Usually the practice of equal work predates the debate for equal pay. In tennis, the practice of equal pay pre-dated the debate for equal work.
In the 40 years since Billie-Jean King’s historic victory over Bobby Riggs in the “Battle of the Sexes,” which lit the fuse for the global expansion of women’s tennis, the game has become the biggest women’s sport on the planet, with the stars of the game known on a first name basis the world over.
Eventually, the financial rewards slowly followed suit, culminating in 2007 when Wimbledon become the last of the four grand slam events to award equal prize money to both the men and women.
While this would seem like a non-controversial sign of gender equality and progress, opposition to equal prize money at the grand slams is not isolated to the misogynistic fringe of the tennis community. Their argument is simple; men play best-of-five sets whereas the women just best-of-three.
Blog: Are Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic boring?
Back in 2009, former world No. 1 Lleyton Hewitt weighed in on the subject, saying, "The training you have to do to last five sets, especially seven best of five-set matches, it's a lot more than three-set matches. There would obviously be question marks [over whether] a lot of them could last."
Former world No. 3 Nikolay Davydenko has also spoken out publicly against this perceived injustice, citing the extra physical demands of playing five sets.
The latest player to make headlines in the debate was Wimbledon champion Andy Murray who recently gave his two cents, stating, “I’m not saying the men work harder than the women, but if you have to train to play five sets, it’s a longer distance.
"It’s like someone training to be a 400-meter runner and someone training to be a 600-meter runner.
"I think either the men go three sets or the women go five sets. I think that’s more what the guys tend to complain about, rather than the equal prize money itself."
The discrepancy between time spent on court was highlighted during last month’s U.S. Open, when Serena Williams walked away with the trophy after just nine hours and 54 minutes on court, as opposed to Rafael Nadal who took 16 hours and 19 minutes to claim the same honor.
Last week, when asked why women do not play best-of-five sets at the grand slams, Women's Tennis Association (WTA) Chairman and chief executive officer Stacey Allaster insisted that her players were, “Ready, willing and able… all you have to do is ask.”
So the men say they want it, and the women say they’re ready for it. So what’s stopping it?
The primary issue is the logistical nightmare of having to schedule 128 first-round matches, each with the potential of going five hours long.
Blog: Can Serena become the greatest ever?
One proposed suggestion would be to have both the men and women play best-of-three sets for the opening rounds, and best-of-five for the latter. This would allow for the more competitive matches featuring the biggest names to generate the greater drama.
After all, drama is what brings in the money.
Looking retrospectively, this format would not have impacted the epic best-of-five set finals, such as the classic Bjorn Borg-John McEnroe clash in 1980, or the remarkable Roger Federer-Nadal final from 2008. However, early round battles such as the 11+ hour marathon match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut would have been over in under two hours.
These gladiatorial battles underscore the exceptional mental and physical demands of a grand slam, in a way conventional tennis tournaments do not. The excitement of a best-of-five set marathon is a unique and special experience in tennis, and one denied to half the grand slam participants.
Doesn’t Maria Sharapova deserve the opportunity to fight back from two-sets down to clinch victory from the jaws of defeat? Doesn’t the New York crowd deserve to see Serena Williams and Victoria Azarenka go the distance over five sets, testing their physical and mental superiority to the max?
As Murray continued to say in his recent interview, playing best-of-five sets “is what makes [grand slams] different.”
Maybe this is the point. During the regular season, both men and women must win five best-of-three set matches over a week in order to take home the title. During a grand slam, the men must win seven best-of-five set matches over two weeks, whereas women need only to win seven best-of-three set matches over the same two weeks.
Added pressure aside, the physical demands for women during a grand slam are actually less than during the regular season.
By allowing women to play best-of-five, you are separating the grand slam’s from the rest of the tour, making them special events, for special athletes.
The one major problem with assessing a tennis player’s fiscal worth by their length of play is assuming that their work day begins with the toss of the coin, and ends with shaking hands.
Playing matches is just a small part of the job of a full-time tennis professional, who train and travel year-round, and have done in most cases since they were too young to see above the airport check-in counter. This is just as true for the women as it is for the men.
Former world No. 6 Gilles Simon has been one of the more outspoken and controversial opponents of equal pay, suggesting that the men deserve more money, because they provide greater entertainment.
In response to this, Sharapova quipped, “I'm sure there are a few more people that watch my matches than his.”
And she’s right. People watch sports to see their favorite players, and for tennis, these fan-favorites are limited to just a few marquee names.
Serena Williams and Sharapova are just as a big draw for the fans as the top men are, and people tune in in the millions to watch them perform.
At this year’s U.S. Open, the women’s final pulled higher domestic television ratings than the men’s final, scoring a 4.9, with the men’s a comparatively low 2.8.
This can be attributed to Serena Williams being American, but that’s largely the point. People watch players they are rooting for, even if it’s only best-of-three sets, or “not as entertaining."
