Tag Archives: Serena Williams

Wimbledon must scrap Manic Monday 

It would be nice to go through a whole Wimbledon without complaints about sexism. And maybe we will one year. But unfortunately it won’t be this year. As usual at Wimbledon sexism has reared its ugly head. 

The first complaint was from former World number one Victoria Azarenka who has recently returned to the professional tour after giving birth to her first child Leo last December. Azarenka’s gripe was that on the first Monday her match was one of four that was not given a court or a time meaning she had to stay at Wimbledon all day and away from her child. I’ll give Wimbledon the benefit of the doubt here and suggest it was incompetence rather than sexism – but really since Azarenka is a former World number one and a two time Grand Slam champion her match should have gone on first on one of the show courts then she would have known when she had to start and could plan her day accordingly. With pro players Serena Williams and Mandy Minella currently pregnant accommodating mothers and children is going to become a more pressing issue for all tournaments in the future. 

The latest controversy came during yesterday when some big women’s matches were put on the outside courts. World number one Angelique Kerber was not happy that her last 16 clash with Garbine Muguruza was on Court number 2 – quite rightly as the two women had between them won three out of the four Grand Slam titles last year. Also unhappy was the sports newest Grand Slam champion Alona* Ostapenko. Her match with fellow rising star Elena Svitolina was on Court 12. Former World number one Caroline Wozniacki was also unhappy that her match was on an outside court saying “That’s something we’ve talked about at Wimbledon for the last ten years. It’s been the same for ten years straight. The other grand slams are more equal (in their) positioning of men’s and women’s matches.” Former three time champion Chris Evert weighed in “There needs to be a discussion because we have equal prize money, sonwhy do we not have equal representation on Centre Court and Court One?” she told the BBC. 

The reasons that there are less women’s matches than men’s matches on Wimbledon’s show courts are unique to Wimbledon. First of all play on Centre and number one courts starts at 1pm while on the other courts play starts at 11.30 am. That means that there are usually only three matches a day on the two main show courts compared to four on the outside courts. You cannot get an equal number of men’s and women’s matches on a court with only three matches but too often (as happened yesterday) there are two men’s matches and one women’s match on both show courts meaning men’s matches outnumber women’s 4-2. It really should be a combined 3-3 between centre and number one courts.

But what made it worse was that yesterday was “Manic Monday” where in lieu of play on the Middle Sunday all the men’s and women’s last sixteen matches are played. The sexist scheduling and the fact that all the last sixteen matches are played on one day means that 4 out of 8 (50%) of the last sixteen men’s matches are played on the two show courts but only 2 out of 8 (25%) of the last sixteen women’s matches were played on the two show courts. It is clear to any one with a brain that this is sexist scheduling. 

There are two easy solutions. First start play on all courts at 11.30 am. If the corporate hospitality brigade can’t be bothered to turn up at that time give their seats to the queueing fans and ban them from coming when they do bother to turn up.  That way you can have two men’s and women’s matches on Centre and Number One courts each day. 

The second solution is have play on the Middle Sunday and split the last 16 into two getting rid of “Manic Monday”. Not only is the scheduling on Manic Monday blatantly sexist the day has other problems. First it is too long. In most years all the matches aren’t finished on the day even if it doesn’t rain. For example men’s number two seed Novak Djokovic’s match did not even get started yesterday because the preceding matches took two long which puts Djokovic at an unfair disadvantage compared to his rivals for the men’s title. 

