More Good Sports News February 22, 2007 zuzu Wimbledon is going to start making the prize money for female players equal to that available to male players. Welcome to the 21st Century, All England Club!
Of course, that’s still sort of unfair, as there’s not a person in America who can name more than two male tennis players, whereas they can name about two dozen active women playing tennis professionally. But in the name of gender equity, I think it’s okay to give the men an equal cut.
I was so pleased to hear this – predictably there have been a chorus of complaints of ‘but they only play 3 sets! This is discrimination against men! Equal pay for equal work!’, as though it were even about that argument (which is stupid anyway, and ignores the fact that both the men and women put in the same amount of work all year round, and that women’s matches are often longer than men’s) rather than about overturning the view that women’s sports are somehow intrinsically less worthwhile than men’s. In any case, it’s just a matter of Wimbledon bringing itself in line with the rest of the major tournaments, who already give the women’s contest equal status.
Not all the other majors have equal pay. The French Open still doesn’t but apparently they’re about to review that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6389635.stm
“predictably there have been a chorus of complaints of ‘but they only play 3 sets! This is discrimination against men! Equal pay for equal work!’, as though it were even about that argument” You obviously don’t care about that argument, but what’s wrong with it? If someone did this in any other sphere this would be illegal. The only reason it’s possible is that there is a deliberate loophole in the Equal Pay Act which allows less favourable treatment because of gender if it’s to do with sport. More broadly, there’s no reason why tennis should be segregated at all. Doing this in any other area of employment would be illegal, and rightly so. You shouldn’t be able to put up a prize and say only men or only women can win it, it’s clearly discriminatory (and the vast majority of the time is discriminatory against women).
You obviously don’t care about that argument, but what’s wrong with it? That they’re comparing apples and oranges, since the three sets that women play tend to last longer than the five sets that the men play? More broadly, there’s no reason why tennis should be segregated at all. If there were no size or strength differential between men and women, this would make sense. It’s the reason why equestrian events are completely co-ed — success in those events is far more dependent on the skills of the rider and the horse than on size or strength of the rider. You could divide tennis players into weight classes like you do boxers or wrestlers if you’re really concerned about splitting by gender. After all, everyone sees how ridiculous it would be to put a flyweight boxer up against a heavyweight. Plus it would be interesting to see the Williams sisters (for example) up against men of the same size/weight.
The three (usually 2 in early rounds) sets that women play do not tend to last longer than 5 (usually 3 in early rounds) sets for men, unless you mean perhaps on a per set basis. At Wimbleton, even given the # of aces, I’d be surprised if mens matches were actually shorter. Still, I find this a silly argument. Doubles matches tend to last as long as singles, but they don’t get nearly as much money. The pay is for what people are willing to pay to watch. It’s entertainment. If women’s matches are being watched more and bringing in more fans, they should, if anything, get more money, not less. And if people are paying to see the men play, then the men should get more. That the men play longer than the women, and would likely crush them in head-to-head play has nothing to do with it. And men’s tennis players at the same size/weight would still be better than similarly sized females. Men, proportionally, are stronger and faster, it’s not just the size difference. Not that a top female couldn’t do reasonably well sometimes…
Aweb is correct that it is a business. The three-match set-up is more television friendly and has been cited as one of the reasons why women’s tennis is such a big draw (and television audiences rarely sit through a whole men’s match). It would be incredibly difficult to completely match salaries to viewing audience, though, since viewing audience increases dramatically whenever a Williams sister is playing in the final and I don’t think they could increase the pot just because a Williams sister is playing. So the fairest thing is to equalize the pot. And what Jeff said!
Mnem: I’m all for parity, but let’s not go nuts: “After the loss (in the Australian Open in 1998), Serena announces she will play German Karsten Braasch in the next few days. Braasch is 30, ranked No. 226 in the world, and a man. Serena says she’s “going to take him out.” She loses, 6-1.” He’s 5’11” and 160. Serena is 5’10” and then (at age 17, if my math is correct) probably 145.
