Recently sexism in the sporting world has been a hot topic on the press, with many people arguing either side about whether sport really is sexist. I will intend to argue both sides of the discussion, and hope to draw some conclusions about the sporting world and what we could realistically expect in the next few years.
Sexism is like a cold. It'll always be there because it exists in so many forms, in different degrees of seriousness. There isn't a friendship group alive that doesn't make some sexist jokes, be that male to female or vice versa, even if they are tongue in cheek. So to expect a traditionally male dominated area like sport to not be sexist overnight is ridiculous. That said, it doesn't make it right. Judging someone as worse before you have had a chance to see what they can do is unfair, whatever you base that opinion on. This is what happened to one Lionel Messi as a boy, he was too small, so judged to be not good enough. As we have seen, that was a ridiculous judgement to make. So should women be allowed to play in the same leagues as men in sport? And does the argument that women should get paid the same amount stand up?
The answer to the second question, in my opinion, is largely no. If the male form of the game attracts the most interest/investment/viewers, as is largely the case, then the men should get paid more due to basic economics. The average man is stronger and faster than the average woman, and the same holds at the top of the sports, which would give men an advantage if sports were unisex, so the sports are split according to gender. If a woman wanted to swap to the male side of the sport, she would have to be prepared to be at a disadvantage physically, if not technically. So my answer to the first question would be yes, but on the same conditions as the men. Sport is reaching a tipping point in regards to sexism, but it should not start making it easier for women to play in male sports, as this would risk lowering the viewership of the sport, and making sexism even more of an issue. If the sports governing body are saying that women aren't good enough to play under the same conditions, what are the general public going to think?
I would love to think that in the modern world we live in that we are getting close to a point where women are going to begin playing in male sports, but i don't see it happening for a while. Football is not the sport I think is going to make the breakthrough, because although you may be able to punish the players that behave in a sexist way towards a female player, your average season ticket holder is not going to be worried about sparing the feelings of this first player. Especially the first time this female player gives the ball away. If the breakthrough for women is going to be made, it's not going to be a contact sport, at least not on the pitch.
The fact that there are no women in coaching roles in male sport shows how sexist the game, as well as the players, can be. To have a female manager would have no bearing surely, as it is the technical mind that matters. The only reason I can imagine this not happening is that the players would not respect the female manager, and you can see from people like Ashley Cole and John Terry that they don't respect women anyway, god help it if that woman tried to tell them to do something. Sexism in sport exists because sexism exists, it's never going to completely go away, which is a real shame.
I really hope that sports can become more inclusive, even if its not football. Surely we should look at more purely technical sports to make the first step? Snooker, darts or Olympic sports like Archery? These give no benefit to being stronger/taller/faster, so there should be a much smaller gender gap, if any at all. I would never force sports to be unisex, I would just offer women the chance to try if they wanted to. Tennis is one of the only sports I can think of where the genders are seemingly on equal standing. They have the same prize money, and at times they even play together. There are no rules to favour the women in Mixed doubles either, and there can be no bias if the governing body of the sport wants to eradicate sexism.
So yes, sport is sexist, but that's not sports fault, most of the world is sexist. But that doesn't mean sport shouldn't try harder. F1 has just got its first female test driver, and Bernie Ecclestone has already hit on her. People like him need to be kicked out of sport, and I would love to see more women in technical positions amongst sport, because some of the female coaches I have encountered over my time in sport have been just as good as their male counterparts. If football can make the first move, brilliant, but I think it has to come from other sports for football to take the sexism row seriously.
Someone be brave, please.
Showing posts with label Tennis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tennis. Show all posts
Friday, 13 April 2012
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Why are England, as a nation, afraid to play sport their own way?
After yet another early World Cup exit the media post mortem will again draw up the conclusion that they had the players to go all the way, but just couldn't live up to their potential on the field. And no matter what sport you think about, at some point these words could've been applied to the England National team (or players). Tim Hennman in Tennis never won a grand slam and was heavily noted for doing so. In the last 50 years, depite possesing some of the greatest footballers, we have failed to win a Football World Cup. Only recently have we lived up to our potential in cricket, although the one day world cup was a bit of an issue.
After years of watching England go into tournaments with far higher expectaitons that results, it has become very clear that all of them suffer from the same problem. They're all afraid of playing their own way. Sometimes it's not even the players fault, but the sporting associations themselves. After the 90's the Sampras era over Wimbledon was waining, and Britain had themselves the best serve volleyer in the game in the form of Tim Henman. For those of you who remember dear old Tim getting knocked out again and again and are probably pulling a face to the tune of 'as if he was the best', Sampras had said it himself. So this was Britains chance to get a Grand Slam hero for the first time in ages. Instead the All England Club slowed both the courts and the balls down to help baseline play, not exactly what Tim was after. However it was good timing for a little chap called Federer to bring in another era of grass court domination, no chance for Henman anymore. But the governing bodies of sport aren't usually to blame.
