Category Archives: Tennis

Reflecting on Chrissie and Martina: The Final Set [Netflix]

Leave a reply

“The key to a rivalry is that you make each other better, and you make the sport better.” [John McEnroe]

By Nancy E. Spencer, Professor Emerita

Nancy Spencer taught in the Sport Management program at Bowling Green State University (BGSU) from 1998 until 2023 and is now Professor Emerita. Since retiring, she continues to focus on writing sociological analyses of Women’s Professional Tennis. Her current project includes a chapter about Women’s Tennis in the 1980s, a time when Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova dominated the tour.

July 3, 2026

On June 26, Netflix released the movie Chris and Martina: The Final Set which narrates what some consider the greatest rivalry in modern sport history (Curtis, 2018; Flink, 2026). Near the beginning of the film, John McEnroe suggests that the key to a rivalry is that the players make one another better but also make their sport better. This Netflix program does a masterful job of weaving together the candid stories of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova – their rise to the top echelon of Women’s Tennis, the ups and downs of their friendship, and their intertwining battles against cancer. Although Evert and Navratilova are both younger than me, I followed their careers, articulations of their rivalry, their friendship and, more recently, their parallel bouts with cancer. In March 1973, my life intersected with them when all three of us played on the USLTA Professional Spring Tennis Tour, at a tournament in Akron, Ohio. Evert and Navratilova met in the semifinal, with the 18-year-old Evert (then ranked No. 3 in the world) outlasting the 16-year-old newcomer, Navratilova, 7-6 (5-4), 6-3. Since I had already lost in the first round of qualifying, I was not in Akron when they played. I wish I had been there!

No. 1 seeded Chris Evert faced Martina Navratilova in the semifinals at Akron in 1973.

Evert and Navratilova reflected on their first impressions of one another when they met in 1973. At the first tournament on the USLTA Spring Tour (in Ft. Lauderdale, FL), Navratilova recalled seeing Evert playing backgammon with a tournament official (Jenkins, 2023). She was awestruck to see the player who graced posters on her wall at home; she was even more excited when Evert later said hi to her. When they played their first match, Martina called it “a dream come true” because she could measure herself against the next No. 1 player in the world (Walker, 2023, para. 5). Her goal for the match was for Chris to remember her name. Evert recalled feeling “a little nervous going into the match” since she had heard that Navratilova was “dangerous, very raw, with a great volley, a versatile game at a very young age” (para. 6).

While Evert knew that Navratilova moved well, she was overweight, which Martina herself acknowledged, saying “I was a butterball” (para. 7). When she got to the States, she put on 20 pounds in less than a month. Evert thought that if she ever got in shape, she would be “a force to be reckoned with” (para. 8).

16-year-old Czechoslovakian Martina Navratilova played her first match against Chris Evert.

Little could they know that their match was the first of an 80-match rivalry that would redefine women’s tennis over the span of the next 16 years. It would end with Navratilova holding a 43-37 advantage over Evert, with each raising the level of her game as well as the level of women’s tennis writ large.

Tennis commentator Mary Carillo said that, in 80 matches, no individual athletes or rival teams faced one another over 16 years with such high-quality stuff (Shapiro, 1999a). Jake Curtis articulated four key factors that make a compelling rivalry. Longevity is the first factor, as illustrated by the duo’s rivalry that began with their first match-up in Akron and ended with their final meeting in Chicago.[1]

Second, a compelling rivalry should have contrasting styles and/or personalities – Evert and Navratilova had both. TV commentator Brent Musberger described them as “fire and ice…Martina was fire… Chris Evert was ice cold—win or lose” (Shapiro, 1999a). While Evert played a consistent baseline game with pinpoint accuracy, Navratilova displayed an aggressive serve-and-volley game often associated with masculinity. Their cognomens evoked contrasts – with Evert regarded as “America’s sweetheart” and “ChrisAmerica” while Navratilova was often referred to as the “Chech-defector” (Deford, 1986). It was “what a rivalry should be” as revealed by “the physically powerful and politically outspoken Navratilova against Evert’s ferocious ambition, which was too often obscured by tributes to her conventional femininity” (Knapp, 2005, para. 4).

Curtis identified the third factor as the epic nature of their meetings that they typically played in tournament finals, including 14 grand slam tournaments (Howard, 2005). They competed in an era when epic rivalries in men’s and women’s tennis contributed to what many regarded as a “golden age of tennis” (Allen, 2009; Curtis, 2018; Davies, & Fellows, 2023).

