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.
Dave
Guest
Remember Renee Richards ?
P Air
Guest
As Meatloaf sung - "you took the words right out of my mouth". Agree, there is too high a probability of a 2 set walk-over to consider finishing with the ladies.
Dave
Guest
Try this for true equality.......the men's and women's opens should be played at different times during the year. Each a standalone event. Then let's see who the sponsors and TV ratings favour. It would be like women's golf, no one would know it ever happened. Women playing five sets would cure insomnia -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Johnno
Guest
Sunday night is a bigger TV night than saturday night, and there are more fans of men's tennis than woman's tennis overall, so it's all about the money (ratings) not sexism.
Rusty1
Guest
Before the mens final all the old male greats were trotted out, did the same happen for the ladies final? I missed it.
Macdonovan
Guest
If we want true equality then why don't they all play in the same competition.If you don't agree with this,then there lies the reason why men should be payed more.
anon
Guest
The Men's Final is more prestigious, higher quality tennis, 5 sets, and the men's game is the reason why sponsors stump up money and TV networks pay big money. If we want equality how about make the Mixed Doubles the showcase event? Ticket prices for the Women's Final is half of the Men's Final, yet the Men's Final was sold out long ago and the Women's Final couldn't sell out. The public has spoken. This is despite the Saturday at RLA seeing the Girl's Final, Boy's Final, Men's Doubles and Women's Final. The Sunday only has Mixed Doubles and the Men's Final. The Saturday is far better "value", but people are only really interested in men's tennis.
bob burra
Guest
No...
Maggie
Guest
Given the rest of your comment, I think you should have omitted the 'H' from your 'IMHO' sign-off.
MJ
Guest
It would mean having to basically reschedule the whole 2nd week. As it is the women's singles semis are played on Thursday, meaning that for a Sunday night final they'd be idle for 3 days which probably isn't ideal. Then if the Men's final remains on a Sunday what are you going to have on the Saturday? Casual viewers simply don't watch doubles or juniors.
duecer
Guest
Last nights final was brilliant, but as jamesb notes, it is outweighed by dour matches ending in a scoreline of 6-1, 6-2 - which was the scoreline of the Fed / Novak SF - what if that game had not been 5 sets, the crowd would've felt hard done by and missed out on some sensational tennis. No reason why the Women couldn't do it for 4 tournaments a year - they used to do 5 sets in the Virginia Slims tournaments, certainly would flesh out a few matches and would end the equal pay argument, then they could finish a tournament.
The EYE-BALL Opinion
Roar Pro
A brave story ... I would take the opposite view. Both the Men’s and Women’s winner at this year’s Open will receive $3.9 million ... in fact the pay scale for both men and women are equal at all levels across all Major tennis titles. For mine this is an absurdity - men’s matches on average go at least 2-3 times longer than women’s matches - and in early rounds this can be much higher. True tennis fans are really only interested in the men’s draw and anybody who says different watch women tennis for all the wrong reasons. 30 odd years ago when women’s tennis had much less glamour, there were matches and women players worth watching. The old legends played the game for and as a sport, and the glamour side of the business was not a factor. These days the 'Serena' factor makes women tennis ugly to watch. You have this amazon of a woman up against these pretend runway models and the contest comes down to whether the 'mean' Serena turns up. Serena has tried so hard to soften her image in front of the media and from a sporting purist, it does not work. It may help her with sponsorships and ‘likes’ via her social media posts, but nothing on the court portrays Serena as graceful or worthy of the equal prizemoney as the men given the quality of men’s tennis up against women’s tennis. I would always enjoy watching the Navratilova’s, Every-Lloyd, Manlakova’s, Gooloogong, Billy-Jean, Graff, Hingis, and the many others because their skill levels were far beyond what modern women’s tennis offers. I dare anyone out there to challenge me on the point that watching Serena play tennis does not make them cringe in some way. The ‘equal-pay’ in professional tennis is a mockery to professional sport. Professional sport is worth what the audience is prepared to pay. On any measure of TV audience, men’s tennis always out rates and draws higher revenues. On that measure alone paying women the same scale as men diminishes the integrity of the sport – IMHO …
jamesb
Guest
Last nights womens final was great. A brilliant win by Kerber. If that was the last match of the tournament, then what an appropriate way to finish off a grand slam. However, there have also been many dud ladies finals where matches concluded under an hour or just over the hour mark with a scoreline reading 6-2, 6-1. That would be a very flat way to end a tournament. Like I said before, last nights final was great, but over the years, there has been some mediocre finals.
JGK
Roar Guru
I would have agreed this year as I will be at the T20 tonight and will miss the men's final.
Pat Malone
Guest
They are paid on the amount they can gain in public interest and sponsors. That is why the men's is on second
BigAl
Guest
Very clever post - could take the wind out of a few politically correct sails.
Greavesy
Guest
Maybe the mixed doubles should be the last match, then we can celebrate men and women on court together.. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Josh
Expert
The men's final remains the biggest drawcard so I think grand slams will continue to opt for finishing with that, but I wouldn't be against alternating at all, I think that sounds like a very fair idea. Restructuring the draw to prevent injury shouldn't be too difficult.
Josh
Expert
Tennis players aren't paid based on the number of sets they play, they're paid based on how far they get in the tournament. If a woman reaches the semi-finals that's the same achievement as a man reaching the semi-finals - hence why they get the same pay.
Ian Iceman
Guest
I'm all for alternating the Grand Slam Final dates between the two genders, but pay equality is still skewed in favour of the women during Grand Slams considering they only play 3 sets. Make them play 5 or reduce the men to 3 sets and then we can discuss alternating dates for the final.