This morning the chief executive of the Indian Wells tennis tournament stepped down in response to the reaction to one of the most outrageously sexist interviews I've ever read. Raymond Moore said: “If I was a lady player, I’d go down every night on my knees and thank god that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born because they have carried this sport. They really have.”

To make matters worse, world number 1 Novak Djokovic then followed up by saying male tennis players should be paid more than their female counterparts "because the stats are showing that we have much more spectators on the men’s tennis matches".

Female players such as Serena Williams have been quick to criticise Moore and defend their sport.

"Last year the women’s final at the US Open sold out well before the men. I’m sorry, did Roger play in that final or Rafa or any man play in a final that was sold out before the men’s final? I think not. There’s only one way to interpret that. Get on your knees, which is offensive enough, and thank a man, which is not – we, as women, have come a long way. We shouldn’t have to drop to our knees at any point," said Williams.

I've blogged a bit about the issue of spectator numbers and the relationship between spectators and coverage/recognition of women's sports already and I suspect it's something which will just keep coming up. But I think Djokovic is wrong on this one. If you treat people equally there's a much better chance of attracting the best to a field - whether it's sport, or any sort of profession - and that will enhance quality in that field. In sport, that should make things more competitive and more exciting to watch.

Of course the issue of women playing three sets versus the men's five remains, and I for one still think that women should be able to play best-of-five at least in Grand Slams.

On the back of the Moore-Djokovic controversy, and via Facebook, I came across this opinion piece on NZ news site Stuff this morning. Sports journalist Mark Reason argues that in Twenty20 cricket women are "piggybacking" off the men's game and that the women's game simply isn't entertaining enough to bother watching.

"They have been handed a televised tournament, flown to India and been fed and transported out of the revenues generated by the men's game. The Women's World T20 should have 'sponsored by men' next to it," writes Reason.

He goes on to say that women aren't good enough at Twenty20 for it to be a "promotional tool" and that sport should get by "on the glories of participation".

This year's women's Twenty20 world tournament is only the fifth - the men have been competing since 2007 - and I know nothing about cricket so I'm not going to even start arguing the case that the women's game can match the men's. But I do disagree with Reason's argument that because the game isn't as exciting as the men's (yet) there's no point in funding it to make sure it happens; that way you just end up in the same old vicious circle.

Luckily Stuff has run a counterpoint piece to Reason's by International Olympic Committee (IOC) member Barbara Kendall, who says that yes, we do need to ride on men's coattails until such time as women's sport - and the associated infrastructure of coaches, referees and administrators - can stand alone.

The vision of the IOC to have equal gender participation at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games is one step on that road. Sadly, having high-profile men like Moore and Djokovic speaking against equal treatment of female athletes is one backwards.