Can there be any doubt that the All England Club wanted Elena Dementieva to beat Serena Williams on Thursday?
This isn’t to say that there was a conspiracy, or that the Williams/Dementieva match was altered in any way. But considering past precedent, Dementieva’s resume is apparently more suited for Centre Court than Williams’. Yes, Williams may be a 10-time Grand Slam champion and arguably the best women’s tennis player of her generation, but for the All England Club, that matters less than the true criteria for playing on Centre Court — ‘sex appeal’.
To be fair, that may be somewhat of an exaggeration. But the actions of the All England Club during Wimbledon speak volumes about its priorities. Throughout the tournament, a “succession of easy-on-the-eye unknowns” have played on Centre Court, while “the top women’s seeds have been relegated to lesser courts.”
For example, last Friday, #8 Victoria Azarenka played against #28 Sorana Cirstea on Centre Court in a battle of 19-year olds who may “have top form in the glamour department,” but combine for a whopping 0 Grand Slam titles. At the same time, #3 Serena Williams — a two-time Wimbledon champion and 4-time finalist — played on Court 2.
Other matches included a battle of unseeded players (though one of them, Maria Sharapova, won Wimbledon in ’04) and a match between #9 Caroline Wozniacki and unseeded Maria Kirilenko. The latter match took place while the world’s #1 ranked player, Dinara Safina, played on an outer court.
Any question as to whether or not this was a coincidence was put to rest by Wimbledon spokesman Johnny Perkins, who was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying, “Good looks are a factor. … It’s not a coincidence that those [on Centre Court] are attractive.” Those sentiments were echoed by an anonymous BBC employee, who told the Daily Mail that “it’s advantageous to [the BBC] if there are good-looking women players on Centre Court. … Our preference would always be a Brit or a babe as this always delivers high viewing figures.”
Sports is a business, and Wimbledon is no exception. However, even overlooking the obvious sexism, it seems extremely short-sighted to make looks one of the primary factors in scheduling matches on the most hallowed court in tennis.
While there are those who would be more eager to watch a tennis match featuring mediocre but attractive players, they are likely outnumbered by those who want to watch the best tennis the sport can offer, regardless of looks. The Daily Mail noted that during the aforementioned Azarenka/Cirstea match, “many seats remained empty … [implying] that the knowledgeable SW19 crowd [was] underwhelmed by the tennis” being offered.
So the question becomes for Wimbledon and women’s tennis as a whole: who is your audience? Those who are interested in tennis, or those who are interested in pretty faces?
Is sex appeal really what women’s tennis is selling, as former men’s player Michael Stich suggested? If so, how can a sport gain in popularity if the draw is less about the game than the physical attractiveness of those playing? Anna Kournikova was — and remains — well known, but not for her accomplishments on the court.
Such is the state of women’s tennis that, on the day of a Wimbledon women’s final featuring two players with a combined 17 major titles, the sport is still conflicted over whether physical attributes are more important than on-court success.
