that Women get paid the same as men in the Slams for three sets whereas the Men have to play five.
It isn't the women that want to do the best out of 3 sets.
There's a larger issue by those that enforce it. Tournaments would need to change drastically as the timing would be thrown completely.
Either way I agree they should be paid the same. The argument based on length of matches doesn't work because mens' slam matches that finish in 3 straight sets therefore are no more of a match than a womens' 3 setter.
If it was about "quality of tennis" then that counts most of the men out too. Gender doesn't guarantee quality.
As for revenue they generate, if they were marketed equally then we could discuss their revenue. But they aren't. We can bash marketing but people don't spend billions on it each year for no reason. Therefore we can't suggest they bring in less revenue if the organisers et al. market them as "less than men" to begin with.
And anyway, in this day and age nobody is going to go hungry or without a roof if women are paid less than men. The precedent has to remain.
As for Gilles Simon... I wouldn't see him if HE paid me.