Equal Prize Money For Women's Tennis

Every year in January the Australian Open is played out in Melbourne. It is one of the premiere sporting events of the year. It is an honour and a privilege for any country to host one of four the Grand Slams. Yet every year the same debate is reignited to taint the competition.

Equal prize money for women.

I would never assume that all men believe men should receive more prize money and interestingly it is not all women that believe in equality. So for the sake of this discussion I will simply call the people who oppose equal prize money for women in tennis as the opponents.

The opponents claim that women should not receive the same amount of prize money because they play the best of three sets and men play the best of five. This is the supposed crux of the debate. However, by the end of this article you’ll see just how powerful the intense backlash against women’s progress can be and that what really is being debated is women’s inferiority.

The discussion centres on women not playing for long enough. I hope to demonstrate that the length of time spent on the court is largely irrelevant with regards to prize money. But in order to utterly refute the opponents, let’s tackle that idea. I would argue it is not women who do not play long enough but men who play for too long. Why not shift the debate from equal prize money for women and instead concentrate on shortening the length of the men’s game. Diminishing women’s prize money it’s not the only way to “even the playing field”, but it is always the argument primarily proposed by the opponents.

For a while now, women’s tennis has rated higher on television broadcasts than men’s tennis & Grand Slam ticket sales for women’s semis and finals often sell more than the men’s. The Williams sisters have played a significant role in this, particularly in the US where spectators are accustomed to and enjoy watching elite female athletes.

There are a number reasons why women’s tennis rates higher than men’s and one of them absolutely is that the duration of play is more palatable. Only die-hard fans will endure a five set game, played through until the early hours.

But in regards to prize money, it is not the length of time spent on the court that matters but the entertainment value. Opponents will argue that men’s games are more entertaining but this is completely subjective. Women and men play a very different game. Men can hit the ball harder. Consequently, women engage in longer rallies and are therefore more strategic. We are conditioned to view male sports as better but if we open our minds, drop the sexism and appreciate that men and women are different not superior or inferior then appreciation can come in both games.

When you pay to see a performer it is not the length of time on stage you are paying for, but the entertainment value. You pay the same price to see a ninety-minute film as you do a three-hour film and no one suggests otherwise. I wonder if the opponents have ever argued that their ticket price be reduced when a film has fallen short of the 90 minute mark?

Let’s keep in mind that tennis is not a salary job paid by the hour. Sport is part of the entertainment industry. Look at wrestling, boxing, even poker. The prize money is not based on how many rounds they fight or how many hands it takes to win. The prize money allocated to the winner, the length of time spent on the court, in the ring or at the table, matters very little.

Prize money is also allocated according to revenue generated from sponsorship, ticket sales and advertising. Higher television ratings equates to higher advertising revenue. Why should women earn less prize money when they actually generate more revenue?

Sex sells. Sponsors are acutely aware of this. Women are indisputably easier to look at, especially when playing tennis. Women’s tennis uniforms have evolved to accentuate their aesthetic appeal, whilst their male counterparts have remain largely unchanged. This is undeniable and contributes to ratings and tournament sponsorship deals.

I need to transgress to point out the intense homoeroticism in male sport spectatorship. Shouldn’t heterosexual men prefer watching women play? As a lesbian woman I know I do. Of course in truth men use sports spectatorship to narcissistically identify with the male body as thing of beauty. Sport is one of the few places where men can express passion and adoration for other men without judgement from an assumption of male homosexuality. Male athletes are a symbol of masculinity and male sport is the platform used for transforming men into modern cultural heroes.

What happens to this when we afford women, equal status?

In any event, it is not women who choose to play three sets. This is a tradition. A tradition based on the sexist perspective that women do not have the endurance or stamina to last five sets. I would argue that marathon running and childbirth prove otherwise. In fact endurance is women’s true strength. And if we are to believe the infomercials offering men longer lasting sex and the harrowing statistics on heterosexual female orgasms, I would suggest that it is male stamina that needs to be addressed.

The argument is reductive anyway. What, for example happens on a day when both the men’s and women’s games go for three sets? Does a man who finishes off an opponent in three sets deserve less money that one who drags it out for five. If players were being paid according to the length of time spent on the court or for the number of sets played, then players would start to manipulate their games to extend them for more money.

The argument would of course, keep shifting in an attempt to diminish women’s progress. If women played five sets then the argument would shift to women not being deserving of equal prize money because they can’t hit the ball as hard, play as fast, or because they serve less aces. There would always be a reason to attempt to deny women equal prize money.

At the true heart of the opponents argument lays an inherent discrimination. Opponents truthfully don’t think women deserve equal prize money because they believe the women’s game is inferior. Pure and simple. They can’t say this out loud for fear of the wrath of the sex discrimination act so the focus shifts to the obvious disparity in number of sets played.

The argument would carry more weight if women received equal pay for equal work in every other professional arena including other sports. Globally there are only a few professions where women have gained equal pay. Of course we can only talk about those women in countries who have the right to work in the first place. Two such professions are modelling and prostitution. In practically every other profession worldwide women are paid less for equal work. Why are the opponents not so vocal about that?

When golf or surfing tournaments are played why do we not hear such vocal opposition to men being paid more, when women surf the same waves and play on the same green for just as long?

Isn’t it interesting how much focus is placed on prize money in tennis? It seems everyone has an opinion. With regards to other sports it is taken as a given that women earn less or nothing at all. And who dares disrupt the status quo?

Layne Beachley (7 times world surfing champion) has calculated that over the 19 years she has been competing on the tour, she has earned, on average, just $32,000 a year. The prize money on offer had she been a man is five times this amount. But you wont find anywhere near the amount of discussion on this.

Sadly, I have heard female opponents to equal prize money for women and it reminds me that we live in a society that conditions people to protest any progress that women make. Every progress made from the right to education, to enter a library, to work, to vote, has been met with serious backlash. I have never really understood why our progress is so threatening to men who already have those advantages. Women are not asking to usurp male dominance, merely to “even the playing field”. We are not suggesting that we earn more than men, just the same. Why this threatens men so much I am not so sure.

When you consider what is involved for a man to bring a child into the world and what is involved for a woman no one would argue that men’s contribution is vastly smaller. Men have to have sex. Women have to have sex, carry the child, give birth and breastfeed. This equates to a couple of years of investment, enormous physical involvement and often career sacrifice and this is all before the child-rearing begins, as opposed to the male contribution of 15mins or so, (I’m being generous). Does anyone seriously suggest that the effort or work men put in, given that it is so much less (a lot less than a couple of sets of tennis, mind you) should equate to less parental rights? No. Because we acknowledge that each party’s contribution is just as valid even though it is vastly different.

When are the opponents going to see that what men and women offer in all areas is different but equal?

I would respect the opponent’s position more if women weren’t so grossly disadvantaged globally. Gender inequality is disturbingly on the increase. Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income, own 1 percent of the means of production and own less than 1% of world property.

Women’s tennis is the most successful female sport in terms of income. Instead of women enjoying this accomplishment they are forced to defend their progress at every Grand Slam tournament.