Subsidiary Question: Is Spectator Sport Mainly a "Man Thing"?

With all the recent debate following Mr Raymond's Moore suggestion that women should get down on their knees before Mr Federer and Mr Nadal, it has got me thinking more generally on the format of sport, especially as a spectator phenomenon.

In the UK and elsewhere it seems spectator sport is a "Man Thing".  Football, Rugby, Cricket, American Football, Baseball, Basketball in terms of history, teams, league structures, revenue, spectators, television and radio broadcasting - appear to be a "Man Thing" rather than a "Woman Thing".

If we look at the structure of a Grand Slam Tournament in Tennis, a sport which more than any prides itself on a type of equality between the sexes, we see clear signs of the subsidiary nature of the women's game:
a) Men play best of five sets while women play best of three sets.
b) The Men's Final is played on the final day of the tournament, representing the climax of the sporting festival and effectively bringing the tournament to an end.  The Women's Final is played on the penultimate day of the Tournament.
c) The Men's Final is played on the Sunday, a rest day in the Christian Schedule of Western Society, with more people able to watch if they so wished, whereas the Women's Final is played on the Saturday, a busier day.

Despite this inequality in structure I see no attempts to level up this inequality in structure, for example by alternating the final day finish between the men and women's competitions ...

But compared to Football, Rugby, Cricket, American Football, Baseball, Basketball ... Tennis is much much closer to "equality".

So my question is:  Is Spectator Sport mainly a "Man Thing"?

If it is accepted that Spectator Sport is a "Man Thing" and if it is acceptable for tennis in grand slams to have an unequal structure (a,b,c above), then perhaps there is also merit in allocating "prize money totals" along "market value" principles?  

Note: Personally I would like the WTA to stamp out the shrieking in the women's game (as exemplified by Sharapova, Venus Williams, Azarenka) as well as some of the excesses in the clothing department that we have seen in the recent past - and if market value principles would help in stamping this out of the women's game, I could accept it.  I have basically stopped watching the women's game because of it.

I think men generally prefer going to sporting events more than women. I think tennis because it is an elegant, non-violent game that women participate more in than lets say rugby or other contact sports benefits greatly from its niche.

You are right though if you ever go to these tournaments the women are basically the warm up for the men, unless you get a particularly non-descript match up on the men or a big prime matchup for the women. Although in fairness Serena B. Anthony has tried to change that as well, she is always complaining to tournament people whenever they basically put her on an outside court, she treats it as if they just violated her or something. Yeah, she is a real piece work that one.

Men are evolved to hunt, and women are not as much.

Sport replaces hunting in a civilized society.

So, yes.

I suppose one could safely assume it is mostly men but having said that myself I was an avid football fan years ago,  when it was a sport rather than a money making industry, Ive watched darts, snooker and finally tennis. My niece is a fanatical Formula 1 racing fan and I know several women who support top football clubs.

But none I know go to the nearest bar, or club  to watch the "game" and swig beer all night....  or is that just an excuse ?