Fourth, Evert and Navratilova were the two best women tennis players who ranked Nos. 1 and 2 over an 11-year span.[2] There is one more factor that I add to what makes a compelling rivalry and that is “affect,” how a rivalry makes tennis fans and viewers feel. Johnette Howard (2005) wrote that it was not only their athletic prowess that attracted fans; their followers “fell in love with their stories” and that was about their contrasts (p. 4). There is something about a great rivalry that makes their face-to-face meetings must-see events – whether in person or on television. I felt similarly about watching Borg and McEnroe, Graf and Seles, Federer and Nadal, and the Williams sisters. The budding rivalry between Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner appears to be the next compelling rivalry.

Among the great rivalries of the 1980s and beyond were: Clockwise (L-R) Jimmy Connors v. John McEnroe; Rafa Nadal v. Roger Federer; Chris Evert v. Martina Navratilova

The Netflix program also described the trajectory of Evert and Navratilova’s friendship, which was sometimes impacted by their on-court rivalry, and at other times, by influences of coaches and/or off-court relationships. Sally Jenkins (2023) brilliantly profiled “the shape of the relationship” as an ‘hourglass’ (para. 7). They first met as teenagers in 1973, became friends and even played doubles together; in the late seventies, they drifted apart as each battled to become the world No. 1 at the other’s expense. At the end of their rivalry, “they somehow reached a perfect equipoise of 18 Grand Slam victories each[3]” (Jenkins, 2023, para. 7). In the early seventies, when Evert won 20 of their first 24 meetings, the duo also played doubles in seven tournaments, winning two grand slam doubles titles together: the 1975 French Open and the 1976 Wimbledon Championships.

Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova hold the ladies’ doubles trophy after defeating Billie Jean King and Betty Stove in the final at the Wimbledon Championships, July 5, 1976.

In the 1976 Wimbledon semifinal, where Chris eked out a 3-set win over Martina, she realized that her friend was starting to beat her more frequently, which led Evert to the difficult decision to end their doubles partnership. When they stopped playing doubles, Navratilova took it as an afront to their friendship, while Evert was just trying to protect her ranking. She realized that playing doubles was all right but only if she was No. 1.

Another threat to their friendship came in 1981, when professional basketball player Nancy Lieberman entered Navratilova’s life at a critical moment.

Nancy Lieberman at an NBA All-Star celebrity game presented by Final Fantasy XIII held at the Dallas Convention Center on February 12, 2010 in Dallas, Texas.

At the end of July, an article in the New York Daily News revealed that Navratilova was bisexual.[4] The article appeared several months after Billie Jean King’s disclosure that she had been in a lesbian relationship with her former hairdresser. Rumors were circulating about potential ramifications for tour sponsors if further news of gay or lesbian relationships in tennis were to emerge. In addition to concerns about the tour’s image, a threat to Evert and Navratilova’s friendship entered through Lieberman, who believed that Martina needed to hate her chief rival. A turning point for Navratilova came in the final at Amelia Island when Evert’s ‘double bagel’ (6-0, 6-0) win over her lit a fuse that changed the chemistry of their rivalry and friendship (Encabo, 2026). The lopsided win so angered Lieberman that she berated Martina, telling her, “You’re better. [In] every area of your game you’re better than she is. She’s not the athlete you are. She doesn’t move like you do. She doesn’t have the shot-making you do” (Encabo, para. 13). Lieberman ended her tirade by saying Martina should not be friends with Chris, a suggestion that created an ‘icy silence’ between them. For Navratilova, the strategy worked as she gradually edged closer to Evert’s record in their head-to-head rivalry.

Entering the 1984 U.S. Open final, Evert and Navratilova stood at 30-all in their rivalry. Their final at Flushing Meadow would break the tie. That final match became the centerpiece of “Super Saturday,” what many consider the greatest single day of tennis in U.S. Open history. The day began and ended with men’s singles semifinals: Czechoslovakia’s Ivan Lendl won the first semifinal in 5 sets over Australia’s Pat Cash, while the second semi saw John McEnroe prevail in 5 sets against Jimmy Connors, in a rivalry that Nancy Lieberman must have loved given their disdain for one another.

Chris Evert (L) and Martina Navratilova (R) met in their 61st match at the 1984 U.S. Open

Sandwiched between the two semifinal matches was the Women’s Singles final which Navratilova won in 3 close sets although Evert was the clear crowd favorite. While Evert was stung by another loss, Navratilova couldn’t understand the vitriolic responses she received from the crowd. What Martina overlooked was that Chrissie had been the fan favorite since her initial advance to the 1971 semifinal at age 16. Later, during Evert’s four-year stranglehold on the game, fans grew weary of her domination and began to root for her opponents. Now that Chris was the underdog against Martina, the fans’ rooting interests swung back to Evert again.

