The Serbian’s claim that the men's tennis tour "should fight for more" took me back to my second year at Huddersfield University in 2008-2009 when me and my fellow Media and Sports Journalism students were tasked with answering the question: "Should female tennis players be paid the same as their male counterparts?"

A year prior to this, in 2007, equal prize money was established in all four Grand Slams - the Australian Open, French Open, US Open and Wimbledon - and combined Masters events such as Indian Wells and Miami.

However, to this day, female players are paid significantly less at women-only events when compared with similar sized men's events.

The conclusion to my assignment seven to eight years ago was that prize money should be relative to the number of sets played and that if female tennis players unanimously agreed to play best of five set matches - thus opening themselves to plying the trade for the same length of time as male tennis players - nobody could dispute them receiving the same level of pay.

Fast forward to the here and now and has anything changed to sway my opinion? Well let’s look at some of the arguments for and against, starting with the former.

Although women play only best of three sets, it is argued that they work and train just as hard as men do and have the endurance to handle contests that are longer than the norm. 

Stacey Allaster, then chairman and chief executive of the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), said in 2013 that WTA players would be willing to play best of five sets, but it hasn’t led to any real movement for change.

As the United States’ Venus Williams once pointed out, the women’s singles final at Wimbledon in 2005 - which she won 4–6, 7–6, 9–7 against compatriot Lindsay Davenport - lasted 45 minutes longer than Roger Federer’s 6-2, 7-6, 6-4 demolition of American Andy Roddick in the men’s showdown.

High on Djokovic’s list of justifications for his argument that men deserve to be paid more than women is that there are "much more spectators on the men's tennis matches".

He isn’t wrong to suggest that in a general sense men’s matches sell more tickets and attract more television viewers.

But there are reasons to believe that the women are catching up in this regard.

Take for example the 2013 and 2014 US Opens, which saw the women’s final garner better television ratings than the men’s final in both years.

It is also worth noting that there are other sports out there where men are paid the same as women despite attracting less spectators, namely figure skating and gymnastics.

A BBC Sport study carried out in October 2014 found that male and female figure skaters and gymnasts earn the same purse for winning World Championships.

On the flip side of things, viewing figures for the 2015 Wimbledon finals paint a very different picture with 9.2 million viewers tuning into BBC to see Djokovic beat Federer as opposed to the 4.3 million that watched Serena Williams down Spain’s Garbiñe Muguruza.

What’s more, in Williams’ home country of America, the most-watched day of tennis during the Championships on ESPN was men’s final day.

It provided a record-breaking 24.4 million live minutes viewed, which is the most ever for a single day of tennis.

In terms of time on court, Djokovic played 24 sets to Williams’ 16 during the tournament which equated to 16 hours to 10.5 hours.

The final between Djokovic and Federer lasted two hours and 56 minutes, while Williams’ meeting with Muguruza took one hour and 23 minutes to complete.

Statistics like there are the main basis for many questioning whether it’s fair that women are paid the same as men.

Yesterday, Indian Wells' chief executive Raymond Moore resigned from his position following controversial comments he made about women’s tennis in a news conference.

On the eve of both the men’s and women’s finals, won by Djokovic and Belarus’ Victoria Azerenka respectively, the 69-year-old claimed that the women’s game "rides on the coat-tails of the men".

"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," Moore said.

His comments were criticised by Williams, beaten in the women’s final, with the American claiming that the remarks were "mistaken and very, very, very inaccurate".

She went on to say: “If I could tell you every day how many people say they don’t watch tennis unless they’re watching myself or my sister, I couldn’t even bring up that number.”

Although Williams, a 21-time Grand Slam champion, is undoubtedly a great ambassador for the game of tennis, some would assert the aforementioned viewing figures for Wimbledon 2015 confirm that she is unable to draw in the crowds in the same way that those at the pinnacle of the men’s game can.

Ultimately, it must be remembered that statistics can be manipulated in many different ways and I have to say my conclusion on this argument is no different to what it was back in my university days.

People will no doubt argue that paying players in accordance with the amount of sets they play devalues the performance of someone who is capable of going throughout a tournament without dropping a set.

But unless the WTA acts on its players' supposed willingness to play best of five sets, I still see it as the best compromise on a debate that looks set to rumble on and on and on.