Today sees the start of my favourite time of year: Wimbledon fortnight. And with Andy Murray defending his title and the intrigue surrounding his appointment of 2006 Ladies Champion, Amélie Mauresmo, there's a lot to be excited about. What does this have to do with Creativepool? Well, quite a lot, as it happens.
A week or two ago, we published our Salary Guide – a great resource for those of us in the creative industries. You probably didn't spot this, though – the bit where it said that a female copywriter would get paid the same as a male one, but she only had to work five hours a day instead of eight. Oh, no, wait... Hang on, I think I remember seeing that female artworkers only need to work 60% as much as men to get the same salary, didn't I? No? I wonder why.
I'll tell you why. Because it makes absolutely no sense, whatever spin you put on it.
The prize money debate resurfaces at every Wimbledon – that women should be paid the same as the men. (£1,760,000 for the winner, since you ask). And it's getting really boring. To my mind, the answer is a complete no-brainer and would put the argument to bed for good: make women play best of five sets at the grand slams just like all the men. End of argument.
Let's be clear about this: my argument is not remotely sexist. On the contrary, it's the complete opposite of sexism. It is about equality – treating women the same as men. To suggest that elite professional female athletes are less capable than their male counterparts is more than a little insulting and intensely patronising to them.
You're seriously going to tell me that five-time Wimbledon Champion Serena Williams couldn't manage it? Agnieszka Radwańska? Maria Sharapova? I may not be able to watch the latter due to the ridiculous grunting, but these ladies work their absolute socks off to be as super fit as they possibly can. These days, the very best players are lean, mean, fighting machines.
Can you think of any other sport where the female contest is different? Paula Radcliffe didn't run an 18-mile marathon. Her incredible time of 2h15m remains unbroken since 2005 – and beats many professional male runners' times. Rebecca Adlington didn't win the 310-metre freestyle final...
As former Wimbledon Champion Pat Cash says:
"In these times of sexual equality, it is unfair that women don't get the chance to prove they are equal to men when it comes to endurance and resilience.”
Andy Murray, one of the hardest working players on the tour, finally came out with what many people were thinking – including a lot of the men in the locker room. And before anyone calls him sexist, let's not forget his appointment of Amélie Mauresmo as his coach:
"It isn’t about it being inferior. As I see them, they’re two different sports," Murray said. "It’s just because we play five sets. I’m not saying the men work harder than the women, but if you have to train to play five sets, it’s a longer distance. It’s like someone training to be a 400-meter runner and someone training to be a 600-meter runner. I think the women should play best of five sets.”
Of course, the men only play five sets in the grand slams (Australian, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open). The rest of the time, they play best of three sets too. So why not just make it a level playing field? Arguably the greatest ever female player to have graced the court, Martina Navratilova, believes this should be the case – not least because it would reduce injuries. How much more would Rafael Nadal have achieved had he not been signed off for months due to his knee surgery – or Andy Murray with his back surgery, come to that, forcing him to miss Roland Garros?
“It’s not a marathon,” says Navratilova. “Tennis matches shouldn’t be a physical marathon – they should only be a marathon in your head. But not so much on your legs. Two out of three sets put a premium on focus and mental toughness because there’s a lot more pressure. The shorter the format, the more pressure there is. The top players want three out of five because they don’t want some hotshot beating them in the second round when they get hot for two sets – those hotshots usually can’t do that for three sets. Overall, for the long-term health of the players, they need to look at it. It would also be better for TV.”
Let's not forget, of course, that women DID play best of five between 1984 and 1998.
There's been a suggestion that the reason for this was because people wanted to see Navratilova play for longer – because too often should we demolish an opponent in little more than 45 minutes!
“Ah, but it's not just about time on court, it's about value for money and generating revenue,” comes the argument. Good, I'm glad you've mentioned that. Because figures don't lie and nor do TV ratings. And nor, incidentally, do rows and rows of empty seats on Centre Court. These figures show that women's tennis simply isn't as popular as men's tennis. Virginia Wade and a string of other FEMALE commentators refer to the women's tour as dull, tired and predictable. Pointing out Marion Bartoli as last year's winner can hardly dislodge an argument single-handedly.
As someone who believes in equality, this really seems to me to be a no-brainer. Just make it a level playing field and then everyone is happy, aren't they? Or if they aren't...well, dare I ask whether they're prepared to work harder? To me, it's simple. Equal pay – equal play.
Ashley is a copywriter, editor and blogger
Follow him on Twitter
Ashley Morrison June 24th, 2014, in the afternoon
Hi - many thanks for your thoughts. I agree with a lot of what you say, but wanted to clarify a few things too, if I may.You mentioned bums on seats: absolutely. If the men's final packs them in to the rafters but the women's doesn't, is it still right that the pay is the same? That said, I didn't quite follow what you meant about the prize money involved at Wimbledon being as a result of negotiation. Isn't it set externally? I don't think the players have any say.
But one must be careful, too. Maria Sharapova, for instance, is the most marketable sportswoman in the world and she outstrips almost all the male tennis players in that respect too. She's a shrewd business woman and there's no doubt she's great for the sport, whatever one thinks of her. So although she's worth mega-bucks, it isn't necessarily solely down to what she does on the court.
Also just to correct you on one minor point, conductors usually aren't the promoters of classical music concerts - at least not on the professional circuit. So for instance, the Proms are promoted by the BBC, the Classical Spectacular concerts and organ galas and many others at the Royal Albert Hall are promoted by a chap called Raymond Gubbay, and the LPO and LSO promote their own concerts. So the situation you describe may occur, perhaps, where the ensemble in question is not professional.
The disparity between those at the top of the tennis tree and those qualifiers who may only get to play in round one is indeed growing, I completely agree. But this year, the LTA has increased the prize for money for those who get through into round two, so that is indeed encouraging. In fact, percentage wise, their pay raise is more than that of the winners - even though it's still small fry, really, given the expenses. The guy who beat Nadal in the first round a couple of years ago had flown in to compete in the tournament on easyJet!
But then sport is hardly a model to hold up as being a fair salary system (not that you were doing that at all, I realise). I really can't support the likes of Wayne Rooney earning £300,000 a week or whatever it is. However one may try to justify it - nobody's forcing anybody to go and watch football etc etc - that amount of money is frankly obscene.