Karma's a wonderful thing now and then, isn't it, Gilles Simon? Do remember that on your Eurostar trip home.
With barely a sniff at the Wimbledon title, having lost in straight sets to Belgian Xavier Malisse, the man known as "little chicken" to his friends will be best remembered from this year's championship for reigniting the perennial argument about how much the men and women's winners earn for their troubles.
Warming us up nicely with a well-timed comment to France Info last weekend, Gilles claimed that, "The equality in salaries isn't something that works in sport. Men's tennis remains more attractive than women's tennis at the moment."
He's since refused to back-down, claiming that all the other men in the locker rooms agree with him, but won't tell anyone because they're scared of losing their sponsorship deals.
If my Twitter stream is anything to go by, Gilles has actually got plenty of supporters on the "well, they play five sets, so should earn more" stance.
Serena Williams disagrees. Laughing the whole debacle off, she went on to point out quite reasonably that the hard work which goes into any game of professional tennis, three sets or five, means everyone should be treated equally when they win.
"You know, I started playing tennis at two years old. I'm sure he started when he was two years old, as well. I worked just as hard as he did," she pointed out.
"I'm sure he continues to work hard as I work hard, as well as everyone that's on a professional level. We are all very professional and all work hard."
Except, Gilles says his comments had nothing to do with how long anyone spends on court, it's actually to do with entertainment.
In a clarification to his earlier statement, which presumably he had more time to craft, not having any matches left this week, Gilles explained: "My point was that I have the feeling that men's tennis is actually more interesting than women's tennis."
That's the thing with feelings, we don't all have the same ones. I for one, feel that Gilles should be forced to watch Maria Sharapova on repeat for the rest of the summer.
However, rather than wasting time arguing about a decision that was unanimously voted in more than five years ago, what we should be doing is holding Wimbledon's championship committee up as an shining beacon to the rest of the world.
As Women's Tennis Association chairman Stacey Allaster said: "Tennis, including the grand slams, is aligned with our modern, progressive society when it comes to the principle of equality. I can't believe in this day and age that anyone can still think otherwise."
When we still have women across the UK being paid less than their male peers, examples should be set and if it's the quintessentially British Wimbledon tournament that sets it, so much the better.
Now, if they could only offer the women players towels in any colour other than pink, we'd really be making progress.
Have a different opinion on the Gilles Simon debate? Our Sports section is welcoming blogs on Wimbledon, the Olympics and all this summer's big sporting events. Just email our blogs team at ukblogteam@huffingtonpost.com for more information.
Follow Carla Buzasi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlaBuzasi
Brendan Pittaway: Weighty Matters: Sportswomen, Wimbledon and the Perils of Body Image
Len Berman: Top 5 Sports Stories
Myrdith Leon Mccormack: She's Got Game: Legendary Kym Hampton is Revealed
that is serenas argument they are both playing tennis that is not the point it is the required effort to acheive the goal that sets the prize money or wages as it should be known as they are doing a job. the effort to acheive the wages is different therefore the prize money should reflect that. as usual where men are discriminated against women can some how find justification but turn it around and the wailing and knashing of teeeth begins.
There was a time when woman weren't allowed to enter university, because men thought they couldn't compete mentally. Look at us now.
Personally, I find women's tennis more entertaining than the ace, ace, ace, of men's tennis. I find watching women's football a refreshing different from the men's playacting. But I don't advocate that men should be paid less than woman because of my own personal opinion.
At Wimbledon, the seats cost the same for each match, regardless of gender. So the pot should be equal. Or are the men arguing that they should be paid less for winning in straight sets, rather then in five set deciders? Of course not. So length of match isn't a problem when it's them.
Let's assume professional tennis players of either sex train 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. That's 1560 hours a year. Gilles Simon wants women to have their prize money cut because they play forty minutes less than men - in how many tournaments? Five or six per year? It's just so petty.
-------------------------------
Do perennial arguments need reigniting?
The thing is, women play much shorter games than men. How can women justify getting the same amount of money for playing less? What kind of equality is that?