Wimbledon has come a long way — and, there’s a long way yet to go for the hallowed tournament. It’s, therefore, time for us to delve into nostalgia, down memory lane, after the curtains came down on yet another Wimbledon journey, last month. Here goes —
When tennis players — 22 of them — were asked to use their own racquets, in the first-ever Wimbledon tournament, in 1877, they probably had their own, anyway, but possibly one each. Each racquet would have cost under UK£1. Just think of it, today — some top players go on court with four, or five, ‘high-quality, state-of-the-art’ racquets, worth UK£950, or more, each.
To highlight another example. The concept of ‘big money,’ a full-size component of modern sport, was first introduced at the hallowed event, 90 years later. The men’s singles champion — Rod Laver — got UK£2,000 and the ladies’ champion — Billie Jean King — took home UK£750, in 1968. In 1985, the figures, in comparison, were UK£130,000 [Boris Becker] and UK£117,000 [Martina Navratilova], respectively. The disparity was evident. Yet, even as women began to close the gap, it was a striking reality that they, quite simply, did not earn as much as their male counterparts.
Not anymore.
You would sure say that this is a fair equation in our age — an era that espouses a truly noble protocol. Of equality, and candour, irrespective of one’s sex. More so, in a pursuit that is as revered as tennis.
Agreed that Wimbledon is Wimbledon — a place that has a magical allegory, thanks to its avowed status in tradition and excellence. A fixed carnival on the tennis calendar, Wimbledon starts six Mondays from Easter with its golden numbers. Its leitmotif? Pure joy of tennis, at its best. A theme-song tantamount to what Lord’s, or World Cup, is to cricket. Not only that. There’s yet another simile: an appearance at Wimbledon is every player’s most cherished dream and winning the crown, perforce, the sport’s equivalent of the Noble Prize.
Wimbledon is synonymous with grass court, or lawn, tennis — the Mount Everest of the game with profound respect for the spirit and sublime consciousness of sport. Wimbledon hasn’t betrayed tradition, notwithstanding high stakes, or hot, frayed tempers.
On the other hand, Wimbledon, has, by raising its own standards of perfection, social grace, and ‘cultured’ attitude, to the ‘flow’ of funds, over the years, conformed admirably to its own flavour of success — a fairy tale in its own right. The Wimbledon story has been a saga — a saga like no other, a pioneering tale of how the sport was established, and how little it has needed to change since inception.
Not that Wimbledon hasn’t altered at all. It has — albeit differently. For example, like the way it took its own initiative in unlocking the shackles of ‘shamateurism’ and welcoming back the old professionals — who were not amateurs — over six decades ago. This was an advance, no less — one that bid fair to the introduction of prize-money. But, what had not really undergone transformation was, until recently, the big ‘divide’ — in the quantum of men’s singles champion and ladies singles champion’s prize-money, as already cited.
This was, for long, a huge divide, yes. To pick one example: when Steffi Graf won the singles title in 1992, her prize-money accounted for approximately UK£200,000. In sharp contrast, Andre Agassi, the men’s champion, was richer by approximately UK£247,000 for his crown — a difference of UK£47,000. The figure for the men’s singles winner, Roger Federer, was UK £630,000, in 2005, in comparison to Venus Williams’ UK£600,000. Such a scheme of things, fortunately, never affected Wimbledon. Fast-forward. It now has a new wave of fresh air — of parity espoused to bring home a new truth, including equality of purpose and decorum.
Whatever the portents, many critics would, perhaps, think that the women’s game is comparatively a shade less than men’s and/or women play a brace of sets less? We wouldn’t really know. However, when several countries have formulated the accepted norm of equal pay for work of equal value, for either sex, it is not surprising that Wimbledon has accepted a notable eventuality — the global standard for equality.
More so, because it is now on par, in terms of rewards, with two other Grand Slam events — US and Australian Open — where the top prize-money for both men and women is equal. That Wimbledon has gotten its act right, will knock the stuffing out of its critics who, long ago, had called it a tournament with “silly little quirks masked as tradition” — “a tradition that is as outdated as its dress code.” Or, as a critic once argued, “Chris Evert in Wimbledon’s history books is “Miss Christine M Evert,” and also “Mrs J M Lloyd.” Were she playing, she’d be Mrs Andrew Mill — or, something else?”
Yes, there’s more to Wimbledon’s hubbub than what meets the eye. To take one example, courtesy of Dutch tennis star, and former Wimbledon champion, Richard Krajicek. Krajicek kicked up a stormy debate, several moons ago, over whether woman tennis players should be paid as much as men. His was a divisive, chauvinistic riposte. He said, “80 per cent of the top 100 women players are lazy, fat pigs.” Agreed that Krajicek ‘softened’ his hypothesis, later. He tempered his words, “A lot of women players are overweight.’’ All the same, the damage was done — a sweeping statement that undermined the spirit of the game.
Yet, Krajicek’s verbal ‘volleys’ continued, in spite of his mellowed psyche. He didn’t stop calling women players names. He even went to the extent of saying that they “had no right to complain about prize-money.” He thundered: “They’re complaining all the time that they’re not getting equal money. I think they should be happy with what they are making, not what we are making.’’
Krajicek’s web of dissonance was startling — the difference being of degree. Paradoxically, he was ‘good copy’ for the media — the difference, again, being of degree. Worse still, he was quite oblivious of the fact that most women players had elevated their fitness levels, thanks to the pioneering, original example set by Navratilova — tennis’ first bionic woman and one of the fittest players ever to play the sport.
However, for some aficionados and also players, the ‘fair’ prize-money ‘fixation’ was ‘red herring.’ The best thing they could have done was not contrast the two, or, if they did, they ought to have compared them with equanimity. This is, of course, a tall task in our ‘civilised’ world. Opponents, therefore, went on the rampage.
Their argument: the women’s Final at the French Open, for instance, in 1992, betwixt Graf and Monica Seles, was longer than the men’s. Ticket prices, for men’s and women’s tennis, they also contended, did not vary at Wimbledon. Why, then, shouldn’t women receive an equal share of the pot? The argument went, on and on — sans solution for long.
As the big question of inequality was attended to, the sport now rolls on triumphantly, travelling through cycles of domination, yet again, as it has always done — from the likes of Spencer Gore, Fred Perry, Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Becker, Stefan Edberg, Agassi, Pete Sampras, Billie Jean, Margaret Court [in picture], Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, and Martina Hingis, among several others, to the likes of the Williams’ sisters, not to speak of the buzzing new rivalries of today.
Well, if one has not yet marvelled at great upsets, or impossibilities becoming possibilities, in the sport’s hierarchy, it is time to take fresh stock. Because, modern tennis has not made Wimbledon less fascinating, notwithstanding the sanctified tourney’s all-new, ‘strawberries-filled’ equitable package deal for either sex.
Yes, with Jannik Sinner’s sublime brilliance and Iga Świątek essaying and winning their respective Wimbledon titles, this year, tennis has not only become more valuable, its good, old hallowed mosaic stays just as rock-solid, in all its pristine glory, within and outside of its blessed portals.
— First published in India First