Now if play on the show courts started at 11.30 am and “Manic Monday” was abolished that would mean all eight women’s and men’s last sixteen matches could be played on the two show courts which would mean true gender equality. Which is surely what we want…

But not everybody wants this. Jim White of the Daily Telegraph wrote today “But the fact is, box office talks. And with the big four of Andy Murray, Roger Federer, Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic, plus Venus Williams and Johanna Konta taking the six available matches on the two big show courts, the rest of the field was spread among the club. Which might be bruising to the Ostapenko ego…”

Oh dear where do you start with that nonsense? People pay for show court tickets well in advance so the box office appeal of players should be irrelevant. Ostapenko wants equality with men it is not a matter of ego. Besides why they shouldn’t play on the show courts start at 11.30 on the show courts meaning there would be eight available matches instead of four? And why shouldn’t there be play on Middle Sunday so that all of the last sixteen matches for both genders can be played on the show courts. Defending sexist inequality is a tough task but trust our press to do it. Frankly foreign tournaments should ban our press until they learn to cut out sexist nonsense. 

The case for starting play on all courts at 11.30 and having play on Middle Sunday is unarguable. The corporate hospitality brigade and traditionalists will howl in protest but they can be safely ignored. The world is changing and Wimbledon needs to change with it. We have got equal prize money. It is time for equal scheduling. Those who defend the sexist status quo like Jim White are on a loser here….

*The name on Ostapenko’s passport is “Jelena” but she wants to be known as “Alona” so I have respected her wishes. 

Write it Right: Things I Wanted to Say About Wimbledon

The Tennis Island

Over the last two weeks…

I wanted to write about the dreary commentary by Doug Adler — who saw it fit to point out everything that he perceived as negative during a match and ruined the thrilling first round encounter between Bethanie Mattek-Sands and Lucie Safarova by virtue of his mere presence in the booth.

I wanted to write about how one-dimensional and short-sighted it was that the majority of Dominika Cibulkova‘s discussions in the second week were about her marriage rather than her tremendous run from Eastbourne to the quarterfinals of Wimbledon — including the match of the year against Agnieszka Radwanska.

I wanted to write about how the All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club organizers kept walking a tightrope between ignorance and sexism with the way they scheduled a five-time singles champion in Venus Williams to play on Court 18 — something that would never happen to a male athlete.

I…

View original post 787 more words

Time to end the tennis fashion show

To say that the last fortnight has been unpredictable is an understatement. The UK voted for Brexit and Prime Minister David Cameron subsequently resigned. He will be succeeded by either Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom meaning that the UK will have its second woman Prime Minister. While at Euro 2016 England were humiliated by Iceland causing manager Roy Hodgson to resign while in contrast Wales had an amazing run to the Semi Finals and it took the genius of Cristiano Ronaldo to end their dream.

But it is nice to know that even in this crazy fortnight some things never change. Serena Williams reached yet another Wimbledon Final crushing her Russian opponent Elena Vesnina 6-2 6-0 in 48 minutes the shortest Grand Slam semi final this century. Predictably this mismatch caused the UK press to criticise the fact that women players get equal pay to men players at Wimbledon. Even BBC Sport’s Twitter account got in on the act tweeting “Her match lasted just 48 minutes…but Serena Williams says female players deserve equal pay”.Twitter user Nikita (@kyrptobanana) pointed out that when Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic won matches easily the BBC just mentioned that the players had won easily they did not imply that the male players did not deserve their prize money. BBC sport subsequently deleted the tweet but the damage had been done. And the BBC are meant to be progressive at least by UK media standards…

Now I’ve mentioned the equal pay issue before (in posts “The lesson from history that proves sexist Moore wrong” and “How to end tennis equal pay arguments”) but there are a couple of issues about this year’s Wimbledon besides the equal pay debate that shows that although tennis is more gender equal than other sports it is still a long way from true gender equality.

One example is ticket prices for the men’s final and the women’s final. If you want to buy a ticket for this year’s men’s singles final it will set you back £175. If you want a ticket for the women’s singles final you will only need to pay £145. Now as Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano point out (in “Playing with the boys, pages 239-240) tennis is by no means unique in charging more to watch men play than women play. But in the case of football, cricket, rugby and basketball the higher charges can be justified by the fact that demand for tickets to see men play is higher than to see women play so the price is set accordingly. But at Wimbledon both men’s and women’s finals could fill Centre Court several times over so there is no market logic for the price difference. Nor does the fact that the men play best of five sets and the women play the best of three justify the difference. Just because the men play best of five does not mean their match will necessarily last longer. The men’s final could end say 6-3 6-2 6-4 and the women’s could end say 7-5 6-7 8-6. In that hypothetical scenario the women’s final could last longer but no one would say the women should get paid more. The length of a match is a red herring.

