Time For Another Battle of the Sexes?

Tennis has always been on the trailing edge of sport. Tennis was one of the last "shamateur" sports to move to a paid professional level. Several professional tournaments were and are played at clubs that still require on court attire to be all white, including the oldest and prestigious major, Wimbledon. Tennis was one of the last to integrate races, and is one of the few sports that is still referred to as "lily white."

Yet in many ways, the game has been on the forefront of sports. Tennis is the only sport to have a professional handicapped wheelchair tour. The Billie Jean King/Bobby Riggs match led the charge for equal rights for women, not just in sports, but in life. The adoption of rules, like the no-ad scoring system and the tiebreaker to make the game more fan-friendly came way before NASCAR or the XFL made fan-friendly important. Tennis is still the only sport (figure skating doesn't count here) where men and women are paired and compete in open competition (mixed doubles) for major championships.

So it's no great surprise then that in tennis the controversy over equal prize money for the sexes continues. To paraphrase the old Virginia Slims Tour slogan, "We've come a long way, baby!" But apparently, still not far enough. Probably the greatest coincidence of our great sport and equality is our biggest tournament and oldest championship, the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) Championships, aka Wimbledon. Held in a country where tradition, civility, and procedure are still the rule, and where centuries old traditions are almost immortal, it is no surprise that chauvinistic, prejudicial manners still have precedence.

Again in 2006, the prize money pot will be less for the women then the men. In attempting to explain why, AELTC chairman Tim Phillips defended the decision saying, "This issue is one of a judgment on fairness. We believe that what we do at the moment is actually fair to the men, as well as to the women."

I struggle to understand the reasoning, but Mr. Phillips gave what is thought in many circles to be a reasonable explanation. Phillips said that with the physical demands of best-of-five matches, the top men rarely play doubles events, and they earn less overall than women. Phillips also said that women make more overall because the top players are willing and do compete in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles.

While only $53,600 separates the prize amounts between the men's and women's winners, its not only the money difference that is in play at the AELTC. To many the respect for the women's game is. Let's face it, when a powerful person like Chairman Phillips argues that it's not fair to the men because women play up to three times as much as the men and take home more, then one really has to wonder about the motivation behind it.

I know that if I did anything three times as much as my next counterpart I would hope that I would bring home more pay. I still laugh when I hear Chairman Phillips' words, "It just doesn't seem right to us that the lady players could play in three events and could take away significantly more than the men's champion, who battles away through these best-of-five matches. We also would point that the top 10 ladies last year earned more from Wimbledon that the top 10 men did."

The lack of equal prizes at Wimbledon is constantly being justified. In an attempt to show that Wimbledon was really a windfall for the women, the All England Club released data showing that the 2005 ladies' singles quarter-finalists were earning £1,432 pounds per game played compared to the £993 pounds per game earned by their male equivalents. When I first looked at this, I thought maybe they were right. Then I remembered that you can always find a statistic to portray what you want. Heck, I used to be the king of that.

If you have to start calculating the per-game earnings, then you should already know you are not where you need to be. In many ways, the heads of Wimbledon are misleading everyone and still living in some alternate reality. While it appears that the women make more per game, it is true that they are just about second-class citizens in every other aspect of the tournament, as well. The best match times and courts go to the men. The better facilities currently go to the men. I've even heard it discussed that the men even get the better officials and judges on the green grass. The women's final for many years was broadcast on tape delay, while the men's final was live. I wonder what the cost per game all that is.

As I take a deeper look at the statistic, something else doesn't ring true. The mixed doubles champions receive the same pay check. So, that means that men and women are being paid the same per-game rate. Now, if what the AELTC is true, then the male champion in mixed doubles should get less then his woman partner. After all, the men are now only playing three sets instead of five. Wouldn't that warrant a decrease in prize earnings?

Another look tells me that the men are somewhat lazier today then in the past. John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, and a host of past champions of the Open Era all played doubles, as well as the singles. The top men now could play doubles if they wanted to, but they chose not to. It's actually not fair to penalize the women because the top players do lend their names and faces to the doubles draws. They should probably be rewarded even more.