By 1984, Martina had begun a relationship with Judy Nelson, who liked Chris and encouraged Martina to repair their relationship (Jenkins, 2023). Eventually the two players confronted the dissonance in their friendship and decided that media narratives about them had contributed to stereotypes with which neither was entirely comfortable. Amidst the difficulties each faced, Evert and Navratilova discussed the bothersome stereotypes that stemmed in part from the media as well as from their individual fan bases. They decided that if they felt their fans or the media was trying to sow discord between them, “they would speak directly to the other,” so they knew where one another stood (Jenkins, 2023, para. 73). They finally agreed that they needed their friendship more than the animosity that had tainted their rivalry.

The riveting Netflix program about Evert and Navratilova went beyond their on-court rivalry and close friendship to their shared cancer diagnoses. Having cancer as a common adversary challenged them mentally, physically, and spiritually. However, it also strengthened their bond, drawing them closer together than they were during their rivalry (Jenkins, 2023).

In 2010, Navratilova announced that she had an early form of breast cancer “but was deemed cancer-free six months later” (McCarthy, 2026, para. 7). In January 2022, after Evert’s sister Jeanne died of ovarian cancer, someone from the Cleveland Clinic notified Chris that she should be tested for the BRCA1 gene. Results of the test revealed that she had Stage 1C ovarian cancer and needed to undergo “a grueling six cycles of chemotherapy” (Jenkins, 2023, para. 19). After treatments, she was declared cancer-free. Later that year, in December 2022, Navratilova discovered that she had “two early-stage cancers, in her throat and breast” and she too had to undergo treatment (Jenkins, 2023, para. 20). In 2023, Evert received a diagnosis that she never wanted to hear – that her ovarian cancer had returned – although she was grateful that the cancer had been detected early. Once again, she underwent robotic surgery to remove cancer cells and embarked on another round of chemotherapy. (Walcott, 2023). On July 1, 2024, she announced in the New York Times that she was cancer-free once again (Waldstein, 2024).

On June 25, a day before Netflix dropped the moving tribute to Evert and Navratilova’s rivalry and just as the 2026 Wimbledon was about to begin, Evert announced that the cancer had returned for a third time. In her announcement, she wrote, “ovarian cancer is relentless, but I will stay optimistic and determined in continuing to fight this battle” (“Tennis legend,” 2026).

Evert revealed that ovarian cancer had returned for a 3rd time, calling it “relentless,” but vowing to fight!

As the Netflix film begins, Evert’s ex-husband Andy Mill (below) makes a poignant statement that captures where the one-time bitter rivals stand today,

“They were battling a war forever on the tennis court. And now, in life, they’re trying to save each other” (Jenkins, 2026).

The saga of Chris and Martina continues with the two rivals joining together to combat a more insidious rival in cancer. I am hoping and praying that both Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova have many more chapters to write before their ‘final’ set. Martina expresses the sentiment that each of them has for one another.

References

Allen, L. (1997). The lesbian idol. London: Cassell.

Complete Doubles Results. (nd). Chris Evert.net. https://chrisevert.net/match-results-and-records/complete-doubles-results/

Curtis, J. (2018, June 8). Ranking the 10 best rivalries in tennis history. Bleacher Report. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1703668-ranking-the-10-best-rivalries-in-tennis-history

Davies, N., & Fellows, A. (Executive Producers). (2023). Gods of Tennis: Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert. [TV series]. Mindhouse Production Company, BBC: London, UK.

Encabo, N. (2026, June 26). The rivalry that transformed tennis long before Federer, Nadal, and Djokic: “You need to not be friends with her. You need to hate her.” Claytenis.com. https://www.claytenis.com/features/evert-navratilova-netflix-documentary-uncovered/

Ephron, N. (1985, March 31). Martina’s Unfairness Doctrine. The New York Times, pp. SMA29, SMA52, SMA54, SMA58.

Howard, J. (2005). The rivals: Chris Evert vs. Martina Navratilova: Their epic duels and extraordinary friendship. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

Jenkins, S. (2023, July 3). Bitter rivals. Beloved friends. Survivors. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/interactive/2023/chris-evert-martina-navratilova-cancer/

Jenkins, S. (Executive Producer). (2026). Chris and Martina: The final set. Netflix.

