tommilosport

[tommilosport]

How inclusivity in elite tennis is compromised by putting profit before people.

Sport.

A vast array of different sports are either adored or hated around the entire world, but one thing is for certain; sport isn’t going away any time soon.

In a world in which large portions of the entire planet are obsessed by sport, football (or soccer to those in North America), is the beautiful game that is heavily regarded as the world’s most popular sport, with an estimated 3.5 billion fans.

But it is the fourth most popular sport that we will be delving into today; tennis.

If you asked people at random what their favourite sport is, it is highly unlikely that they would mention tennis.

Yet despite this, there are still an estimated 1 billion fans of tennis, mainly spanning across Europe, Asia, and America. (Top-10 List of the World’s Most Popular Sports)

But that is not to say that tennis itself, and those in higher power within the world of tennis, are not striving to make sure that the sport’s popularity prospers as far as it possibly can – with other sports aiming to do the same thing.

For example, Formula One isn’t regarded as being in the world’s top 10 most popular sports. But Formula One created a docuseries providing fans with a detailed, entertaining insight to said sport, named ‘Formula 1: Drive to Survive’.

One of the largest benefits that this show had for Formula One was the increase in the sport’s popularity, with over 360,000 viewers who didn’t watch Formula One in the latter stages of the 2021 season ending up watching F1 racing in the 2022 season after watching Formula One: Drive to Survive. (Driven to watch: How a sports docuseries drove U.S. fans to Formula 1)

Similarly, the same creators of the docuseries subsequently created the equivalent show but for golf, named “Full Swing.”

Furthermore, there have been countless football documentaries that have been released that have gone on be huge successes, most notably the “All or Nothing” series which focuses on individual football clubs, including Manchester City and Arsenal, amongst many others.

The proof was in the pudding. There was a demand across modern media for fans to get closer to sports through docuseries and documentaries.

With most of the biggest names in tennis across the past 20 years approaching retirement, now was the time – more than ever – to at least try to attract a whole new generation of fans to the sport.

In 2023, the same creators of “Formula 1: Drive to Survive” released a docuseries on Netflix named “Break Point”, a name stemming from a notoriously tense point played within the sport. (Everything You Need to Know About the Tennis Docuseries ‘Break Point’).

Thankfully, the release of this docuseries was proof that those higher up in the world of tennis were trying to make the sport as accessible as possible. And not only that, but the series often focused on the mental health struggles that come with playing tennis at the highest level.

This was a demonstration that, although the main intention of the series was to raise the sport’s popularity, the creators were also willing to raise awareness around an important topic such as mental health, rather than just focusing on the positives of the sport.

It was a refreshing, important touch from “Break Point” as they were willing to represent a demographic that might otherwise feel alone in the current climate – something that “Full Swing” and “Formula One: Drive to Survive” struggled to convey successfully. (Matchmaking: Can Netflix’s ‘Break Point’ work magic for tennis like it has for Formula 1?)

Although it is nice to see a sport trying to appeal to as large of a demographic as possible, it is evident that there are still examples that clearly show that the sport prioritises profit over people.

Inclusion in sport means that everyone in our diverse community, regardless of their gender, age, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation or ability, is afforded a range of opportunities to participate (Inclusion and Diversity: Understanding the Difference). With this in mind, let’s take a look at whether or not tennis is inclusive to people with a range of financial ability.

Although the world of tennis has attempted to grow the appeal of the sport through the docuseries “Break Point”, the accessibility for a range of people to go and watch the sport live has unfortunately not experienced the same fate.

Take Wimbledon, for example. Wimbledon is one of the four tennis Grand Slams that is played annually, with a lot of the tennis world – notably British fans – claiming it is the ‘biggest’ of the four.

Despite the tournament’s global stature, Wimbledon organisers have shown no signs of trying to make tickets to attend SW19 any more affordable to fans. Tickets to attend either the men’s or women’s single finals at Wimbledon in 2023 were £15 more expensive than they were in 2022, (Wimbledon raises ticket prices for 2023 championships) whilst entry to the grounds on the opening 2 days rose by £5.

This clearly highlights how inclusivity within the world of tennis has been compromised by putting profit over people. Those who may not have had the financial ability to attend a Wimbledon event in the past will now struggle even more.

It is not just Wimbledon, however, that has been increasing its ticket prices.

A ticket for the final of the US Open rose by $15 between the 2022 finals and the 2023 finals, (US Open ticket sales soar for Coco Gauff’s debut in the final).

