In a new series of features, iafrica.com opens up the floor every Monday to debate what's causing friction in the news room! This week sports ed Rob Peters takes on features writer Rebekah Kendal over whether or not we focus too much on the appearance of female tennis players.

Rebekah Kendal carries the torch for equality and questions why female athletes continue to field questions regarding their outfits when men are simply allowed get on with the game?

Equality in sports is not only about women being allowed to play the same sports as men (for equal pay) it is also about how the media, the world and indeed, the sportswomen themselves, perceive their abilities and viability as athletes.

As long as women are seen to be playing at a male sport, there is little hope of any equality.

Male sports — rugby, cricket, soccer, golf and motor racing — dominate the media. With the exception of the Olympic Games, the only sport where women are given fair coverage is tennis.

And yet the use of the word 'fair' is debatable. While few people care what the male tennis players look like, let alone what outfits they wear, disproportionate attention is paid to the physical appearance of female tennis players.

This is as much the fault of the media and patriarchal society in which we live, as it is of the sportswomen who equate femininity with sexuality.

Like Sport's Illustrated's 'Beauties of Sport', female tennis players are objectified as sexual objects, with their worth based on conformity to heterosexual ideals of femininity.

The fact that Maria Sharapova has been the highest earning sportswoman in the world for the past two years (largely on sponsorship deals) is proof of this. Her earning potential and merit lies not in her talents as a tennis player (which are without a doubt prodigious), but in her marketability. And this marketability — unlike that of male sports stars — hinges almost entirely on sexual currency.

By buying into the glamour game and drawing attention to their clothing rather than their sporting abilities, these athletes might as well be governed by the restrictive dress code imposed on female tennis players during the first half of the twentieth century. Once again women are subject to restrictions (even if they are seemingly self-imposed) based on the objectification of their gender. The form of patriarchy may be different, but it is there nevertheless.

There is no emancipation, no gender equality, in glamorising a 'male sport'. If women hope to be taken seriously as athletes and compete on an equal playing field, they should relinquish the 'beauty myth' which has for so long been used as a means of control and positioned women as objects instead of autonomous subjects.

Failing this, there is always cheerleading.

Rob Peters admits that tennis tends to focus on the 'glam', but reckons that has always been the case, and really, is that such a bad thing? Well, he certainly doesn't think so.

While treating women tennis players as sex symbols may cause women's libbers to hurl abuse at the media for their irresponsible portrayal of the WTA, it is worth noting that focusing on the 'glam' is hardly new to the tennis world and to be fair it is not limited to the WTA either.

Tennis has always offered a showcase for fashionable outfits, it is the Hollywood of the sports world if you will, and it is not just the Maria Sharapovas and the Ana Ivanovics who don fancy new outfits, but also the likes of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.

Men's world number one Federer cuts a suave figure when he prances onto the court in a cream blazer (or cardigan) complete with personalised emblem, while new Wimbledon champ Nadal will make sure his outfit never conceals his bulging 'guns', which tend to garner as much attention as his game at times.

Wimbledon is the pinnacle of fashion. They may have a strict all-white dress code, but if you think that stops the variation on outfits you are sorely mistaken. Federer in his dashing blazer, Sharapova in her tuxedo jacket and shorts, and Serena Williams in her designer coat — all add to the appeal of the All England Club.

Sure, tennis is a sport, but why box it in?

I ask you this: if the women on the WTA tour had an issue with comments regarding their looks would they have put away their ankle-length skirts in favour of the dresses they are wearing today? Would Sharapova happily reveal what she is wearing at SW19 as if she was detailing a Versace gown at a movie premiere? I think not.

Nobody can deny the talent that Ivanovic — the current world number one — and Sharapova possess, but if focusing on their looks, and to a lesser extent their glamour, can bring a younger generation to the courts, I am all for it! Because once they are there, I can assure you they will appreciate more than just how the two women look.

It’s nothing new to the tennis world. A young Jimmy Connors brought as much attention to the game in America with his boy next door good looks than with his audacious play, while his one-time fiancée Chris Evert did exactly the same for the women’s game.

Former Russian star Ana Kournikova was not the same. She deserved the criticism she received because on the court she did not deliver. In her entire career as a professional she never won a single's tournament. But in a society that spends so much time centered on looks, how on earth can we begrudge tennis for banking off the appeal of their biggest names?

  • How do you feel about it? Are we paying too much attention to the outfits and too little to the game itself? Post your comments below and join the debate!
    RSS
    Digg
    de.li.cious
    facebook


    Print this page
    Send this article to a friend