Knapp, G. (2005, June 19). Evert v. Navratilova—what a rivalry should be. SFGate. https://www.sfgate.com/sports/knapp/article/evert-vs-navratilova-what-a-rivalry-should-be-2661371.php

McCarthy, K. (2026, June 11). Tennis legends Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova reflect on rivalry, friendship, cancer diagnoses. ABC News. https://abcnews.com/GMA/Culture/tennis-legends-chris-evert-martina-navratilova-reflect-rivalry/story?id=133781003

Tennis legend Chris Evert reveals ovarian cancer has returned. (2026, June 25). GMA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBARNOddY_E&t=1s

Waldstein, D. (2024, July 1). Chris Evert beat cancer. Then it came back, so she beat it again. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/nyregion/chris-evert-cancer-tennis.html

Walker, R. (2023, March 21). The 50-year anniversary of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova’s first-ever match. World Tennis Magazine. https://worldtennismagazine.com/the-50-year-anniversary-of-chris-evert-and-martina-navratilovas-first-ever-match/21828

[1] On March 22, 1973, Evert won their first meeting on the USLTA Tour in Akron (7-6, 6-3) while Navratilova prevailed in Chicago (6-2, 6-2) on November 13, 1988.

[2] Aside from a brief span when Tracy Austin was No. 1.

[3] Collins Dictionary defined equipoise as “a delicate harmony or a counterbalancing factor.”

[4] Navratilova became a more visible lesbian activist in the early 1990s and came out as gay in 1991 (Allen, 1997).

82-year old Graduate Billie Jean King Scores ‘Late-Life Victory’

Leave a reply

After attending Cal State-LA from 1961 to 1964, Billie Jean King completed History degree at age 82

By Dr. Nancy E. Spencer

Dr. Spencer is Professor Emerita at BGSU, having taught in the Sport Management program from Fall 1998 until Spring 2023. The main focus of her research is on sociological analyses of sports (primarily tennis), and includes articles on the Battle of the Sexes, the Evert v. Navratilova rivalry, and the Williams sisters at Indian Wells.

May 18, 2026

Imagine being a History Professor at California State-Los Angeles (CSULA) and learning that one of your incoming students made history herself as a member of the ‘Original Nine’ (in 1970) and earned plaudits for defeating Bobby Riggs in the 1973 Battle of the Sexes at the Houston Astrodome.

That would be pretty cool, wouldn’t it?

The ‘Original Nine’ featured: (counterclockwise, L-R) Judy Tegart, Kerry Melville, Rosie Casals, Gladys Heldman, Kristy Pigeon, Peaches Bartkowicz, Nancy Richey, Billie Jean King, and Val Ziegenfuss.

Now imagine that you are a freshly-minted Phd whose first job as an Assistant Professor begins in 1998 at Bowling Green State University. Among your first classes is the History & Philosophy of American Sports. ESPN has just featured a special about the “Battle of the Sexes” that occurred 25 years earlier. One of your colleagues (Dr. Ray Schneider) shares with you a videotaped program to present in your Sport History class. The week of September 20 (the 25th anniversary of the historic match), you show select segments of the program to your class of 60 Sport History students, none of whom even know about the event, and you tell them that you called lines for the match. You were a primary historical observer. That was how my first semester at BGSU began!

The ESPN Special revealed how the match was hyped – with King entering the court as the “feisty feminist,” and Riggs entering on a rickshaw as the “self-proclaimed male chauvinist pig.” Their rhetoric fitted perfectly with the zeitgeist. With “Women’s Lib” in ascendance, Gladys Heldman (who organized the ‘Original Nine’ and promoted the early tour) dubbed it “Women’s Lob.”

King entered court on a gold litter carried by four shirtless members of Rice University’s track team

Riggs entered the court on a rickshaw surrounded by “Bobby’s bosom buddies.”

Riggs, a former No. 1 and winner of Singles, Doubles, and Mixed Doubles at the 1939 Wimbledon, added to the hype with his rhetoric. Among his memorable comments were that women belonged in the kitchen and the bedroom, but not on the same court as a man. He also suggested that he would beat Billie Jean because she was a woman and women were weak physically and mentally.

At the end of class, having set out the ‘spectacular’ buildup to the match, a student raised her hand to ask, “Who won?” I had forgotten that the students had not heard about this event. Almost as an afterthought, I replied, “Billie Jean King.” A student in the back of the classroom raised his hand (I still remember his name – Greg Berkmeier) and asked, “Was it rigged?” I was shocked that anyone would ask such a question. “No,” I replied defensively.

Why would anyone even think that?

Only later did I discover that one of Bobby’s best friends, Jack Kramer, had written in his autobiography (Kramer & Deford, 1979) that Billie Jean won that match fair-and-square. Riggs had wanted to use the hype to promote a tour for 35 & over (senior) men’s tennis comparable to that which the PGA had. Given that objective, Kramer pointed out that there was no way he would have purposely lost that match. In the end, Riggs acknowledged that he had underestimated King.

King entered the match knowing that this moment, while meaningless in terms of rankings, had the potential to change hearts and minds. Frequently, she said that it was about ‘social change.’ She and others said that it provided evidence that a woman could compete against a man even in sports. The impact of her victory was credited with contributing to advances in women’s sports that aligned with the women’s movement.

