| |
 Pay 'em what they're worth
Posted: Wednesday April 14, 1999 11:24 AM
I've never thought that women should get hung up on the idea of physically competing against men in sports. Almost always, it's going to be a losing proposition. Nothing proves that better than the fact that Julie Krone is retiring as a jockey after riding 3,500 winners -- including another stakes victory at Hialeah on Saturday. So far as I'm concerned, there's not another female athlete, ever, who has achieved so much in a man's world. Julie has been brave and bold and very, very good. But after a decade of showing -- precisely -- that a little woman can, too, compete with the little men in this demanding exercise, there is no one of her gender to succeed Krone, no younger woman rider even close to her skill. So Julie departs the races now, not so much as a pioneer but as, it seems, a freak of nature, a passing historical diversion. As such, Krone is only more perverse proof that the future of women in sports lies in women's sports. But I reject the argument that just because women can't do as well as men, that is reason to compensate them less. Spectator sport is foremost a show and a competition, not an art exhibition. That's why football sells more tickets than archery. This brings us to the women tennis players, who are petitioning three of the Grand Slams -- the Australian, the French and Wimbledon -- to join the U.S. Open in paying women prize money equal to the men. The tournaments are balking because, as the chairmen of Wimbledon chortles, though the women may get "emotional," on the subject, sorry, they're just not as good as the men. But that misses the point completely. Of course, Martina Hingis couldn't beat Pete Sampras, and Venus Williams couldn't beat Carlos Moya. But guaranteed, Hingis playing Williams is more entertaining than Sampras playing Moya. Right now, in fact, men's tennis is at its nadir for the whole century, whereas women's tennis is chock full of rivalry and personality. It's instructive that at a most important tournament in Florida a couple weeks ago, the promoter scheduled the women's final in the prime time slot, making the men's final the secondary act. And who is that promoter? Butch Bucholtz, a former top male player who once even headed up the men's players' union. But Bucholtz was simply acknowledging that while the women may not be intrinsically better -- so what? -- they're better entertainment. So, the women's threat to boycott the Grand Slams next year carries real weight. Now, on the other hand, we also have the women basketball players in the WNBA union taking on their male bosses, but they have almost no leverage. The WNBA has exceeded all expectations, but it could fold tomorrow and the NBA's popularity and profit wouldn't be affected one iota. That's the harsh reality. Equal rights don't -- and shouldn't -- mean beans in the sports marketplace. But women's tennis is in a position of power that no other female sport this side of figure skating has ever enjoyed. If the men who run the Grand Slams don't give the women what they're demanding, they're not only wrong, but they're stupid. And they will find out that no matter how good the men players might be, fans just won't pay to watch bigger and better bores. These commentaries, which appear each Wednesday on National Public Radio's Morning Edition, are posted weekly by CNN/SI.
| |||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||