Another example of sexism in tennis is so taken for granted that no one notices it. The men wear shorts while the women wear dresses or short skirts that shows off the women players underwear allows men to ogle them and hinders their athletic performance. For example at this year’s Wimbledon the clothing company Nike showed off what the Daily Telegraph called “super short baby-doll dresses”. Swedish player Rebecca Peterson said the dress would distract her by flying up when she was serving. Ridiculous – and the men don’t wear outfits like this! Peterson raises a serious point about how these outfits can hinder a player’s performance. When players are serving they like to carry a spare ball with them in case they need one for a second serve. No problem for the male players who just put the spare ball in the pocket of their shorts. Women can’t do this as dresses and skirts don’t have pockets. They have to put them up their underwear giving men another excuse to stare at them. Tennis is one of the few sports where the male and female outfits are different from each other. In football, cricket, rugby and basketball the male and female uniforms are the same. Both male baseball and female softball players wear the same uniforms. Field hockey is the only other sport where the men wear shorts and the women wear skirts but at least the skirts in field hockey are not as short as they are in tennis.

There is no reason – apart from sexism and tradition – why women tennis players cannot wear shorts. Women often practice in shorts and some women – most notably Victoria Azarenka – have worn shorts in matches. If women tennis players played matches in shorts they would be making a statement that they are equal to men and that they are elite athletes not sex objects there to be gawped at by leering men.

Unfortunately the women are not being helped by their own governing body. You would think that the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) would be keen to promote their players as elite athletes not sex symbols. And you would be wrong. The WTA are actually running a best dressed player award at this year’s Wimbledon. Needless to say there is not a best dressed man award. Wimbledon is a tennis tournament not a catwalk. The women are not there to look good and be gawped at by men they are there to win tennis matches. It is time for unisex tennis outfits. It is time for grender equality. It is time to end the tennis fashion show. In fact it should have ended long before now.

The lesson from history that proves sexist Moore wrong

Raymond Moore the CEO of the Indian Wells tennis tournament – which likes to call itself the “fifth Grand Slam” – made a complete and utter fool of himself yesterday with vile sexist remarks about the women’s game. Here is what he said :

“When I come back in my next life I want to be someone in the WTA because they ride on the coattails of the men. They don’t make any decisions and they are lucky. They are very, very, lucky.

If I were 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.”

Oh dear where do you start with this crap? First of all the Federer/Nadal era in men’s tennis can be traced back to 2003 when Federer won his first Grand Slam title at Wimbledon. Women’s tennis was popular long before 2003! Secondly it is clear that if women’s tennis has been carried by Federer and Nadal then so has men’s tennis – and probably to a greater extent. Finally the remark ” ride on the coattails of the men” is wrong. That would suggest that if the women were on their own the public would not watch. Not true. At the Grand Slams and the big combined events like Moore’s tournament and Miami people come to watch the event regardless of the gender of the competitors. And a story from history proves it.

We go back to 1973. Not a good year for the UK – it started with us joining what is now the European Union and ended with the UK on a three day work week. Nor was it a peaceful year in tennis. In May Yugoslavia’s top player Nikola Pilic was banned for nine months by his federation which claimed he had refused to play in his country’s Davis Cup tie against New Zealand. On appeal the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) reduced the ban to a month – but it still included the first week of Wimbledon. The newly created players union of men’s tennis the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was having none of that. It said that if Pilic was not allowed to play no one would do. As a result 81 of the elite male players boycotted Wimbledon. Twelve of the sixteen seeded players boycotted. As a result of the boycott of the 128 man field 78 had played in the Qualifiers (29 qualifiers and 49 lucky losers*.) The men’s event was full of unkowns.