The same motivation that fueled King’s victory in the Battle of the Sexes and made her one of the most impactful leaders in the history of women’s tennis, also carried over to her pursuit of a college degree. Her parents had always emphasized the importance of education to Billie Jean and her brother Randy. Although they were no longer alive, King knew they would have been so proud of her accomplishment. She even rated it right up there with many of her tennis victories. Besides defeating Bobby Riggs in the Battle of the Sexes, King won 6 Wimbledons and a total of 39 grand slam victories in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. In 2009, President Barack Obama presented King with the nation’s highest civilian honor in recognition of her lifelong advocacy for women’s equality and civil rights. King sought to see inclusivity based on gender, race, and sexuality. After being ‘outed’ in 1981, she initially denied that she was gay, but later came out as a lesbian and became a staunch advocate for LGBTQ+ rights.

President Obama awards Billie Jean King with Presidential Medal of Freedom

In one of the the favorite parts of her coursework at CSULA, King participated in a program for the school’s Prison Graduate Initiative (PGI). In 2016, the PGI became “the first and only BA program to be designated a Second Chance Pell (PEP) site in California, and it was the first bachelor’s degree program in California to award a BA degree to incarcerated students.” According to USA Today’s Cydney Henderson (2026), King “gave a commencement speech for the first graduating class at the California Institution for Women in October.” She also spoke to inmates at a women’s prison and two men’s prisons, acknowledging that it was a life-changing experience. 

Since Billie Jean King first came on the tennis scene as an ebullient tennis player in the 1960s, she has focused on effecting social change. She sees her most recent accomplishment as something that might inspire future generations, including ‘nontraditional’ students who might decide to go back to school at a later stage of their lives. Being a non-traditional student who received her Phd at 47, I can appreciate her influence on those who have doubts about whether they could succeed. As an educator, I would have loved to have a grad student older than me who returned to school on such a mission – whether or not she made history herself, as King did.

Lines of Life

Leave a reply

Caption: Bobby Riggs hits a backhand while linesperson Betsy Blaney looks on.

By Betsy Blaney

Betsy Blaney is retired and lives in Lubbock, Texas. She spent about 20 years as a tennis professional before becoming a journalist. She worked for The Associated Press and the Lubbock affiliate of NPR during her 29 years in journalism. Now she teaches tennis to kids, plays a lot of Pickleball and volunteers with a local hospice.

September 16, 2023

I was a ball girl for her in the 60s.

I (remarkably) called lines for her in the 70s.

I played her and her partner in doubles in the 1980s.

And, as a newspaper and wire service journalist, I wrote two first-person anniversary pieces (in the 1990s and the 2000s) from my unique, on-court vantage point for her triumph over Bobby Riggs.*

It’s an understatement to say that Billie Jean King has been a steady part of my life’s timeline as a tennis player and a journalist. My serve and volley game is a direct result of watching her play in Milwaukee in the early years of my tennis playing.

No one I knew foresaw the long-lasting implications of the Battle of the Sexes match in Houston’s Astrodome on Sept. 20, 1973.

I sure didn’t. I was a somewhat meek 19-year-old – living in Dallas and learning how to teach tennis – who lucked into calling lines on the historic match.  And I will always remember her circling back near my chair to tell me I’d blown a call on Riggs’ serve. It wasn’t a pretty admonishment.

The influence she’s had in my life, in the lives of millions of women – athletes of all sports and just generally – can’t be quantified. 

As the match anniversary approaches, it’s important to remember she is also responsible for women receiving equal prize money at the four Grand Slam tournaments. The first Grand Slam was the 1973 US Open, which recently honored her and 50 years of her efforts to elevate women in all arenas. 

I had the great good fortune of taking in the entire fortnight of Wimbledon this year. I was nearby the media building one day and spotted Billie Jean. I approached her, shook her hand as I re-introduced myself to her. She remembered the supposed blown call and our two interviews for the anniversary pieces. I just wanted to wish her a happy 80th birthday in November. She wished me the same for my 70th next spring.

It was a nice bookend to how our paths have crossed since I ran after tennis balls as she played the Virginia Slims tournament in Milwaukee 60 years ago.

*Note: Another article entitled Line Judge Turned Reporter, by Brooke Sjoberg, appeared in the Texas Standard: The National Daily News Show of Texas on September 20, 2018.

Media Hits and Misses At Indian Wells

Leave a reply

By Dr. Jacquelyn Cuneen

This is part of an ongoing series of guest posts by those in academia and in the professional world of sport. This week’s post is written by Dr. Jacquelyn Cuneen, Ph.D, a former Sport Management Professor at Bowling Green State University.