Since the start of the Premier League in the 90's it has been heralded as the most competetive top League in the world, with many teams battling for honours and European spots, and very rarely have there been a definite bottom three. There are also more British players in this league than any other, so logic would dictate that England would be regularly challenging at major tournaments. Wrong. Year after year we have all watched England try and play a style of football that we just don't suit, posession football is just not in a English players nature. The fans have demanded fast frantic football with fast wingers and counter-attacks at every opportunity, and the Premier League has provided, but the National team has not. Recently we have started to play more of the football we see week in week out, but watching how other teams play and trying to copy wont work, we just become poorer versions of those teams. Brazil had the samba football their street football upbringing gave birth to, the current Spain and the Netherlands of the past have their 'total football', and in a different way Italy had their stone wall defensive pay, and their players love it because it's the style they want to play, and they get results that way. If we want sucess, we have to play our own way.
The same goes for Rugby. 8 Years ago when Martin Johnson led the English team all the way we had a rock hard defence, a disciplined team, and a well thought out kicking game. Watching the game against France was painful, because we were sloppy, left holes in the defence and the only person willing to put boot to ball was the scrum half, who's box kicks we never won back and didnt gain any ground from. The All Blacks and the Aussies have always goaded us for being a kicking team afraid to take the ball on. But it worked. Our brilliant kicking game allowed us to play most of the match in their territory, and our discipline meant that when the game broke down we usually had more of a chance of leaving their half with 3 points than not. It's great to have line breakers in our team like Tuilangi, but after 6 attempts the French knew what was happening and we got nowhere.
In conclusion, British sport needs to grow a pair and do it's own thing, and not be sucked into whats working for others, every sport would benefit from it.
After years of watching England go into tournaments with far higher expectaitons that results, it has become very clear that all of them suffer from the same problem. They're all afraid of playing their own way. Sometimes it's not even the players fault, but the sporting associations themselves. After the 90's the Sampras era over Wimbledon was waining, and Britain had themselves the best serve volleyer in the game in the form of Tim Henman. For those of you who remember dear old Tim getting knocked out again and again and are probably pulling a face to the tune of 'as if he was the best', Sampras had said it himself. So this was Britains chance to get a Grand Slam hero for the first time in ages. Instead the All England Club slowed both the courts and the balls down to help baseline play, not exactly what Tim was after. However it was good timing for a little chap called Federer to bring in another era of grass court domination, no chance for Henman anymore. But the governing bodies of sport aren't usually to blame.
Since the start of the Premier League in the 90's it has been heralded as the most competetive top League in the world, with many teams battling for honours and European spots, and very rarely have there been a definite bottom three. There are also more British players in this league than any other, so logic would dictate that England would be regularly challenging at major tournaments. Wrong. Year after year we have all watched England try and play a style of football that we just don't suit, posession football is just not in a English players nature. The fans have demanded fast frantic football with fast wingers and counter-attacks at every opportunity, and the Premier League has provided, but the National team has not. Recently we have started to play more of the football we see week in week out, but watching how other teams play and trying to copy wont work, we just become poorer versions of those teams. Brazil had the samba football their street football upbringing gave birth to, the current Spain and the Netherlands of the past have their 'total football', and in a different way Italy had their stone wall defensive pay, and their players love it because it's the style they want to play, and they get results that way. If we want sucess, we have to play our own way.
The same goes for Rugby. 8 Years ago when Martin Johnson led the English team all the way we had a rock hard defence, a disciplined team, and a well thought out kicking game. Watching the game against France was painful, because we were sloppy, left holes in the defence and the only person willing to put boot to ball was the scrum half, who's box kicks we never won back and didnt gain any ground from. The All Blacks and the Aussies have always goaded us for being a kicking team afraid to take the ball on. But it worked. Our brilliant kicking game allowed us to play most of the match in their territory, and our discipline meant that when the game broke down we usually had more of a chance of leaving their half with 3 points than not. It's great to have line breakers in our team like Tuilangi, but after 6 attempts the French knew what was happening and we got nowhere.
In conclusion, British sport needs to grow a pair and do it's own thing, and not be sucked into whats working for others, every sport would benefit from it.
Friday, 30 September 2011
Should Tennis players strike?