Now if the reason people went to Wimbledon was to watch the elite men you would expect Wimbledon’s attendance that year to go through the floor. After all the men’s event was full of unkowns (the women were unaffected by the Pilic affair and had their full contingent of players there) so if the public only wanted to watch men the boycott should have wrecked Wimbledon.

It did not. Quite the opposite. The attendance at Wimbledon 1973 was 300,172. This up to that time the second highest attendance in the history of the Wimbledon Championships. That proved that people did not go to Wimbledon just to watch the elite men but they wanted to watch the women too.

Now I’m not saying they preferred the women. I don’t think they did. Had the situation in 1973 been reversed and the elite women had boycotted Wimbledon and not the men the attendance would probably have been just as high. What the 1973 scenario proved is that people go to Wimbledon to watch the event. Not the men. Not the women. But the event. And that will apply to the Australian, French and US Opens as well. And to Indian Wells for that matter.

And that is why Raymond Moore is an idiot. Most tennis fans like both genders. They like Federer and Serena. Novak and Victoria. Murray and Venus. The women’s game is not riding on the coattails of the men nor vice versa. They are both attractions for the public. Which is why
women deserve equal pay and Raymond Moore deserves the sack.

*A “lucky loser” in tennis is a player who loses in qualifying and then gains a place in the tournament when another player withdraws.

A tale of two awards

This is a big week for sports awards with two major ones being decided, one in the US and one here in the UK. But both awards have had their share of controversy and neither have had a distinguished week to put it mildly.

The first award started in 1954 and is presented by the American magazine Sports Illustrated. Despite its title – the Sportsman of the Year – both individuals (male and female) and teams (male and female) are eligable for the award. For example the 1999 United States Women’s World Cup winning team and the 2004 curse breaking World Series winning Boston Red Sox have won this award. The staff of the magazine have decided the award rather than a vote of the magazine’s readers.

But this year the magazine got into a horrid mess. First of all they ran a public poll. Second they nominated a horse – the triple crown winner American Pharaoh. Now a horse is not a person Therefore it should not be able to win the sportsperson of the year award. Whether or not they intended American Pharaoh’s candidacy to be a joke we don’t know. But the public have a habit of voting for “joke” candidates and American Pharaoh romped to victory. I suspect the vote was hijacked by the horse racing lobby but whatever the reason he won the poll.

Quite rightly the magazine staff did not make American Pharaoh Sportsman of the year instead they gave the award to tennis superstar Serena Williams (when a woman wins they call it Sportsperson of the year. Why not just call it the Sportsperson of the year every year or else split the award into two awarding both the sportsman and woman of the year?). Cue an uproar from American Pharaoh’s supporters claiming the public vote should be respected with sadly as it was a black woman who won disintegrated into racist and sexist abuse. And it was all totally unnecessary. The magazine should not have had a public poll nor should they have nominated a horse. By doing both they have made a fool of themselves and overshadowed Williams’ deserved award. But at least they chose the right winner.

The second award also by a coincidence started in 1954. This one is the BBC’s Sports Personality of the Year Award (hitherto known as SPOTY). Unlike the Sports Illustrated award this one is only open to individuals – teams have their own award. Also unlike the Sports Illustrated award it is decided by public vote. Except the public don’t get to vote for who they want but they are limited to a group of 10-12 nominations decided by a “panel of experts” who have got into a dreadful mess over the nominations.

One of the twelve people they nominated was new World Heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury who won his title on November 28th – just in time (along with Davis Cup hero Andy Murray) to be nominated. Now purely on sporting achivement Fury would deserve to be nominated. But it is not that simple.

After he won his title Fury opened his mouth and out came the bile. Fury on homosexuality:

“There are only three things that need to be  accomplished before the devil comes home. One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other is paedophillia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those two would be legalised?”

