NEWS COMMENT: Why women champions are paid too much at Wimbledon
Added: (Sun Jul 07 2002)
Pressbox (Press Release) -
(Elaine Sihera is the leading authority on diversity management and practice
in the UK. She is also the editor of New IMPACT magazine, a columnist for Black Britain Online, the founder of the annual British Diversity Awards and Windrush Achievement Awards and also the author of Managing the Diversity Maze. Elaine's email is elaine@anserhouse.co.uk. )
Every year the demand for parity with men by female tennis players at Wimbledon grows more deafening. There is the continuing belief that women are not getting their fair share of the prize money and that to be equal to the men they have to match penny for penny. Even the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, recently added her voice to that of former champions Jennifer Capriati, Billi Jean King and Martina Navratilova, among others, for women players to be paid more to ensure balance and to give equal value to the women's game.
However, if one is to go purely by the significant elements in the game, i:e time, complexity and responsibility of the task, which is used by every other occupational field to decide pay, women champions at Wimbledon are in fact getting around 20% more in prize money than they should be earning. On most aspects of the game of tennis, particularly on time, the women's game is different from the men's.
On a time basis, since the game started to be monitored, men have played for an average of 30 minutes more per match than women. Women players have indicated that the time disparity does not matter. But it does. If the roles were reversed they would be ensuring that this little difference was noted and emphasised. They would want to be rewarded for this extra labour. Moreover, in which other work place would someone work more hours per week than another and not have it taken into account when the pay is being decided?
If we take this year's tournament, of the 126 matches already played by both men and women, women players reached the maximum 3 sets in only 24% of their matches while, in almost 52% of matches, the men reached either four or five sets. If one added up the total number of hours difference between the matches, one cannot ignore that significant extra time. It is crucial in any talk of equality because the tennis fans are the biggest beneficiaries of any extended game and this cannot be underrated. There is nothing more frustrating than loyal fans believing that a game was not real value for money because of the paucity of the exchanges or the brevity of the match. There has got to be some difference between a match which takes barely 45 minutes and one which takes two hours. It suggests a more competitive and exciting fight.
Even in matches throughout all the tournaments, the time for the longest men's match is 5 hours and 12 mins while that of the women fell short by almost two hours at 3 hours and 45 mins. There was a time when the actual length of matches were hardly different between the sexes, which was before 1970. Yet, ironically, that was the era of the biggest disparity between prize monies. At that time men and women were broadly the same in time taken for matches, an average of 70 mins, but women got at least 30% less in prize money. Since 1975, as the stakes have increased through sponsorship and promotion opportunities and the game becomes more competitive, the men's time has crept up relentlessly to average over 140 minutes per championship game, a good distance from the current 85 mins for women champions. We won't even mention the fact that the men score more than four times as many aces per tournament, on average, and have a lower percentage of unforced errors. That might sound like sacrilege to women.
However, the real fallacy regarding gender equity is the belief that to be equal one must be the same. Genuine equity comes not through sameness but through an acknowledgement and recognition of difference. Women do not have to be like men, dress like men, be as muscular, or as strong to be 'equal'. Equality stems from diversity. From being different, yet having equal value. One would not treat an ill patient the same as any other person in a bid to treat them both 'equal'. That would ignore the illness and put one person's life at risk.
Women's tennis is thus different from the men's and it is equally enjoyable to watch the differing gender, strengths, styles and approach to the game - not to mention sex appeal! But the bald fact is that women work less for their money than the men do. That is not their fault but the fault of the structure of the game and how it is managed. Why can't women also play the best of five sets or men play the best of three? The time difference would then not be so stark and the money could be exactly the same.
Women have a long way to go in all significant jobs before they achieve parity with men. However, women will never be really equal if they try to achieve this equity by being pseudo men in behaviour or perspective. Neither will they get it by belittling males (as some adverts are beginning to do), undermining their efforts, denigrating or deriding their achievements or pretending that certain factors do not matter when they apply to men.
Respect and equity do not come through derogating others, ignoring their talent or efforts and pretending their efforts are insignificant while we merely promote our own. We too are diminished by that process. Parity comes only from an acceptance that to be equal has nothing to do with sameness in a positive sense, as well as an acknowledgement of the significant role every one of us plays routinely, male or female, to enhance our job, groups or community.
At the current rate of activity, the 2002 women's champion should really get no more than £400,000 for her prize money. The fact that she is getting £86,000 more is rather generous given the 25% extra time the men put in, on average, to earn just 8% more than their female counterparts.
I do not normally side with the old fogeys of the Wimbledon club and, as a champion of women's rights, this stance might seem very strange to many. Goodness knows we need a change in management and administration to breathe some life into this highly monocultural and culturally biased British sport. After all, there is not much to be proud of when we started it all and have one of the greatest championships in the world yet cannot even nurture the talent to match!!
However, unless the rules are changed, 'equal' pay for women in these particular tennis championships would be a hollow victory and could prove most unequal not only for the men who play the sport but for simple fairplay and genuine justice.
If this piece will be used in a publication, or an interview is required, Elaine (and her bio) can be contacted directly (07968 194077) or through me.
Gus Mansour
Communications Executive
Anser House of Marloe UK
01628 481 581