Equal? Not Even Close

It's a Man's World

It is safe to say that in the history of the world prior to the 20^th Century, men held nearly all the cards. With few notable exceptions, the male of the species has shaped the world in which we live. As the 20^th Century progressed, things began to change - women began to agitate for, and ultimately gain, more and more rights in the “western world”. The right to vote, to work, be treated equally in the eyes of the law, anti-sexism laws and more ushered in an age of liberties that women had simply never seen before. In other areas of the world, unfortunately, women continued to be, and continue to be, second class citizens – if even that. But in democracies, the female was emancipated and became free to choose her own destiny. The change has been dramatic.

Yet in some areas, the march to equality seems to have barely even begun. One of these areas is professional sports.

There any many sports where women and men compete in similar events for personal and team glory – the “Olympic” sports, for example – track, field, swimming, and many others, where women compete against women and their achievements are lauded.

Yet, take a look at the list of professional sports. One thing stands out. They're virtually all dominated by men. Basketball, baseball, soccer, American football, it's the men who play and who make the big bucks, with very few notable exceptions. Pro sport is still a man's world.

And sport is an area where you will still hear so-called enlightened 21^st century men make sweeping statements that, for example, women's football is rubbish. All of it. Without exception. Must be. It's women playing it. Duh.

You see, so the argument goes, men are genetically bigger, faster, stronger. Male professional athletes represent the pinnacle of human physical achievement. Females, just can't compete with that. It's biology. Sports fans want to see the best – and that is men. So men earn their livings and the women are nowhere to be found. Blame evolution. Or blame God if that's your thing.

Except: is that really the case?

Some key facts need to be recognised. Those with the power to make decisions in sports have historically always been, and largely continue to be, men.

Men, who have created a sports industry, TV channels, and an events calendar, even routes from school sport into the pro ranks, that have targeted - yes, other men – and excluded women. Men decided long ago the shape of the playing field and men have decided who gets to play on it, back when women were still expected to keep house and raise the rugrats. Little has changed since.

Well women, we are told, are just not that into sports. Certainly not anything like the numbers that men are, anyway. Of course, we were once told that women had the wrong kind of brains for deep thinking...

Maybe women aren't that into sports. Then again, maybe women in general aren't that into seeing male-dominated macho-driven sports. Maybe women would be more into sports if there were more women doing professional sport on TV? Maybe not. But has that ever really been tried?

Maybe women aren't that into sports. Then again, maybe women would be more into sports if they had more opportunities as kids to play sports that had a pro career as a dream they could achieve? Maybe not. But again, it's never really been tried. The routes into most professional sports for kids are largely for the boys.

Maybe women aren't that into sports. Then again, maybe women would be more into sports if female sports were judged on their own merits as a separate entity rather than being compared, inevitably unflatteringly, with the male version. Who knows? It's not like it's ever really been tried.

The whole pro sport industry has, like society in general, a strong bias towards fulfilling the needs of the male of the species. Men remain in control of sports, as they mostly remain in control of business, government, economics, media, and so much more, and it follows that they cater to their own interests.

This is why, for all the gains of the last 100 years or so, women are still paid less in many employment fields for the same work. They are still objectified by a media obsessed with how they look more than what they can do. They are often patronised, treated with casual contempt and sometimes outright misogyny, no less damaging for being more subtly expressed than in the past. As in pro sport, in many areas of life, the march to equality for women still has a long way to go, however many glass ceilings have theoretically been removed. The playing field was chosen by the opposition and they still know how to control it.

Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves

All of which brings us to professional tennis. Female tennis players are in a unique position in that they have a tennis tour that runs 10 months of the year. If they're good enough, they can earn their living, compete around the world and win titles, glory, wealth and even fame. The ladies of the WTA are in an enviable position when it comes to female pro sports, and it is not a position that just dropped into their laps. Pioneers like Billie-Jean King and others shed blood, sweat and tears to establish what can be taken for granted over 40 years later, but even that would not have been possible without the precedence of the Grand Slams, established as combined events by 1922, and the early interest in players like Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills Moody that other female sports simply lacked.

It was a difficult road but the WTA established itself, sometimes uncomfortably by milking the “big babes” approach, playing the male marketer's game of selling women's tennis as T & A. Yet it has ultimately thrived with its own identity as a beacon for female professional athletes – a powerful symbol of what can be done. However, women's tennis does still get compared, often unflatteringly, with the men's game.