Oh dear where do you start with that? To compare homosexuality and abortion to paedophillia is ridiculous. To say that the devil would be happy with them being legalised is even worse. Fury really should have shut up at this point. He was in a hole so he should have stopped digging. Instead he did another interview where he was asked about women in sport and said this about fellow SPOTY nominee Jessica Ennis-Hill :

“She’s good, she’s won quite a few medals, she slaps up good as well. When she’s got a dress on she looks quite fit”.

And then he spoke about women in boxing :

“I’m all for it. I’m not sexist. I believe a woman’s best place is in the kitchen and on her back. Making me a cup of tea that’s what I believe”.

If this guy is not a sexist I’d hate to meet one who is!

Now you would think these views would stop him being nominated for SPOTY or be withdrawn from the list. After all when Conservative MP Enoch Powell made his infamous racist “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968 outraged party leader Edward Heath banished him from the Shadow Cabinet and the speech cost him any chance he had of being Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister. I suspect if an MP made these comments he/she would become a “parliamentary leper” – as Harold Wilson called controversial Smethwick winner Peter Grifffiths in 1964. I suspect in any other industry Fury would have been punished for his outrageous views.

But not in sport. Oh no. Fury remains on the SPOTY list. In fact the only person that has been punished is BBC journalist Andy West who has been suspended for saying that he was “ashamed” of the BBC for nominating Fury. So someone has been punished for criticising Fury while the bigot gets off scot free. The BBC should be ashamed of themselves.

This shameful affair must never happen again. First of all the BBC must get rid of the nominations and let the people vote for who they want not just limiting them to twelve names. As usual there have been complaints that other worthy candidates like Joe Root have not been nominated. If nominations did not exist there would have been no fuss over Fury’s nomination since no one would have been nominated.

But secondly sport must be forced to change its ways. People in sport who behave in a racist/sexist/homophobic way should be banned for life. Since sport will never agree to this voluntarily the Government should threaten sport in the only way sport understands. If a sport does not agree to ban people with offensive views the sport in question should (a) lose all Government funding and (b) have to pay 83% tax*. This would cost a sport a lot of money. And the only way to make sport make sense is threaten it with losing money.

As for the SPOTY award itself Andy Murray will be the favourite but if there is justice in this world Ennis-Hill will win it. First of all she should have won this award in 2009 and 2010. Only Manchester United and horse racing fans thought Ryan Giggs (2009) and A P McCoy (2010) deserved the award more than she did. Secondly she deserves some reward for having to be in the same building as a scumbag who holds her in contempt.

And thirdly it would restore the reputation of an award that the nomination of Fury has sent into the gutter. If Ennis-Hill wins the BBC – like Sports Illustrated – will have got away with their blunders and their award too will have a worthy winner.

*The top rate of tax from 1974-79 in the UK was 83% (amazing as it seems now). Since sport – especially football –  seems to be stuck in the 1970s – there is a case for saying that if the 1970s were that wonderful sport should have to pay 1970s tax rates!

Serena Williams and the punishment of victims

It is not every day that an elite sports person returns to an annual event after a 14 year absence. So unsurprisingly the return of World Number 1 Serena Williams to Indian Wells for the first time since 2001 is a big story.

The background is this. At the 2001 event Serena’s sister Venus defeated Elena Dementieva of Russia to set up a Semi-Final with Serena. After the match Dementieva  was asked who she thought would win the match between the sisters. She said “I think Richard (the sisters’ father) will decide who’s going to win tomorrow”.  I’ve mentioned Dementieva’s remark as I think it had a big part in what happened next.

As it turned out the semi-final never took place as Venus pulled out with a knee injury. The trouble was that the tournament only announced it to the crowd minutes before the match was due to start – although the family said they had told officials hours before. The crowd understandably did not like this and rumours suggested they did not want to play each other. It has to be remembered that at the time the press were claiming the sisters’ matches were fixed (which is where Dementieva’s remark comes into the story).