It’s much like when you choose to see a movie. You’re not looking at the showtimes to see which movie is longest. You choose the films featuring your favorite actors, by your favorite directors or producers. And you certainly would not expect to pay more if the movie was longer.
While the offer from the WTA's Allaster is generous, it is perhaps disingenuous. Of all the events her player participate in, the only events for which she is willing to make such an offer are the four events governed by the International Tennis Federation, where she has no jurisdiction over.
If the WTA were serious about playing best-of-five, they would incorporate it more into their own events.
An ideal time to test best-of-five sets for the women’s game would be at the annual end of year WTA Tour Championships. In fact, from 1984 to 1998, this event culminated in a best-of-five final, including an epic five-set thriller between Steffi Graf and Martina Hingis.
If these matches proved successful and popular, we’ll have a real debate on our hands.
But for now, the debate is essentially a none-starter. The media isn’t clamoring for it, the fans aren’t asking for it, and the players - despite what they say - don’t really want it.
If Andy Murray thinks that someone who trains for a 600 meter race deserves more than someone who trains to run 400 meters, maybe he should speak to Usain Bolt, the highest paid track star on the planet, who makes his money training for a race that lasts less than 10 seconds.
Men can't ask women to play five-set games.Oh my God ! Just they won't ,since how depressed they will be , and almost stop short of crying.seeing their life partner going through labour pains.,giving birth .No, they can't.
Couldn't agree more, even though this article was the first time I'd ever thought about it. I am a huge proponent of women getting pay equal to men, but, at the same time it should be equal pay for equal work. Logically, the women's prize money should be 60% of what the men get.
I think the fact that the women's final of this year's Open being held on a Sunday afternoon, when everyone has the day off, and the men's final on Monday at 5pm, when people are either still at work or commuting, had more to do with the discrepancy in ratings than the American Serena vs. the Spanish Nadal.
Agreed. I believe the same kind of scheduling happened last year. The author makes some good points but exhibited a slovenly approach in interpreting the viewing statistics.
You beat me to it. It wasn't even on regular TV here until later in the afternoon, locally pre-empted by Dr Phil or some other nonsense, I had to go to the bar and find it on some obscure channel.
Oh my, that final sentence was a jewel! But, then again, Murray didn't talk about pay. He talked about the amount of effort put into training and staying fit. Long distance runners always have to put in more effort than short distance runners cause for them stamina not speed is of utmost importance.
Pretty well written articles showing both sides of the debate neutrally. The writer has earned my respect.
the time on court is irrelevant. The women do not create as much revenue as the men and so should not get as much. They should get the same percentage of the profit they create. It's unfair to the men.
Separate men and women into different tournaments and see what happens.
Whereas I agree with your comment that women sports, tennis in this case, do not generate as much revenue as men's, I would think things even out more or less with sponsorships. And anyhow, separating tournaments would be disastrous. Flame me, but I don't think female tennis can really keep you going for two weeks. WTA ratings, I imagine, are WAY below ATP ones.
Womens tennis is the highest paid womens sport in the world for one reason, it has been following the mens since the beggining. No other sport pays the same for both sexes why should tennis? The men draw more attention and generate a lot more money. THe only reason womens tennis makes any money is because we are forced to watch them in the grand slams before we get to see the real action. Womens tennis is a one dimensional boring game.
equal play for equal pay
I think its wrong to lin the pay with women having to play five sets. I am for both equal pay as well as fove setters for the lasses. As much as the girls deserve equal pay as the men, the crowd too should get equal entertainment irrespective of who plays, men or women. Using the analogy made to athletics, a three setter for women is akin to women having to run a 75 meter race as opposed to the mens 100m; it doesnt happen that way. if its merely a matter of logistics thats preventing the women from playing five sets, all i can say is that its a great shame!
I understand the concern in principle, but the "work" that a woman puts into a best of 3, isn't necessarily disproportionate to a man's work for best of 5. Men are still stronger than women. And just a thought, would anyone put more money the 10,000 steeple chase than the 100m dash? I know I wouldn't.
First of all, there is no 10,000 meter steeple chase. Secondly, the work done by distance runners is not simply more work than that of sprinters, its different work. Sprinters work strength and distance runners work stamina. Usain Bolt, and all top athletes put in an enormous amount of training work, so the idea that athletics is a useful analogy is a wrong one. The point is that mens tennis requires more conditioning than required for womens tennis. If the women want equal pay, step it up to 5 sets at the slams
I think you have just made the point for lesser pay due to lesser ability.
I also support women players having to play 5 set matches like men. However more importantly we need to make 5 set matches more special. Both men and women should have to play best of 3 set matches up til the 4th round in a grandslam and then it should be best of 5 set matches from quarter final and beyond. This would give even the lower ranked players a chance to compete as they can throw it all in best of 3 set matches in earlier round matches.