To be sure, there are differences. At the Slams, men play best of 5 sets; women play best of 3. Women tend to have less powerful serves, so there more breaks of serve in the women's game. To achieve higher power, women tend to hit a flatter ball, which can lead to matches where unforced errors are more of a determining factor than in the men's game. Men tend to hit with more spin, thus more control, meaning rallies can be decided more tactically. Both are still tennis, but things are subtly different in how the matches can shake out.

And yet, women's tennis is often wilfully described in more unflattering terms than the men's game, demonstrating unacceptable double standards. When 2 or 3 players dominate the women's game, it is described as lacking depth. When this happens in men's tennis, it's because these 2 or 3 players have “raised the game to a new level”. When no one player dominates among the men, it's considered exciting and shows great strength in depth. When no one woman dominates, it's shows the women's game is chaotic and needs someone to take a firm grip at the top.

Still, that's the tennis journalists for you. Of course, tennis journalists are largely male, too...

WTA broadcast rights are less expensive than ATP rights, we are told. But if men are deciding what's more valuable and are catering to a male-dominated audience, is it a surprise that for sports value, the men are regarded more favourably? Men hold all the cards, and even people like WTA president Stacey McAllister feel they have to market the WTA players as objects of desire to enhance their appeal. Female sports executives have tended to play by the rules they found, rather than trying to level the playing field.

Slamming the Grand Slams

A few years ago, all four Grand Slams reached the point of agreeing that the male and female players should receive equal prize money, though not without years of tireless campaigning from the likes of the WTA and Venus Williams. Now, if Serena Williams wins the women's title, she gets the same prize money as Roger Federer does if he wins the men's, and so on down the rounds. Equality arrived, and everyone rejoiced at the dawning of a new age of peace, prosperity and mutual support between men's and women's tennis.

Except not.

“But we play best of 5 sets,” cried the some of the men. “We're more entertaining. They come to see us play.”

Even now, a couple of years later, the issue will still not rest – Gilles Simon becoming the latest player to douse the issue in petrol and set it triumphantly ablaze, in remarks on the state of tennis as he was elected to the ATP Player's Council, providing an unwelcome distraction to the great tennis at Wimbledon. One wonders if the ATP powers that be have requested a period of silence on his part.

Sure, men play best of 5. But nobody wants to make men play best of 3 sets at Grand Slams. Equally, there's very little clamour to make the ladies play best of 5, and the match schedulers would blench in horror at the extra burden this would impose. Men may have to work harder physically to play best of 5 – but then, apparently, they're better suited to do so. The off-court work, the sacrifices and commitment for the men and women alike are immense and worthy of equal respect.

Besides, tennis should not be judged on quantity alone. Entertainment value is a nebulous concept, as is quality of tennis. The unpredictability of women's tennis, which has seen no one truly dominant player since perhaps Justine Henin in 2007, if not Serena William in 2002/3, appeals to some fans more than the stoic predictability of the current men's offering, where the same three players have taken 28 of the last 29 major crowns. Other fans appreciate the ordered rivalries that characterise the men's tour. It is difficult to try to quantify these things, and determine whether the men or women are providing “more entertainment” in order to distribute prize money accordingly. And in any case, what might be true now might not be true 5 years, 10 years down the line. The sport moves on. Rather than continually picking at this issue, equal prize money is the equitable and sensible thing to do.

One wonders why players like Gilles Simon are complaining? Why does he feel so threatened? It's not like for the ladies to gain this equality, the men had to lose something. It is not a zero sum game. Is it purely because the men think they are working harder, or are more entertaining? Or is it because they feel the women's game is truly inferior to their own and believe there is some value in comparing the two? Or is it because they think that females in general are inferior? In 100 years of progress for gender equality, have we really made much progress at all or have people just become better at hiding their feelings behind other arguments?

The argument for equal prize money for the ATP and WTA tour events – combined or not – is even more complex and not for the faint hearted. The Grand Slams have settled this question. They are a celebration of tennis – men's tennis and women's tennis, and a small blow for equality in a professional sports world that still very much remains a man's world. Men and women alike should accept this – and let the matter drop and let their racquets do the talking. In their different ways, they're usually very good at it.