Equal Pay in Tennis: Yay or Nay?

Let’s take a moment and consider a space that comprises of all kinds living beings; different species co-existing in their respective habitats.

...balance...

Now let’s imagine that most of these species can broadly be classified into the birth-givers and the non-birth-givers. It is pretty clear from the name that one part of the species has the ability to give birth while the other aids in the process. Some biological differences in their anatomy are quite evident as a consequence. And that is where the difference ends. Both parties have the ability to look after themselves and each other.

Lastly (and this is probably going to be the most difficult one), let’s consider that neither of these parties are from Mars or Venus; in fact they are from the same damn planet! Shocking, I know! But we are only being hypothetical here so, why not?

Sound familiar? Or are we so far gone that the familiarity ends in the wonderland?

I feel like we have drifted miles apart from the natural trajectory of our destiny. So far away that we had to coin terms such as “feminism”, “gender equality”, “egalitarianism”, “gender equity” and the likes to appeal to the public for the restoration of balance. Discrimination based on gender has become such a commonplace that the expectation for similar treatment for both the genders is frowned upon. Let’s not even get started about the pay-scale for work based on genders.

Let's take tennis, for example, since the Grand Slam tournaments are some of the few places that have finally caught up to speed and offer equal prize money for both men and women. But it took 34 years for all the grand slams to get on the same page when Wimbledon finally achieved the pay parity in 2007. However, instead of this being the end of the long-fought debate in gender inequality in tennis, it paved way to a new controversy. The fact being that women aren’t allowed to play the same number of sets as men (in the grand slams, rest has three sets only for both) for reasons no-one can quite pin down,  placed gender inequality at the heart of the sport, again.

The basis for this disparity is said to be the difference in the stamina of men and women, but this explanation is counter-intuitive. Time and again studies have shown that women work just as hard as men and have about the same level of stamina as their male counterparts. In fact, the 2005 Wimbledon women’s final lasted 45 minutes longer then the five sets played by men in the championship! Also players like Serena Williams and Maria Erakovic have voiced their desire to play five sets to be at par while Martina Navratilova and Maria Sharapova has argued that men’s tournament should be cut to three sets instead. Many other reasons are often brought up to back the supposed “inequality” in the prize such as, more fan base for men’s tennis, longer field time for men, etc. But the biggest issue in hand seems to be the 140 year old tradition of the tournaments’ scheduling that the OG’s just cannot find it in their hearts to let go. But as Dr. Paul Davis, chairman of the British Philosophy of Sport Association, sums up, “Tradition should certainly always be taken seriously; tradition is part of what it is to be human, and is arguably particularly precious in a cultural practice such as sport. However, traditions are apt for moral and ideological evaluation. Traditions which degrade or oppress groups of people should be rejected."

It is not always the incapability of a certain group of the society that stops us from touching the desired bar. Sometimes, and by sometimes I mean most of the times, it is our mind-set that restricts us from evolving. Maybe a change in the number of sets played by men and women will not affect much in the game, or maybe it could totally change the flavour of the game. Either way it seems like a good place to start. Maybe then we will finally move towards a similar goal which is definitely a nod for the society at the moment.

What do you think?

Until next time, live a little :(:

P.S.- But why tennis, you ask?

      a. I got intrigued when I started my research on 'equal pay',

      b. Then I got lazy, so I stopped right there. 🙈