A point I believe should have been raised in the article is Men's tennis these days is far more competitive then women's these days and hence comes the extra hardwork. So there are a lot of issues that should be settled before one can say ok women players deserve to be paid equally as men.
Just another example that feminists are not about equality but are just for women. Femininist are just like what they say they want to change.
I thinks it's a good idea...it makes the match more reasonable ... :)
I know many reasons why women shouldn`t play te best of five sets. Women`s tennis is so boring guys, even when Serena and Azarenka are playing is boring. Plenty of double faults and none aces, besides women do not have the half of technique men do, which in the end makes the game better and more demanding for players. I COULD GIVE MORE REASONS. Cut down the prize for women and make it fair.
just stick three sets for girls, but increase the number in every set, let say 8 instead of 6
The men should play only 3 sets too. If its boring watching women, the same can apply to a men's final. Too many long games at night when everyone just wants to get home and get some sleep, including the players. 3 sets is enough to decide a winner. Prize money should be equal.
Girls play only 2-3 sets,not 5 ! They earn far enough.
I would challenge the commonly held assertion that the womens game is as popular as the mens game and that they bring in as much revenue. If it was, why does the Aus Open charge a higher price per ticket for the mens final than the womens? Put simply, the mens game is a superior product and the women do not deserve equal pay.
I think you dont have a clue what you are talking about. That usain bolt analogy is idiotic and shows how stupid you are ! Usain bolt gets paid more because he is the fastest human being on the planet plus he is more vulnerable to injuries than endurance runners . . . Are u implying women serve faster ? Or smash harder than men ?? Nah i dont think so. . .
This makes very little sense. Men tennis players draw bigger audiences than Women tennis players in general and last year's US Open is the exception due to some special circumstances. As for Sharapova drawing bigger audiences than Simon, well, she's a better player relatively as a former no1 and Grand Slam tournament, and indeed she's made much more money than him. Let's compare things comparable, who wants to see a match with Gilles Simon and who prefers to see Samantha Stosur?
So if women says that they're equal, let's have only one tournament common to women and men. That's equality. Fair.
The best way to have equality is to have men and women competing against each other. One tournament for all, that's no discrimination. Simple. Easy.
I totally agree. If they really want equality in the true sense of the word, we should have only 1 tour wherein anyone regardless of gender can join then have everyone compete with everyone.
Yes, to be truly "fair" about it all, the men and women should all play each other in one tournament, since it's the same pay.
Here's another thought about demonstrating fairness. Given the same pay for each sex, in separate (sexist) tournaments, have the women play five sets and the men three sets, since it's supposedly about equality and fairness. If it's all about fairness and equality, everyone would be fine with this switch. Right, sheds new light, doesn't it? I'm guessing we would now realize we're deluding ourselves to think it's fair that women tennis players should get equal pay with the men with the current sets structure.
And the other idea is equal sets, if keeping the tournaments sexist. Three (or five) sets for both men and women.
But, for me, truthfully, I'd lose interest watching most, okay, all, women players go five sets. Yes, all. I'd rather watch men go three sets if we had to keep the number of sets the same.
But I still prefer five sets for the men. One, it's more fun to watch the men's athleticism, strength, and skill, so I'd like more sets (five) to watch. Two, I don't think the women could realistically go five sets, at least not play at a level I'd want to watch. I'm willing to be made wrong about that. This isn't a slam on the women, just a comment about the probable athleticism that could/would be displayed, competitively or otherwise, into four or five sets.
It seems to me that any of these ideas would demonstrate legitimate "fairness" and "equality" in "valuing" the viewing of tennis play, since the pay is equal.
This whole "fairness" discussion feels like an Emperor-has-no-clothes postmodern-worldview dynamic, too much political correctness drowning it out. Few are willing to state the obvious truth of the matter. Let's get real. For me, it's not about making men "better" than women, and the like. Not about that for me. Why can't we just admit we're willing to pay the women as much as the men even though their tennis isn't "equitable" or on par with each other. There ya go.
True equality? Have one tournament for all.
The equal work for equal pay is quite misunderstood on here it seems. In many careers – payment for equal work is calculated by results not time! For example:- in real estate if two people sell the same house for the same price – but one does it in 3 hours and the other in 5. The person who takes longer is not entitled to more. Same hoes for journalists who get paid per article – if you can write it quicker doesn't mean you get paid less! Same goes for tennis – if you can win the grand slam in a shorter amount of time – it's the same 'product' in the end so equal pay for equal work meets this criteria. As for quality of the game – men's tennis gets boring with the short serve volley style – insner and mahut took so long cause the are both useless on return serve but have a strong service game! But was very boring to watch! I would also make note it's two weeks of work for either gender – same off court preparation – same expenses.
CNN's tennis program
Nov 20: 1030, 1730
Nov 22: 0730, 2230
Nov 23: 1630
Nov 29: 1630
Nov 30: 0730, 2230
All times in GMT
‘Open Court’ is CNN’s monthly tennis show, hosted by former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash.