- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
In Australia, symbolism has been an important issue over the past week, with a growing chorus of Australians expressing a desire to change the date of the Australia Day celebrations from 26 January.
This is out of respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, who consider the arrival of the First Fleet as not something to celebrate, but a time to mourn the invasion of their land and their suffering since.
In the world of sport there is another act, which, if imposed, may not even be noticed by the fans. However, it would be a momentous act of symbolism for gender equality in sport. This act is for women to play their final on the Sunday, to conclude the Australian Open, or any Grand Slam.
Tennis has historically demonstrated that it is the forerunner for gender equality in mainstream sports, with pay equality being achieved in all Grand Slams from 2007, when Wimbledon followed suit of the other Grand Slams.
For the US Open, women achieved pay equality in 1973, followed by the Australian Open making pay equality consistent from 2001 (although they did offer pay equality on an ad hoc basis from the 80’s – with women even earning more on a few occasions), and the French Open reaching equity in 2006.
When you look at the Forbes 100 richest sportspeople for 2015, the two women that make the list are tennis players, with Maria Sharapova coming in at 26 and Serena Williams at 47.
In what is potentially borne from tradition, the women’s final has historically been the penultimate final, played on a Saturday, with the men’s final closing all grand slams on a Sunday.
This may have been done for logistical reasons, with men playing best of five sets and women playing best of three. Thus, requiring that men would need greater rest between matches, especially towards the end of a tournament.
However, it could be considered, and I consider it to be, a sign of gender inequality that the men’s final is always the last final to be played. It symbolises that the men’s final is more important than the woman’s final, which it has no reason to be.
Alternating the final match of the Grand Slam between the men’s and women’s over separate years would be a further demonstration from tennis administrators that gender equality is taken seriously in the sport.
Declaring that the women’s final should be played on the Sunday could be considered nit-picky, however, if it is such a nit-picky issue, why not?
Tradition is important, but when the tradition could be construed that it reinforces gender inequality, it should not be upheld.
The fitness levels of men’s players should be seriously considered, as you would not want to heighten the risk of injury later in grand slams due to fatigue. However, clever scheduling or perhaps simply adding an extra day or two to the tournament would solve this issue. I, for one would be happy with more Grand Slam tennis!
This may lead to a discussion about why women do not play best of five sets. I think this is irrelevant to this issue, as long as the revised scheduling does not significantly impact on men and the extra fatigue they get from playing best of five sets. Personally, however, I would support a shift to best of five sets for women.
I doubt that the spectators would even notice the difference if it was made and not publicly announced, as long as the scheduling changes did not have a massive impact.
Gender equality in sport is a serious issue and tennis has the ability to make a small but important symbolic step. To demonstrate that men and women are equal.
Whether it’s aces or races, try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp for great odds and a great punting experience. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.