Usually, tennis news is just like other sports news — who won the games, how they won the games, who rivals who, who dominates, and when do they play again. Except, quite often, an age-old dispute emerges from tennis that causes us to revisit a new version of an old controversy. Sexism!

The BNP Paribas Open — Indian Wells — is a premier stop on both the women’s and men’s tennis tours. The tournament is greatly respected by players, fans, and media, and it is so prestigious that Indian Wells may one day be granted Grand Slam status. Thus, all the top players compete, global media cover the matches from start to finish, and fans set attendance records each year. In other words, the tournament itself is news. However, from the very start to the very finish of 2016’s event, the global media had much more to cover than matches when sexism, tennis’ recurring nemesis, once again intruded. And while the media devoted more than ample coverage to the major stories, they missed some critical undercurrents.

Opening day brought the Maria Sharapova doping scandal. The world number 11 had for ten years been using mildronate, a drug prescribed primarily for angina and other cardiac-related ills. Since January, the drug has been banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency because among its effects is an increase in blood flow which can enhance athletic performance. Sharapova apparently missed the agency directive sent to all players in December 2015 that announced this newly banned drug; she tested positive for mildronate and was disqualified from playing at Indian Wells. The media, particularly Tennis Channel and ESPN, doggedly analyzed Sharapova’s performances and discussed advantages she may have gained from using mildronate. Commentators also, but with less ceremony, listed those Sharapova sponsors that deserted her very quickly upon the breaking news.

With such comprehensive coverage of Sharapova’s predicament, what possible undercurrent could the media have missed and how did it relate to Sharapova’s drug use and sponsorships? In a word: Nike!

Nike was one of the first of many sponsors (e.g., Tag Heuer, Evian, Avon, Porsche) to run for cover when news of Sharapova’s failed drug test was made public. So, what undercurrent did the media miss related to Nike and why do Nike’s repudiations relate to sexism? In a word, Tiger.

Think back to the 2009 holiday season when news broke about Woods’ numerous extramarital affairs. His sponsors did not abandon him immediately, but within a matter of weeks, Woods, like Sharapova, lost many sponsors (e.g., Tag Heuer, Gatorade, Gillette, Buick) but not Nike. Nike continued their association with Woods, lasting to this day.

Where were the media to ask questions related to Nike’s sponsorship decisions? Why did they not note the undercurrent and ask Nike about the rationale that fueled their loyalty to Woods, but did not extend it to Sharapova? Is it even thinkable that taking a performance-enhancing drug “inadvertently” (as claimed by Sharapova) is worse than serial infidelity, when many golf and tennis fans would find both to be repugnant? Only Nike knows their reasons for deserting Sharapova; no one else knows because the media did not inquire about it. Fans in a discerning world might like to know how a company with a 2017 target of realizing $7 billion in women’s spending — which will constitute 20% of their total annual revenues — can make such a questionable and possibly gender-biased decision.

Closing day brought the Ray Moore scandal. Moore was a professional player of little note and no consequence between 1968 and 1983, but gained notability as one of the founders and eventual chief executive officer of the Indian Wells tournament. At a breakfast meeting prior to the women’s final match, Moore expressed his beliefs that, among other things, women’s players ride the coattails of the men, and if he was a woman player, he would go down on his knees nightly and be thankful that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born because they have carried the game. Media, even non-sports media, covered Moore’s comments in depth. Stories in traditional and posts within modern social media universes expressed outrage and disgust over Moore’s archaic ideals. So, what undercurrents did the media miss in the Moore disgrace? In a word, men!

Not only were Moore’s insults obviously degrading and dismissive to those women players who rank among the best athletes in history, his opinion about Federer and Nadal carrying the game is an insult to the other men on the tour. Federer, and particularly Nadal of late, are not carrying the game and they never actually did. While they may have been among the most visible of recent players, plenty of others have dominated tournaments as well. Why did the media not seek opinions from champions such as Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, and Stan Wawrinka who have dominated Federer and Nadal for the past few years. Moore’s comments were not just offensive to the women players. His version of sexism offended every player regardless of gender, except Federer and Nadal.

Moore learned the consequences of antiquated ignorance expressed in a modern world within three days of the tournaments’ conclusion. He resigned as Indian Wells’ CEO, and as the controversy is ongoing, it is the media’s obligation to discover the reasons for his retreat. Could Moore not face the personal significance of his comments or was his resignation forced by inside and outside sources? It would be nice to know that story.

