The Australian Open has never failed to enthrall me. I love Wimbledon, the history and the Englishness of it, but for me the Australian Open is cool. It seems more colourful and more flamboyant. Its definitely a warmer/sunnier climate and yet it is just cooler.
This tournament has demanded even more interest from me due to the success of Andy Murray.
The whole Scottish or British debate really does rile me. Partly because it is largely a Scottish phenomenon. It riles me because I consider myself British and despite the fact that Andy Murray does not endear himself to the general public as a personality, he is one hell of a tennis player and he is also British. Therefore I support him.
I will support England over Scotland when such an occasion arises and I would expect any Scot to reciprocate this. In the same way I support Colin Montgomery (incidentally, he also self-portrays as quite a grumpy man), Chris Hoy, and David Coulthard, I would expect the Scots to support Tim Henman, Justin Rose, and alike. Unfortunately, in general, this does not happen. The Scottish support is usually for the English teams’ opposition, or more specifically, support for English failure.
Why can’t we, as a British nation, embrace our various nations rivalry on such occasions as the Six Nations and the Commonwealth Games yet also come together and support our Great British heritage when individuals are competing in international tours such as the tennis, golf and motor-sport?
To be further controversial about the tennis, I read that in the Australian Open, as is also the case at Wimbledon, the men and women get paid the same amount of prize-money.
I do not wish to come across as chauvinistic in the slightest. I understand that the number of hours put into training by men and women are on a par, and aside from the majors, matches across both genders are a maximum of three sets. The amount of extra time a male tennis player spends on court does not really justify the inequality in pay that used to occur. Unfortunately, number of hours worked is not the major factor when determining rates of pay in this world. If this was the case then nurses that work 14 hour shifts and those who split 18 hour days between two jobs would earn the most.
The truth in tennis is the same as in the rest of the world. If you are faster and/or better than the person next to you at something, then you demand more money. I am not trying to define ‘better‘ tennis here. The TV revenue, ticket sales and TV figures go along way toward doing this for me. All of the above lead to money generated by advertising. It’s called supply and demand. The truth is that the majority of people, be they the general public or the director general for a TV company, would pay more to see or advertise during, a top flight mens match, than they would a woman’s equivalent. Its the same thing as the top male golfers demanding appearance fees in certain tournaments whilst the woman’s game hardly gets TV coverage. Effectively, the way it now works regarding prize-money in tennis is that if one person pays £50 to watch a women’s match and £75 to watch a men’s match, then the prize-money gets distributed as £62.50 each.
Of course, the prejudice that is shown in the way society differentiates between the two genders, in sport in particular, is not and has not been constant through time. It may well change. In fact, women’s tennis was becoming vastly more popular to watch, until it became so predictable with the Williams sisters dominating. If you take the marathon, the women’s world record has been fast approaching the men’s over the years. Over time, results and money invested may well demand equality. However, until that happens, at risk of offending many people, I feel that the male tennis players are missing out. Not so much at the pinnacle of the sport where players are multi-millionaires, but when the discrepancy filters down to where lower-ranked players are trying to make an honest living.