But there was no excuse for what happened next. When Serena came out for the Final against Kim Clijsters she and her father were greeted by a chorus of boos. In fact during the match fans cheered Serena’s errors. her father responded by raising a clenched fist – the black power symbol – and saying it was “the worst act of prejudice I’ve seen since they killed Marin Luther King”. That might have been taking it too far but the behaviour was racist. How often does an American get booed when playing a foreigner? To show how it affected Serena a chapter in her autobiography was called “the Fiery Darts of Indian Wells” and in it she wrote:

The ugliness was raining down on me hard. I didn’t know what to do. Nothing like this had ever happened to me before…But I looked up and all I could see was a sea of rich people – mostly older, mostly white – standing and booing lustily like some kind of genteel lynch mob.

Neither Serena or Venus have played Indian Wells since until Serena’s come back this year (Venus is still boycotting the  event ).

But the point I want to make is that no one got punished for this shameful episode. The spectators were not nor was the tournament or Dementieva for her remarks which sparked the whole thing off. The only people that were punished were the victims. In 2009 Indian Wells became a Premier Mandatory event on the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) tour. That means a player has to take part. If she does not it still counts towards her ranking and she gets zero points. So in effect the Williams’ sisters boycott has hindered their ranking. The WTA should be ashamed of themselves for punishing the victims of racism. Whoever came up with the idea of making Indian Wells a Premier Mandatory event should be sacked if they are still in the WTA’s employ. I suspect whoever that person is it is highly likely it is a male and I would be 99 per cent certain the person was white.

Sadly this is not the only example of the punishment of victims in sport. In Russia the chairman of their FAs disciplinary committee Arthur Grigoyants has banned black players who react to racist abuse by gesturing to the racists. He has even said that if they do that they are “so-called, in inverted commas, victims”. Which only proves that Russia is a so called, in inverted commas, civilised country that shouldn’t be hosting an egg and spoon race never mind the 2018 football World Cup.

Not that we in the UK can gloat. When footballer Anton Ferdinand was a victim of racist abuse by John Terry a lot of people attacked him for refusing to shake Terry’s hand before the next game his team played against Terry’s team. Why should he if he didn’t want to? Surely each victim should be able to respond in the way they want and the rules of arrogant sport be forced to accommodate the victim’s wishes. I suspect most people who wanted him to shake Terry’s hand were white.

The point is that we white men have no right to comment on the actions of victims of racism and sexism because we have no experience of racism and sexism ourselves. We do not know what it is like to be called “nigger” and have bananas thrown at us. We do not know what it is like to be shouted at whistled at or groped in the streets like a lot of women do. So how are we qualified to comment on the reaction of the victims themselves? We aren’t. Some can forgive. Some can forget. Some can forgive but not forget. And some can do neither. It is their right.

So it is not our business to comment on Serena’s decision to return to Indian Wells. We must respect both her decision to return to the event and the fact she has chosen to boycott in the past. We must also respect Venus’ decision to continue her boycott. And we MUST not punish the vicitms of discrimination for their reaction. Only the victims of discrimination know what it feels like. Only the victims of discrimination know what its like to suffer. We must respect their wishes.

