Should men and woman receive equal pay for Grand Slam events?

POINT: Equal Pay for Women at Grand Slams Unreasonable

by Dan Jenkins

To fully understand a woman's thought process, one might be tempted to footnote the Ogden Nash quote, "women would rather be right than reasonable." The cry of women on the WTA Tour has been heard: equal pay for less work. Sounds unreasonable - so it must be right. A woman's work at Grand Slam events bears scant resemblance to that of their men counterparts. Until WTA players are prepared to implement a best of five set format - as the men use - the women's movement for equal pay at Grand Slams is no more than a narcissistic miscalculation of worth.

It has caught my attention that the WTA often uses words such as attendance, ratings and interest as surrogates for words such as toil, sweat and labor, in an attempt to validate that organizations precarious motive in moving women to a uniform pay scale; a consummate example coming recently from WTA Tour chief executive Bart McGuire, "As the entertainment value, attendance totals, television ratings and overall interest in women's tennis have soared, the logic behind the equalization of prize money (at Grand Slam events) has become increasingly clear."

What becomes clear? Women want equalization of prize money because 1) they feel they're entertaining, 2) attendance totals are up 3) T.V. ratings are up? This reasoning deserves a golf clap at best - a small measure of compliment for coming up with an answer when a reasonable one doesn't truly exist; smoke and mirrors - nothing more. No mention of equal pay for equal play. No mention of advocating a switch to a best of five set format. The "we're entertaining" argument is at very best humoring.

Since entertainment looks to be the argument the WTA has created, let's talk about that word. The WTA is clearly dependent on their top four or five players to piece together a major draw of any tier one quality. Take them out and what do you have left? You have what happened at the Family Circle Cup in April; Davenport, Hingis, and the Williams sisters all missing. The result? An embarrassing Mary Pierce, nationally broadcasted, 6-1, 6-0 crushing of Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario. That "0" bagel shaped digit you see is not a typo. Pierce surrendered just 12 games the entire tournament. I watched the final on T.V. but then opted for the Outdoor Life Network's annual sleeping bag review after that 15 minute, first set laugh-a-thon. Take note now, because if this scenario ever happened at a Grand Slam and the women's winner received what the winning man did, we'd be talking serious injustice - and probable upheavel.

Is this plausible at a Grand Slam? You bet. You cannot depend on four or five players and expect coat tail ratings. At present, the WTA is forced to put all of their eggs in one basket. Give me 15 or 20 solid women who can win a Grand Slam over any two week period (where the men's game is now) and we'll only begin to discuss a possible switch to a best of five set format at Grand Slams. Right now, interest in the women's game is in place, but there just aren't enough high quality horses in the stable to draw public interest in watching two weeks of women's best of five set matches. Early rounds would be absolute sleepers and attendance would undoubtably dwindle. The Family Circle Cup was unarguable testimony to the wayward state of women's professional tennis.

Yet another microcosm of this problem surfaced recently at the German Open. The WTA plan had Anna Kournikova supplying the "entertainment" and spectator draw - Martina Hingis the talent. Kournikova bowed out in first round action and Hingis lost in the semis. Prognosis? Grim. Cure? None. The public was forced into watching a 1 hour, 23 minute premeditated dismantling of world No. 16 Amanda Coetzer, compliments of Conchita Martinez, 6-1, 6-2, in a final that lay witness to a half full stadium court. Kournikova was the only player to fill up center court. Not a single Hingis match sold out. My compliments (and sympathy) go out to tournament director Eberhard Wensky, who blasted the WTA and marketing company IMG for providing a field that included only Hingis among the top players. "A field like this year can't happen again," said Wensky. "Our partners (WTA and IMG) let us down." Martinez claimed $166,000 for her Sunday stroll in the park; oh, excuse me - sweat and labor. It was almost as easy as getting to the half way point of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" I remind you now of Mr. McGuire's earlier stated 'entertainment value, attendance totals' argument for equal pay - spare us.

