|
by Carol Slezak Courtesy of the Chicago Sun-Times Who would you rather watch play, Venus Williams or Michael Chang? Martina Hingis or Yevgeny Kafelnikov? Monica Seles or Pete Sampras? Well, the survey says it's game, set and match to Chang, Kafelnikov and Sampras. That's according to John Curry, the chairman of the All-England Tennis Club. His research shows that a whopping 70 percent of people rather would watch men play tennis than women play tennis. Those survey results, Curry says, come from those who attend Wimbledon regularly. Seeing as I don't know anyone who attends Wimbledon regularly, I only can imagine what finished second, third and fourth in their voting. Watching Wimbledon's grass grow. Waiting for the cream to curdle on the strawberries. Counting raindrops during a rain delay. Somebody stop them, they're having too much fun. Anna Kournikova or Goran Ivanisevic? Amanda Coetzer or Richard Krajicek? Lindsay Davenport or Thomas Enqvist? Serena Williams or Andrei Medvedev? I don't know about you, but I'm thinking that 70 percent of the surveyed folks have a hard time distinguishing between entertainment and punishment. Ah, but a closer look reveals there's a purpose behind the survey results. That 70 percent figure is Wimbledon's justification for paying women's players less than men's players. It just goes to show you, doesn't it? Never trust a survey. What a week it has been for female pros. On the same day the WNBA players finalized an agreement that will provide them with health-care coverage and a 401(k) plan, female tennis pros got a 5.4 percent pay raise at Wimbledon. Of course, the basketball players had to risk their careers to attain the most basic employment benefits. And the tennis players had to threaten a boycott to get their raise. I am woman, hear me roar. With the pay increase, the women will earn 83 percent as much as the men this summer at Wimbledon, where the men's champion will get $728,000 and the women's champ will get $655,200. It's still a huge payday for the women, big enough that it might be hard to muster too much sympathy for them. But if you're thinking that if ever there was a clear-cut case of wage disparity, this is it, then you're on the right track. If you're thinking that, if anything, the men should take a pay cut, you're getting warmer. If you're thinking, ``I wouldn't pay $5 to watch the men play,'' then you're really hot. Bart McGuire, the chief executive officer of the Women's Tennis Association, called Wimbledon's refusal to equalize pay ``extremely disappointing.'' More than two decades ago, when Billie Jean King took her first stand against wage disparity in tennis, the situation was more dire. But some things haven't changed. "Everything takes time, but we must continue to force the issue," King says now. "Working toward equal prize money, particularly at the Grand Slams, is the right thing to do.' 'Particularly now, when the women's game clearly is the superior tennis product. Just how much more interesting is the women's game today? If Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky and John Elway joined the men's tour, the women's tour still would be more entertaining. At its best, the men's tour has the sometimes-seen Andre Agassi, the heartthrob Patrick Rafter, the fiery Marcelo Rios, the steady Sampras and not much else. Why do the men play five sets, anyway? Their matches are all alike: big serves, few returns, fewer rallies, wake us when it's over. Meanwhile, the women's tour sizzles with personality, depth and rivalries galore. Where else can tennis fans see such diverse characters? From Amelie Mauresmo to Steffi Graf to the Williams sisters' dad, there have been few dull moments in the last couple of years. And, by the way, the WTA points out that Wimbledon fans get more actual playing time--125.5 percent per hour more, it says--from the women than from the men. That's because the women haven't forgotten how to rally. The women also are beating the men in the almighty TV ratings, where it really counts. In eight of the last nine Grand Slam events, the women have drawn more viewers than the men. This year, the Australian Open finals on ESPN drew a .97 rating for the women and a .67 rating for the men. The all-Williams final at the Lipton Championships drew a 2.1 rating for Fox; the men's final drew a 1.0 rating. And in the last 10 years, the 31 percent growth in attendance at women's tennis events is surpassed only by NASCAR and the NBA. Armed with that knowledge, how long do you think it would take the All-England Club to equalize wages if the women organized a Wimbledon walkout? Not very, I'd wager. "If [women] are going to play in tournaments around the world and contribute to those economies, we have to push for equal prize money,'' King said. They shouldn't have to push. This one is about common sense. Just ask yourself: Hingis, Williams, Davenport, Seles, Kournikova, Mauresmo, Graf and the rest of the gang, or Sampras, Rafter and Rios? Advantage, women. |