FWCM 2013 sudden-death rules: Why does White get more time than Black?

Reading the official rules of the Fide World Championship Match, I found one aspect puzzling. If all the previous games and subsequent tie-break games still leave an equal result, there is one final tie-break game under the following rules:

1) Player who wins the drawing of lots may choose the color

2) Player with W receives 5 minutes; player with B receives 4 minutes.

3) In case of a draw, player with B is declared the winner.

What baffles me is that W (which is already an advantage) gets one more minute than B. Granted B has the advantage of effectively winning the match with only a draw in this game. 

Still giving one player both W and more time seems a serious advantage.

http://www.chess.com/news/anand-carlsen-all-the-info-8419

Official rules (see §§ 3.7.2 and 3.7.3): 

http://chennai2013.fide.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FWCM20131.pdf

Did you read this part:

"3) In case of a draw, player with B is declared the winner."

Armageddon game, this used to be called and it's nothing new under the sun.

I seriously dislike the idea, that a game like this could potentially decide the outcome of a World Championship. In case of a tie, I'd much prefer them to continue standard time control games for as long as needed to reach a decisive result. Of course, I understand that for practical reasons this is not possible; but the idea of Armageddon is not in the spirit of "real" chess.

Still accepting it as something I can not influence or change, I think I'd prefer to have black in a game like this. To me it sounds easier to force a draw with black and only four minutes than to win with white and five minutes. And that comes from a slow player!

So it may be a matter of personal preference, to decide which side has the advantage.

I guess I have to ask whether you read this part of my post:

"What baffles me is that W (which is already an advantage) gets one more minute than B. Granted B has the advantage of effectively winning the match with only a draw in this game."

Alpenschach, I guess an alternative is to have parity-time but, then, if after all the tie-break games it's still a tie, allow the reigning champion to keep the title. A challenger should have to beat the reigning champion in order to depose him.

Yes, that would be an option. Do you think it would make a difference in the way the players would approach such a match though? I mean, would the challenger try harder to win each game and play more aggressive and would the defending champion settle for a draw whenever possible?

That's right, time + first move for white and draw odds for black.

@Alpenschach, good points. If an equal outcome went to the defending champion, he's likely to play the most solid/drawish lines, forcing the challenger to play risky chess in an attempt to score a win. That wouldn't result in a good match.