All England chairman Tim Phillips was recently asked whether he could foresee the day when women were paid the same at Wimbledon, replying, "I think it is pretty unlikely in the foreseeable future." Why would such an important figure in the game speculate as such? I'll tell you why. Until the ranks of WTA Tour players strengthen, a best of five set format at Grand Slam womens events would be a seriously misguided commitment. Entertainment, attendance and ratings are no more than deceptive reasonings for giving women equal pay in a best of three set format. If women want equal pay, let justice be served and require them to have to win three sets in every round. But, until the women's game has the fire power and a broader base of talent, it's neither "right" nor "reasonable" to expect.

COUNTERPOINT: Equal Pay for Equal Work

by Michaela Curran

A "narcissistic miscalculation of worth." It’s easy to forget how easy women have it on the court. Painting their nails between points, making sure their hair looks just right and their make-up isn’t smudged, waving to their boyfriends in the stands during change overs as they breeze through another match. And don’t forget the fresh Evian water with a hint of lemon that they simply must have during their breaks.

Is that what people think of when they watch players like Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport and the Williams sisters? I think not. Female tennis players no longer portray the prissy, pig-tailed girls wearing all white out on the court. Women in tennis are stronger and more powerful than ever. What goes into making these women amazing powerhouses is, incredible amounts of toil, sweat, and labor and nothing else—the same as men. So if you’d like to think of toil, sweat, and labor as "surrogate words," so be it.

Grand slam tennis tournaments are based on tradition. Due to this patriarchal tradition, the word "equality" seems to be a foreign word. Many years ago, long before political correctness was a buzzword, the founding fathers of Grand Slams decided that men should play best out of five matches, and women should play best of three matches. It remains a tradition and there is no indication that it will change.

Women are losing out on a significant amount of prize money because of this tradition. If it’s necessary for women to play best out of five like the men to gain equal pay, why don’t men play best of three like the women? Because of tradition. In 1999, the French Open awarded women $56,000 less than men, Wimbledon awarded women $70,000 less than men, and the Australian Open awarded women $24,000 less than men. This is a significant amount of money to award a man for playing a few more games than a woman. If you really are going to nit-pick, fine, let me throw you an extra hundred bucks for your extra few sets. But close to $70,000 more at Wimbledon? Come on now, who’s being unreasonable here?

You are probably wondering why I didn’t mention the US Open. Well, that’s because the good old USA pulled through on equality, paying equal prize money to both men and women. If this major Grand Slam has noticed the toil, sweat, and labor that women and men alike put into tennis, why haven’t the three others followed suit?

You may still believe women shouldn’t be paid an equal amount of money as men. They play fewer games, so they should make less money. That sounds about right. Wrong. A tennis match provides entertainment, attendance and TV ratings. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is what brings in the money, which, in turn, pays the prize money. The men should be thankful that women have celebrities like Kournikova, Hingis, and the Williams sisters that bring some identification to the game. In fact, in eight out of the last twelve Grand Slams, viewership of the women’s finals exceeded the men’s final. In 1999, the US Open finals match between Serena Williams and Martina Hingis registered the highest overnight ratings in a decade, attracting twice as many viewers as the 1998 final.

Don’t feel reassured? Let me throw out this fact. Currently, tennis on TV ranks with bass fishing, greyhound racing, roller derby, and horse racing, in terms of popularity. There could not be any more blatant warning signs that tennis needs to be saved in any way possible. If it takes these larger-than-life personalities to bring the game of tennis back up to where it should be, let’s go with it. And these celebrity personalities are women – not men! Without these women, professional tennis as we know it would become extinct and no one would be bringing home a paycheck.

Let’s not forget the fact that tennis is a full-time job for these professionals – both men and women. The Grand Slams are a showing of their skill and hard work. Depth within these tournaments comes and goes. Women’s tennis may be lacking depth today, but tomorrow men’s will be lacking. No matter what, this is still a job and a job that they have put their whole lives into. It’s important to ensure equality for these hard workers.

With all of this, let‘s pray that the Grand Slams jump into the new millennium and not be forced into abiding by affirmative action policies. Equal pay for EQUAL work is more than reasonable.

Send us your thoughts on this subject.... woodytennis@yahoo.com