In the world of tennis, men and women live together while having separate accounts. This doesn’t prevent wage inequality. Except in the Grand Slam events where, since 2006, the focus is on parity. Is this just?
"They want to win as much as we do? Well, they should start by doing the same job then... “We talked with Pat Cash in Luxembourg in September during an exhibition game, about the famous controversy born on June 26 with a shot across the bows by Gilles Simon to his female counterparts: "We often talk about equality in wages. I think that it’s not something that's working in sport. We are the only practicing parity in prize money (note: only in the four Grand Slam tournaments) while we provide a more attractive show [...] It’s simple, in Rome, for the women's final there are 20 spectators." In short, from a tennis point of view, the woman would not be the equal of the man.
Karsten Braasch has already tested this hypothesis back in 1998, in Melbourne, during the Australian Open. Clearly exasperated to hear the Williams sisters, then aged 16 and 17, bragging loud and clear in the ATP office that they could beat any Top 200 guy, the German, ex-world number 38 and then languishing at 203rd in the rankings, decided to take them at their word. A set against each of them for a meaningful result: 6-1 against Serena, 6-2 against Venus. All with no second serve allowed, a cigarette smoked during the change of side and a bottle of beer as a tonic. A walkover, for which the German had prepared, he said, with "rounds of golf and cocktails.” And add: "They have no chance of beating someone in the top 500, because today I played like a guy ranked 600th". It had the effect of quieting the two Americans and at the same time severely discrediting the entire women's tour.
"The mixed tournaments are here to save the girls"
But, since 2006, parity has been established by the Grand Slam Committee, bringing together the four major tournaments on the tour. This, at Roland Garros, for example, allows the female winner to walk away with a check of one million euros. "The organization has the power and to satisfy the feminist lobby they decided to adjust the prize money," said Philippe Bouin, a former reporter at the French magazine L’Equipe who opposition this decision based, according to him, on the "the self-righteousness of our time." As it happens, Alizé Cornet agrees: "Equal prize money should be the rule on the ATP and WTA tournaments where we play the same number of sets. But in the facts, it's a bit the opposite: in Grand Slams where they play two to three times more than us, they have matches in five sets, and a lot of stress, the boys earn as much as us. I think there’s indeed a small injustice here. I can understand that some aren't happy with it... "
So the question of prize money would only be a matter of time worked? "The performance isn’t a matter of length but of potential attractiveness to the public. However, women's tennis generates less interest and therefore less money. Just look at the difficulties of tournaments in finding sponsors," says Philippe Bouin. Difficulties that the 17 mixed tournaments of the season do not know, and for good reason... According to Gilles Simon, they are there "to save their [the women’s] week.” Philippe Bouin is more measured: "It's good for the women. These are the tournaments in which, except for the Grand Slam, they earn the most money during the season..." If the prize money of the smallest ATP is about £250 000, those of its female counterpart is £135 000. What, actually, means this: winner at Auckland, Jiz Zheng pocketed a check for 37,000 dollars (£23,000). For the same performance, David Ferrer, left with £45 000...
"A disregard to the girls' emotional attitude"
Women's tennis is less attractive, so the fee is lower. Logical thinking, apparently. But at the end of the day, why such a denial? "The tennis audience is more masculine. However, many feel a sort of disregard to the girls' emotional attitude,” says the man who, despite his 30-year career, says he never managed to understand all the mysteries of a ladies’ match. “For men, I understand what’s going on. But for girls, it can go in any direction without reason. Moreover, a classic of their own is not being able to retain their service." A kind of unforgiveable sin for purists of the game. This permanent drama of the game is precisely what attracts men according to Alizé Cornet: "It's like a fight in the mud, people love it!”
The glamorous side, a shift initiated with the arrival of Anna Kournikova and which has steadily increased in recent years with the risk of reducing female players to vulgar models. "This is one of the greatest mistakes of the WTA,” says Philippe Bouin. “Who cares that Sharapova bought the latest Louis Vuitton bag. What we want is to know when she will buy a topspin backhand." And this is where we get to the heart of the problem: if women's tennis provides less of a spectacle, less interest and therefore less money, it may also be because the game is as flat as Daniela Hantuchova's forehand. "A school like Nick Bollettieri’s has done a lot of harm to tennis. Today, during matches, girls spend their time rehearsing their lines, without ever adapting to their opponent's game, and all with minimal risk-taking. In terms of potential, it’s where men's tennis was in the early 90s.”
"We're not in the 60s anymore”
Andrea Petkovic is very far from these considerations. Keen on politics, the German of Serbian origin takes up arms. Those of the women’s liberation movement: "We're not in the 60s anymore. Women fought for their rights. I don’t even understand the controversy." Same story for Stacey Allester, the boss of the WTA: "Tennis, the Grand Slams included, has aligned with our modern and progressive society in relation to the principle of equality. I cannot believe that someone these days could even think otherwise. This kind of thinking is exactly why the WTA has been created and we will always fight for what is right." Well, the girls have to play more to earn more then? Nathalie Tauziat, former French No. 1: "Why couldn’t men play Grand Slams in three sets?”
By Charles Michel