Furthermore, there was a backlash over the pricing of tickets to attend the Italian Open in 2023, with tickets to watch the men’s single final being in excess of €1000, with former British Number 1 Laura Robson claiming the prices are an issue.

“I think it is a silly decision,” Robson commented on the excessive ticket prices problem.

“This is such a good event, such a good opportunity to get more people into seats.

“We have seen every day on the outside courts how packed it has been. Every court has been full. That’s what you want to see,” Robson continued.

“It is very rare for Djokovic that he is not playing in front of a packed stadium. There is still enough people here to make a noise, but it feels like this is an opportunity missed.” (Italian Open ticket prices ‘ridiculous’ as lavish cost for final is revealed)

The fact that an elite level sportswoman spoke so candidly about the issue highlights the severity of the problem. Tennis is slowly becoming a sport that very few people can afford to go and watch live – inclusivity here has been compromised by putting profit over people.

Tennis has always been commonly regarded as a “Rich People’s” sport, and the increase in ticket prices supports this common claim.

Another way in which tennis compromises inclusivity is when it comes to gender.

In any sport, it should be expected that both men and women should be able to express themselves in the same manner, and subsequently get punished equally if their actions are deemed inappropriate.

However, sadly, this isn’t always the case when it comes to tennis.

During the 2018 Us Open, female tennis star Alize Cornet briefly lifted her shirt above her head because she had it on back to front after a heat break. For a mere ten seconds, Cornet’s midriff and sports bra were on show – resulting in her facing a court violation.

Even though Cornet walked away from the cameras to fix her shirt and completed the activity as quickly as possible, the umpire still deemed it inappropriate, with the rules stating that “female players are not allowed to remove their shirts on court, despite the fact their male counterparts do so freely.” (US Open apologises after Alize Cornet penalised for briefly removing shirt)

The fact that a female tennis star was punished for something that male tennis stars – notably Rafael Nadal – do so frequently just highlights the lack of inclusivity within the world of tennis when it comes to gender.

And once again, it demonstrates tennis putting profit over people. With female tennis players receiving 41% less media coverage than their male counterparts during four Grand Slams across 2018 and 2019, (Gender Media Coverage in Tennis) those higher up in tennis don’t want to punish the men or treat them the same as the women, as they feel that the men are the main attraction of the sport, thus providing the sport with the most profit.

After the incident, former American tennis player Prim Siripipat voiced her opinion on the matter:

“I don’t feel strongly about this incident, maybe as an older tennis player, I have become way too accustomed to these gender norms,” Siripipat stated.

“These gender inequalities have become so ingrained in the culture of tennis that some senior players may not pay it any mind because they have become so desensitised to these conditions.

“However, younger players are aware of the inequalities and are outraged by them,” she continued.

“This violation was outrageous. Women wear things to cover what should be covered, such as sports bras, so when men are able to be shirtless on court in front of an audience, women should be able to do the same when they need to change.” (Gender Inequalities in Professional Tennis: It’s a Man’s World)

The damage that this could have on young girls who are aspiring to become tennis stars, or even just female fans of the sport, is monumental. The lack of inclusivity of half the sport’s demographic has been damning. But this wasn’t an issue to the higher powers within tennis as long as the male stars kept bringing the money in.

Furthermore, at the 2018 French Open, tennis phenomenon Serena Williams wore a black bodysuit in the final, a suit that she would coin her ‘Black Panther’ outfit.

Not only did Williams opt to wear the suit as it is designed to protect against blood clots, but she also wore it to promote self-worth.

Speaking after the final, Williams said:

“I had a lot of problems with my blood clots, and, God, I don’t know how many I have had in the past 12 months. So, it is definitely a little functionality to it [the suit].

“It feels like this suit represents all the women that have been through a lot mentally, physically, with their body to come back and have confidence and to believe in themselves,” the now 23-time Grand Slam champion continued. (Serena Williams on her ‘Black Panther’ catsuit: It’s my way of being a superhero’)

Yet unfortunately, this iconic woman’s’ harmless attempt at sending a message out to empower young women all across the globe was struck down by the higher forces within tennis.

On the eve of the 2018 US Open, the French Open president Bernard Giudicelli stated that the outfit Williams wore “would no longer be accepted. You have to respect the game and the place”.