Who was the bitch who sneered, when the U.S. women’s team won the Olympic gold for soccer, that any boys’ high school team could beat them? She must be gagging over this.
“That they’re comparing apples and oranges, since the three sets that women play tend to last longer than the five sets that the men play?” I think I’m comparing apples and apples. The law says you can’t give people a less favourable contract because of their gender. The contract for men sets games at 5 sets and for women sets games at 3 – and all for the same fee. In any other area this would be illegal.
OFF TOPIC Isn’t Patricia Heaton a member of the conservative group Feminists for Life? Is Jesus ok with her showing off her breasts like that to everybody?
norbiz, thanks for that great illustration of how women are held to a higher standard in their fields. If a Williams sister loses in early rounds to an unseeded player, she’s having a bad weekend. If she loses to a low-ranked man, women can’t play tennis. Right.
LS: Given that that is the only time I know of where professionals of different genders and comparable sizes played tennis together, I thought it relevant to the question mnemosyne raised in #8, and not to the proposition “women can’t play tennis,” which didn’t appear in my post.
I would like to see women play five sets; obviously, they’re capable of doing it physically — and I always love watching someone come from two sets down to win, which can’t happen now in the women’s game. Women’s tennis is much more exciting these days, though I am very excited to see if Roger Federer can pull off the Slam this year.
The law says you can’t give people a less favourable contract because of their gender. The contract for men sets games at 5 sets and for women sets games at 3 – and all for the same fee. In any other area this would be illegal. Simple solution, then: have the women play 5 sets at Wimbledon. They do it in other venues, so why not there?
You guys know women used to play 3 out of 5 sets, right? Back in the days of Suzanne Lenglen, with the corsets and the long skirts. It was the male officials who didn’t think the women could handle playing that long, even though there wasn’t any evidence they couldn’t, and shortened women’s play to 2 out of 3.
I’m with the people who are suggesting five sets for women in grand slam tournaments. Seeing how many of the top women players actively play in the doubles as well, it seems obvious that they’d be able to handle it physcially, it’s just a matter of fitting the extra play into the two week time frame. I will say something I know isn’t going to go down well here though, and that’s that contrary to what people often say, women’s tennis is far more boring to watch than men’s. The stereotype comes from around 10-15 years ago when the men’s game was dominated by big serving baseline players like Sampras, Kraijeck, Ivanisevic and Courier and yes, it was incredibly boring. Then, as players like Hewitt, Rafter, Henman, Agassi (again) and Federer emerged, all with varied styles that relied more on agility and speed, it became more exciting again. The women’s players meanwhile have reverted back to the old men’s style – they’re all rely predominantly on a big serve and playing long, steady rallies from the baseline. Still, this isn’t a permanent thing – both games are constantly evolving and if matches are extended to five sets we can put the argument to rest with the viewing figures, although I also want to take issue with the poster who said that women’s games last longer. I watch Wimbledon every year and some of the women’s matches in the earlier rounds are so heavily mismatched as to be funny. It’s not unusual for the seeds’ matches to last well under an hour even into the third round.
It’s not unusual for the seeds’ matches to last well under an hour even into the third round. The only tennis match I ever attended was a women’s match that lasted 29 minutes. Both players were seeded. Not much bang for my buck. If they’re going to charge the same ticket prices for men and women’s matches, they should both play 5 sets.
You guys know women used to play 3 out of 5 sets, right? Back in the days of Suzanne Lenglen, with the corsets and the long skirts. It was the male officials who didn’t think the women could handle playing that long, even though there wasn’t any evidence they couldn’t, and shortened women’s play to 2 out of 3. If you follow the second link to the post above, you’ll see an official from the All England Club saying that the women *could* play 5 sets, but they won’t change their rules.
And considering the major issue in the tennis world at the moment is the length and duration of the season, I doubt the number of sets are going to change – look at the changes that have occurred with doubles – if any equality was to occur, I would think it would be the opposite way – men would only play 3 sets – It already happens in the week to week tournaments.