A final thought for consideration: Ray Moore played on the men’s professional tennis tour for 15 years.  In that time, he managed to win eight doubles titles, none of them a major, playing with 16 different partners. This was during the tennis boom of King, Evert, Laver, and Connors. It was the era when dedicated tennis beat reporters emerged and media coverage of the game flourished. Yet, few besides the most faithful of tennis aficionados heard of Ray Moore then or now … speaking of riding coattails.

More Controversy at Indian Wells

Leave a reply

By Dr. Nancy E. Spencer

Venus and Serena Williams’ return to Indian Wells was supposed to close the book on a controversy that occurred in 2001. They faced a racist incident that was a painful memory for them and a blemish on the tournament. In 2016, Serena hoped to write a new chapter by advancing to the Women’s Singles final where she faced Victoria Azarenka. Their matches had always been close and promised to provide a storybook ending to this new chapter. While the final score did not end in Serena’s favor (Vika won 6-4, 6-4), a new controversy emerged as a result of sexist comments made by Ray Moore, the tournament’s director and CEO. Before the Men’s Singles final, Moore was asked how the men’s (ATP) and women’s tours (WTA) compared. He replied by calling  “the WTA a bunch of lucky coattail-ridin’ dummies who have the men to thank for their continued existence” (Redford, 2016, para. 1). But he didn’t stop there, adding, “If I was a lady player, I’d go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport. They really have” (Redford, para. 2).

In the press conference following her match, Serena was asked to comment on Moore’s statements. She began by saying, “I think Venus, myself, a number of players have been — if I could tell you every day how many people say they don’t watch tennis unless they’re watching myself or my sister, I couldn’t even bring up that number. So I don’t think that is a very accurate statement” (Dator, 2016, para. 4).

Asked further if she was surprised that sexist statements are still brought up, Serena replied: “Yeah, I’m still surprised, especially with me and Venus and all the other women on the tour that’s done well. Last year the women’s final at the US Open sold out well before the men. I’m sorry, did Roger play in that final or Rafa or any man play in that final that was sold out before the men’s final? I think not ” (Dator, 2016, para. 5).

Serena also referred to the history of progress that began with Billie Jean King whose “Battle of the Sexes” victory over Bobby Riggs has been credited with advancing the cause of all women in sport. In fact, Billie Jean also played an integral role in securing equal prize money for women at the U.S. Open in 1973 (D’Cunha, 2016). As Serena pointed out, “in order to make a comment you have to have history and you have to have facts and you have to know things. You have to know of everything. I mean, you look at someone like Billie Jean King who opened so many doors for not only women’s players but women athletes in general” (Dator, 2016, para. 6).

King herself played during the same era as Ray Moore when professional tennis was in its infancy. During that era, the ratio between men’s and women’s earnings was often as disparate as 11:1 (BJ King, personal communication, February 24, 1999). Billie Jean responded to Moore’s comments on Twitter saying she was: “Disappointed in comments. He is wrong on so many levels. Every player, especially the top players, contribute to our success.”

Chris Kermode, CEO of the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the governing body of men’s professional tennis agreed with King in describing “Ray Moore’s comments towards women’s tennis” as “disappointing” (Rycroft, 2016, para. 5). Adding that the comments were “made in poor taste,” Kermode stated that, “The ATP fully supports equality across society, while at the same time acknowledging that we operate in the sports [and] entertainment business” (Rycroft, 2016, para. 5).

Unfortunately, Kermode’s comments are unlikely to carry as much weight as earlier statements made by the Men’s Singles winner and world No. 1 Novak Djokovic, who said after winning his match yesterday: “I think that our men’s tennis world, ATP world, should fight for more, because the stats are showing that we have much more spectators on the men’s tennis matches. I think that’s one of the reasons why maybe we should get awarded more” (D’Cunha, 2016, para. 15). There is an underlying problem with comments by both Moore and Djokovic, as D’Cunha (2016) pointed out, in that they “are indicative of the general disregard for women’s tennis by their male counterparts” (para. 18).

If there is any consolation it is the outpouring of support for women’s tennis that was expressed on Twitter and in other articles. Hopefully, women’s tennis (and all women’s sports) will continue the legacy begun by Billie Jean King, Gladys Heldman, the “Original Nine” and current WTA players. They’re not riding anybody’s coat tails!!

Note: According to reports on Twitter as of March 21, Raymond Moore has resigned as Tournament Director and CEO at Indian Wells. Perhaps, on this 10th anniversary of Twitter, it is fitting that the social media site played a key role in disseminating news of this controversy so quickly.