How to end tennis equal pay arguments

The first Grand Slam event of the tennis year – the Australian Open – starts in sunny Melbourne on Monday (and when your home town is covered in snow – as mine is – you notice the sunny weather). A certain prediction is that sometime in 2015 some sexist will moan about men and women getting equal prize money at the Grand Slams even though it has existed at all Grand Slams since 2007. The worst example of sexist sports writing in 2014 came from the UK journalist Matthew Syed who wrote this rubbish “To deprive (Roger) Federer of income by handing it to female players is not far from daylight robbery”. Oh god where do you start with this one? First of all when equal pay was introduced the women’s prize money went UP rather than the men’s going DOWN so men did not lose income. Secondly Federer’s career prize money (up to January 12 2015) is $88,691,538. To say someone who has earned more than $88 million is being deprived of income is a joke and an insult to millions of poor people worldwide. That remark is so offensive I’m amazed this nonentity is still in employment – even allowing for the fact it is very difficult to get sacked in UK sport – even for racists and rapists as recent events in UK football show.
But why do sexists still moan about equal pay in tennis? The excuse they use is that men play best of five sets and women play best of three so it is unfair. This ignores the fact that the three set limit was imposed on the current women who have repeatedly asked to play five sets – and been turned down by officials. It also ignores the fact that women have played five set matches before – in fact in two different eras.
The first time women played five set matches was between 1891 and 1901 at the US National Championships. During that period five women’s Finals went to five sets played by seven different women. One woman – Elisabeth Moore – played three and another – Juliette Atkinson – played two. Yet in 1902 the United States Lawn Tennis Association – over the objections of some women – cut women’s matches down to three sets because of “concern about females overexerting themselves” (“Playing With the Boys by Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano pages 11 and 168). The next time five set matches for women occurred was in the 1990s. From 1984-1998 the Final of the season ending championships was best of five sets. Three Finals lasted that long and Steffi Graf played in (and won) two of them. After the 1990 Final between Monica Seles and Gabriela Sabatini – the first women’s five setter since 1901 – an article in Tennis ’91 (page 79) said “Women are capable of playing longer… the Final went to three hours 47 minutes of high quality competition”. That was 25 years ago. The woman athlete of today is fitter and stronger than her counterpart of 25 years ago (this also applies to the men) so there is no reason they can’t play five sets.
So why won’t the officials let them? I suspect TV doesn’t want the early days of Grand Slams – which go on long enough as it is – to increase in length. But there is an easy solution here. Since it is equality we are aiming for why not have this rule for Grand Slams. The first four rounds should be best of three sets for both genders. The Quarter-Finals onwards should be best of five sets for both genders. This would cut down overlong male matches in the first week (Like the Isner v Mahnut match at the 2010 Wimbledon that went to 70-68 in the fifth) while preserving the five set format which in my opinion is important. Sometimes long sport is the best sport – the five day cricket match, the five set tennis match and the seven game play off series being three examples. It should be preserved.
Of course some sexists would moan even if the women played five sets. They would say the men’s matches last longer so they should be paid more but that is not always true. In a combined male-female event in Beijing last year the men’s Final was won 6-0 6-2 by Novak Djokovic while the women’s Final was won 6-4 2-6 6-3 by Maria Sharapova. No one was calling for Maria to win more than Novak even though her match lasted far longer. Sexists argue that men’s TV ratings are higher but again not always so. The 2002 Wimbledon Women’s Final between the Williams sisters earned a Nielsen rating of 4.6 in the US while the Men’s Final the same year between Lleyton Hewitt and David Nalbandian had a rating between 2.6 and 3.1.(McDonagh and Pappano page 250). Hewitt is Australian and Nalbandian is Argentinian. That proves in sport nationality as well as gender is a factor in delivering ratings.
But does all this matter? Yes it does. You cannot get rid of sexism in society without getting rid of it in sport. Too often sport is used to justify sexism in the non-sporting arena. In 1975 UK MP Ronald Bell – one of a tiny number of MPs to oppose the Sex Discrimination Bill – used gender segregation in sport to justify his theory that banning sex discrimination was an absurdity. More recently commentators on the Daily Telegraph website have used the fact that men and women are separated in sport as a reason for keeping female soldiers out of frontline combat. And last month UK journalists Elizabeth Day and Jonathan Maitland were debating equal pay for women on Sky News and Maitland asked Day if women tennis players should get equal pay. Amazingly Day said no. Funny how sport can brainwash a feminist (Day writes for liberal left UK papers like the Guardian and the Observer) into going against her own principles. Would she accept less pay than her male co-workers? Doubt it.
One other thought. Would you tell Serena Williams she is too weak to play five sets? Because I wouldn’t…