To many casual observers, tennis is one of the few sports that seems to treat men and women equally.
Other sports appear to have far more egregious inequalities, of which football (known as soccer in the U.S.) is perhaps the most extreme example. In the 2023 FA Cup, the winning men’s club won 2 million British pounds, whereas the women’s winners received just 100,000 pounds.
Tennis, by comparison, has had equal prize money at all four of the Grand Slams since 2007. Other significant tournaments have already followed or plan to follow suit.
Yet tennis’ relative gender equality compared with other sports may compel us to overlook the unacceptable disparities that still persist. Looking beyond the prize money checks at the most important events, it becomes clear there are hidden inequalities.
The very structure of tennis events treats men and women differently. At the Grand Slam, the women’s final is always on a Saturday, serving as a prelude to the men’s final on a Sunday. Because Sundays typically attract higher television ratings, it is clear that the very choice of scheduling the women’s final on a Saturday leads to lower viewership and attention.
Scheduling is another problem in tennis. On the surface, parity seems to have been achieved: At the Grand Slams, there are equal numbers of men’s and women’s matches on the main courts. Yet too often, women’s matches are scheduled for the morning slots in front of sparse crowds, leaving the men to occupy the prime-time evening slots. The French Open is a glaring example of this: Rarely, if ever, does it schedule a women’s match for the evening “match of the day” slot.
Frequently cited as an excuse for scheduling women in the so-called graveyard morning slots (named since the crowds have yet to arrive) is the reality that men play best of five sets, whereas women play best of three. There are multiple issues with this shallow excuse. First, why value quantity of tennis over quality? Two of the highest-quality matches of the 2024 season were best-of-three matches, namely: Novak Djokovic’s 7-6, 7-6 victory over Carlos Alcaraz in the Olympic gold medal match, and Iga Swiatek’s 7-5, 4-6, 7-6 defeat of Aryna Sabalenka in the Madrid Open final.
Second, why keep the best-of-five format at all? With tennis becoming longer and more physical, best-of-five matches wreck players’ bodies, leaving them exhausted by the end of the tournament. Tennis is a stubborn sport, so how about a compromise? Why not introduce best-of-five only from the second week for both men and women?
Endorsements are a critical source of income for tennis players. They are another area where inequalities lie. Whereas male players gain sponsorship deals on the basis of their popularity, fame and success, female players are often assessed on the basis of their appearance. Athletic achievement is secondary. One need point only to the outsize attention paid to Anna Kournikova, who won millions through sponsorship deals and became the second-most Googled athlete in 2002, all without winning a singles title.
Media coverage is another area in which there are acute differences between men and women. During the 2018 season, female players received 41% less media coverage than male players, data analysis firm Signal AI found. This was despite the fact that women’s Grand Slam finals often have higher viewership numbers than the men’s finals do. For instance, whereas 100,000 more people viewed the 2018 Wimbledon women’s final, the men’s event received more media coverage. This gulf in media coverage perpetuates the oft-cited claim that men’s tennis is simply more popular and viewed than women’s tennis, itself a justification for treating female players as second-class.
Tennis is now at the stage in which its inequalities are no longer as explicit as they used to be. Yet it is the very insidiousness of the persisting inequalities that enables their survival and mutes public outrage.
What do these persisting inequalities say about the way sport treats women? What message do they send to young aspiring female tennis players?
Ultimately, the message a sport such as tennis sends women transcends the realm of sport. The inequalities in tennis serve to sustain the very gendered stereotypes that defenders of the status quo claim were eradicated many years ago.
Striving for equality is often associated with the past, not the present. When we think of equalizing tennis, our minds are often cast back to pioneering figures such as Billie Jean King and the Williams sisters and events such as the formation of the Women’s Tennis Association. But historic change does not excuse present stagnancy. Past success is the foundation, not the ceiling, for future advancement.
For a sport like tennis, so steeped in tradition and history, genuine change to equalize the sport won’t be easy coming. It can start only with the awareness that there is even an issue at all.
Gavriella Epstein-Lightman is a student, avid tennis fan and aspiring journalist living in London.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.