This is a key example of how tennis compromises inclusivity by putting profit over people. A woman should be able to wear an outfit that helps them feel confident after going through a tough time, but Giudicelli deems the reputation of the French Open more important than how comfortable a woman feels. (Serena Williams banned from wearing ‘Black Panther’ catsuit at future French Opens, says tournament chief)

In his eyes, maintaining the reputation of a grand slam, and subsequently gaining as much profit as possible due to less backlash, is all that matters. What another human being felt – even arguably what the greatest tennis player of all time felt – was subsidiary.

However, it would appear that in more recent years, the world of tennis has been trying to make the right steps when it comes to gender inclusivity.

At Wimbledon, there has been a rule for 146 years that both genders must wear all white clothing ­– even undershorts. This is “mostly for tradition’s sake”, (Why Wimbledon Players Have to Wear All White) with the original reason coming from a Victorian belief that “white hides sweat the best, looks clean, sharp and tidy, representing goodness (aesthetically) and, given cricket connections, also reflects upper-middle-class leisure historically”.

But after almost a century and a half, Wimbledon decided to relax the rule ahead of the 2023 Championships, with the new regulations stating female players can wear “solid, mid/dark-coloured undershorts, provided they are no longer than their shorts or skirt.” (Wimbledon Allows Dark Shorts to Ease Period Leakage Worries)

The reason that Wimbledon changed this rule was to alleviate the worries of competitors who are on their period during the tournament. Although quite a small change, this is quite progressive with tennis, especially at a Grand Slam that has refused to alter their rules on countless occasions.

So, it would appear that this was an example of tennis putting people over profit – but is that really the case?

It can be argued that this still demonstrates tennis putting profit over people, as the main reason this rule change came about was due to a protest ahead of the Wimbledon ladies’ singles final in 2022.

Protesters came to SW19 because they wanted “Wimbledon to address the white dress code that doesn’t take into consideration female athletes on their periods,” (Protesters at Wimbledon urge end to all-white dress code due to period concerns) and ultimately this protest was successful as Wimbledon changed their rules for the following tournament.

Although this looks good on the tournament and one might think tennis has begun to prioritise people over profit, it can easily be argued that this is far from the case.

Had Wimbledon not changed their dress code for women after the protests and after a demand for change, there would have been a strong chance that many women, (and perhaps men) would refuse to watch or go to Wimbledon out of their lack of willingness to become more inclusive.

Therefore, although the change benefitted female tennis stars, the likelihood is that the tournament organisers made this change out of fear of losing viewers, and thus losing profit, with tennis historian Chris Bowers stating:

“Wimbledon was on very uneasy ground,” Bowers said.

In many ways, I don’t think they had much of a choice on this one.” (Wimbledon: The controversy of tennis’s strict 146-year-old dress code)

And before we conclude our look into how tennis has compromised inclusivity by putting profit over people, there is one more way in which tennis has potentially tried to appear to be more inclusive than it actually is ­– through wheelchair tennis.

Unlike many other sporting tournaments, able-bodied tennis tournaments do in fact allow their wheelchair counterparts to play on the same stages and to (potentially) the same crowds.

The key word here though is potentially.

Yes, the four Grand Slams all host wheelchair tennis as part of their official competitions, (Wheelchair tennis in major competitions) but one could be forgiven for not being aware of this.

Although wheelchair tennis being included in the four Grand Slams is a step in the right direction, the coverage of wheelchair tennis is minimal when compared to that of able-bodied tennis at the Grand Slams.

Neither the BBC or ESPN list the men’s or women’s wheelchair doubles on their broadcast schedules, (Wheelchairs at Wimbledon: Is There a Lack of Exposure for Disabled Players?) despite the fact that wheelchair tennis players train just as hard as their able-bodied counterparts.

And for those attending Wimbledon live, the wheelchair tennis matches are always played after the main events of able-bodied tennis.

Wimbledon may fear that having wheelchair matches scheduled in between abled-bodied matches might result in viewers switching the TV off, or tournament attendees leaving early, but doing this would in fact serve as an “opportunity perhaps to create a democratic or even subversive world which offered the chance for disability and equality to be located within a new cultural framework”. (Inclusion: A Defining Definition?)

Once again, the proof is in the pudding that the world of elite tennis does compromise inclusivity by putting profit over people.

Ultimately, inclusivity is compromised all over the globe in many ways, so this isn’t a tennis issue ­– but is rather an issue that the world has.

However, for those tennis lovers reading this and for those with power within the world of tennis, wouldn’t you love to see our beloved sport act as a catalyst for change?