Maybe the most fascinating part of the current argument and its most overlooked point is that there is one person who has been at the top of both the men's and women's tours who clearly has the best perspective.

Sony Ericsson WTA Tour CEO Larry Scott's statement was quite strong, and he was emphatic when he stated, "In the 21st century, it is morally indefensible that women competitors in a Grand Slam tournament should be receiving considerably less prize money than their male counterparts. Women got the vote in Britain in 1918, and the Sex Discrimination Act has been in force for over 30 years, yet Wimbledon continues to take a Victorian era view when it comes to pay. It's surprising that Wimbledon, which has been such a leader in our sport, has chosen to lag behind the other Grand Slams on the issue of equality. Wimbledon represents so much that is good about modern British society, but inequality should not be part of the Wimbledon brand."

The statement is not to be dismissed. It comes from a man who understands the inner workings of both the ATP and WTA Tours, especially from a sponsorship and monetary side. I took the opportunity to go a little deeper with CEO Scott knowing his unique qualifications. And what I found out was very revealing. Mr. Scott provides a different perspective that definitely counteracts the AELTC argument.

Scott said, "First of all, doubles and mixed doubles are separate events from the singles competition. Secondly, Wimbledon is justifying treating women as second class because they do more for the tournament. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the more the women support Wimbledon, the more unequally they should be treated. Is Wimbledon suggesting that if the top women don't support the doubles event then they deserve equal prize money in singles?" Mr. Scott, point well-taken.

CEO Scott also noted that the women are willing to play best-of-five sets. "With respect to the five sets vs. three sets argument, the women have made clear that they are willing to play five sets. It is Wimbledon themselves who have (a) refused to allow the women to play five sets and (b) stated that they would prefer that the women play best of three sets." So Chairman Phillips is essentially saying that women should be paid less because Wimbledon makes them play less. 30-love, Mr. Scott.

It seems that Mr. Scott opens up a pandora's box of questions that the AELTC would have a hard time answering. He stated that in the professional game, athletes are paid more as entertainers and for entertainment value that they provide to the fans, broadcasters, and sponsors, and less for the number of games they play. Would the AELTC and its benefactors rather have a Vince Spadea/Mario Ancic men's final or a Martina Hingis/Venus Williams or Kim Clijsters/Justine Henin-Hardenne women's final? Would the AELTC accept less sponsorship money from the Rolex sponsorship because Maria Sharapova is currently Rolex's featured tennis athlete endorser? Would NBC and the AELTC turn Anna Kournikova away from the gate in favor of Goran Ivanisovic?

The whole argument and counterpoint can be summed up in one statement. "The available data shows that the women at Grand Slam events more than hold their own with the men in terms of attracting sponsors, selling tickets and generating television revenues," Scott said. "There is no justifiable reason to pay the women less than the men, and any effort to do so is an exercise in pure subjectivity."

If the amount of articles I write is any indication, the WTA Tour and women players actually provide more attention to the sport than the men. With the exception of Roger Federer and Andy Roddick in the U.S., there isn't a ton of excitement in the men's game. Nor are there a ton of marketable players. Can any of my readers tell me five current male players that are in large-scale print or TV advertisements? Now, how about the women? Truth is, Anna Kournikova always out-sold Andre Agassi, Maria Sharapova clearly overwhelms Roddick in advertisements, Venus and Serena Williams appear in more "Got Milk?" ads than any male player, and Martina Navratilova is still a sought-after endorsee in her late-40s.

Hey, that's not fair to the men, either. Maybe Chairman Phillips should pay the men even more because they don't shave their legs, or because the women are more attractive than the men. Heck, that's just not fair. Or maybe the men should get paid more because men can't have children. Gee, don't women take longer in the shower than men? Guess there should be a deduction in prize money because the women's water and soap bill is higher. No, wait, maybe men deserve more because they hit harder. Or maybe because there are more highly-ranked British men players than women. Wait, how about...