Recently Andy Murray has added his name to the a number of top tennis players that have voiced their concerns over the crowded professional schedule. Tennis players get one month of off season a year, and even that is cut short if you happen to have made the final of the Davis Cup with your country. Straight after this off season they have one of the four main tournaments of the year, the Australian Open. The timing of this event means that even during the rest period you have to be keeping fit and training is almost as intensive as it is during the playing season. But surely it's this hectic schedule that allows them to make so much money overy the 10-15 year career they have? You could also argue that if someone wants to risk playing week in week out for ranking points and money, but risk injuries along the way, then it is that players choice to do so?
Whilst footballers are complaining about having 2 or 3 games a week tennis players regularly have 4 games a week,and during grand slam fortnights this could mean 7 matches of around 4 hours each. And with two grandslams (The French Open and Wimbledon) falling within just over a month period there is a lot of tennis to be played, especially as these two surfaces (clay and grass) are the most different of all the surfaces that the sport is played on. If these players are injured for 2 or 3 weeks they're missing a lot of matches, and a lot of ranking points in the process. Footballers on the other hand will still get their weekly wage, just missing a few bonus payments for playing or scoring. Longevity in the game is not just attributed to skill, but how you can condition your body as well. But with the game becoming increasingly punishing on the body players like Nadal will be hard pressed to match the records of Federer, who hasn't retired from a tournament since he was 16. All in all the game is getting tougher and the schedule hasn't evolved with it.
Despite this sporting professionals all seem to complain about playing a sport they love for a living, and the tabloids do love to moan at them for this. The players put their bodies on the line but they get rewarded for it. Ranking points can be protected if the player is injured, so it is not as huge a loss as it might have been in the past if you now get injured. The prize money for each of the grand slams is eye watering, and despite not yet winning his first Grand Slam Murrays earnings so far total nearly $17m, so he's not exactly on the breadline. Also if a player is good enough he can set himself up for huge endorsement deals, such as Federer with Nike, Gilette and Rolex, as well as future coaching jobs for the players who understand the technical side of the game that bit more. John Lloyd never really captured the imagination as a tennis player, but he's forged a long career out of the sport with his own string of clubs up and down the country offering a comprehensive sporting club membership.
Taking everything into account, I do feel the players need to have some restbite when it comes to their schedule, and it definitely needs to be looked at if we want the game to progress as it has done in the last 30 years. Maybe limiting the number of tournaments that can be entered by a player each year would help, so players wouldnt feel pressured to push their bodies as far as their games need to be. So despite the stick they will get from saying its too hard work, Maybe their schedule does need to be ammended, otherwise I don't think the game will continue to be as exciting as the last few years.
Whilst footballers are complaining about having 2 or 3 games a week tennis players regularly have 4 games a week,and during grand slam fortnights this could mean 7 matches of around 4 hours each. And with two grandslams (The French Open and Wimbledon) falling within just over a month period there is a lot of tennis to be played, especially as these two surfaces (clay and grass) are the most different of all the surfaces that the sport is played on. If these players are injured for 2 or 3 weeks they're missing a lot of matches, and a lot of ranking points in the process. Footballers on the other hand will still get their weekly wage, just missing a few bonus payments for playing or scoring. Longevity in the game is not just attributed to skill, but how you can condition your body as well. But with the game becoming increasingly punishing on the body players like Nadal will be hard pressed to match the records of Federer, who hasn't retired from a tournament since he was 16. All in all the game is getting tougher and the schedule hasn't evolved with it.
Despite this sporting professionals all seem to complain about playing a sport they love for a living, and the tabloids do love to moan at them for this. The players put their bodies on the line but they get rewarded for it. Ranking points can be protected if the player is injured, so it is not as huge a loss as it might have been in the past if you now get injured. The prize money for each of the grand slams is eye watering, and despite not yet winning his first Grand Slam Murrays earnings so far total nearly $17m, so he's not exactly on the breadline. Also if a player is good enough he can set himself up for huge endorsement deals, such as Federer with Nike, Gilette and Rolex, as well as future coaching jobs for the players who understand the technical side of the game that bit more. John Lloyd never really captured the imagination as a tennis player, but he's forged a long career out of the sport with his own string of clubs up and down the country offering a comprehensive sporting club membership.
Taking everything into account, I do feel the players need to have some restbite when it comes to their schedule, and it definitely needs to be looked at if we want the game to progress as it has done in the last 30 years. Maybe limiting the number of tournaments that can be entered by a player each year would help, so players wouldnt feel pressured to push their bodies as far as their games need to be. So despite the stick they will get from saying its too hard work, Maybe their schedule does need to be ammended, otherwise I don't think the game will continue to be as exciting as the last few years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)