References

Dator, J. (2016, March 20). Serena Williams sends powerful message to Indian Wells CEO over sexist comments. SB Nation. Retrieved from http://www.sbnation.com/2016/3/20/11273222/serena-williams-press-conference-sexist-comments-indian-wells-ceo

D’Cunha, Z. (2016, March 21). Raymond Moore, Novak Djokovic, and the blatant disregard for women’s tennis by the men in sport. Firstpost.com. Retrieved from http://www.firstpost.com/sports/raymond-moore-novak-djokovics-comments-not-only-sexist-but-also-show-disregard-for-womens-tennis-2688386.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Redford, P. (2016, March 20). Indian Wells CEO Raymond Moore has some bad and dumb thoughts on Women’s Tennis. Deadspin. Retrieved from http://deadspin.com/indian-wells-ceo-raymond-moore-has-some-bad-and-dumb-th-1766048378

Rycroft, R. (2016, March 21). ATP’s Chris Kermode responds to Raymond Moore’s controversial comments on WTA. Sportsgecko.com. Retrieved from http://sportsgecko.com/atps-chris-kermode-responds-to-raymond-moores-controversial-comments-on-wta/

 

A Sad Chapter Ends… or Does It?

Leave a reply

By Dr. Nancy E. Spencer

On Friday, March 11, 2016, Venus Williams made her return to Indian Wells, facing Japan’s Kurumi Mara in a first-round singles match. It had been 15 years since Venus last played in the tournament, and she received a warm welcome as reflected by her broad smile in the photo below.?

In March 2001, when Venus last appeared at Indian Wells, she was scheduled to meet her sister Serena in the semifinals. As it was reported by most media sources, Venus defaulted just moments before she was to have played Serena. Tennis writer Joel Drucker (2009), wrote that “four minutes before her match against Serena, Venus pull(ed) out with tendinitis. Players usually notify officials that they will be unable to compete at least 30 minutes before a match so organizers can make contingency plans” (para. 13).

Serena related a different version of this story in her autobiography, where she wrote that during Venus’ quarter-final match against Elena Dementieva, she was dehydrated and started to cramp; she also hurt her knee and questioned whether she would be able to play in the semifinals against Serena (Williams & Paisner, 2009). On the morning of their scheduled semifinal, “Venus checked in with the tour trainer and told him she didn’t think she could play” (Williams & Paisner, 2009, p. 64). According to the rules, the trainer needed to give his approval before Venus could officially withdraw. The trainer was then supposed to consult with the tournament director who would typically schedule another match in its place. [This part is confirmed by Drucker’s statement above].

Checking in with tour officials was an especially important step since Venus and Serena were scheduled to play on live TV (on ESPN) before a crowd that eagerly anticipated the “rare tennis treat” (2001, p. 3C) of seeing the sisters play each other for only the sixth time in their professional careers. There was clearly a lot riding on whether or not Venus and Serena played that match. Yet, according to Serena, the trainer “kept telling Venus to hold off on making any kind of final decision” (Williams & Paisner, 2009, p. 65).

Two hours before the match was slated to begin, Venus again told officials that she would not be able to play, but still no announcement was made that she was withdrawing. It was not until five minutes before the match was to start that a tournament official finally “announced to the packed stadium that Venus was withdrawing due to injury” (Williams & Paisner, 2009, p. 67). Needless to say, the timing of the announcement could not have been worse and fans unleashed their anger toward Venus since she was made to appear as the culprit who withdrew at the last minute.

Two days after Venus’ default in the semifinals, Serena played in the final against the Belgian Kim Clijsters. When Venus and her father entered the Stadium to watch the final, fans responded by booing vociferously. Richard Williams proclaimed that a dozen fans in the stands used racial slurs and one fan yelled that he would “skin him alive” (Smith, 2001, p. 3C). According to some sources, fans were upset not only because of the late default, but also because they had the impression that Richard, was responsible for orchestrating the outcomes of their matches. Dementieva, whom Venus defeated in the quarterfinals, had even suggested in her press conference that she thought their father Richard would decide who would win their semifinal match (Drucker, 2009). A headline in the National Enquirer also suggested that Richard ordered Serena to lose to Venus in the 2000 Wimbledon semifinals. This further fueled the impression of match-fixing.

Aside from such accusations about match-fixing, there has never been any concrete evidence to confirm that this is anything more than speculation. In fact, Bart McGuire who was then CEO of the WTA Tour, issued a statement on March 16, 2001, saying that “The tour is aware of the assertions being circulated regarding Venus and Serena Williams’ head-to-head matches. We have seen no evidence to support those assertions, and both players have denied them” (Drucker, 2009, para. 29).

On March 23, 2001, Venus addressed the role of the press in fueling the story about what happened at Indian Wells. When asked about the crowd’s response at Indian Wells, Venus said that she didn’t always understand the press, but she understood that they wanted a big story and they were “interested in selling papers” (Drucker, 2009, para. 49).Indian Wells’ Tournament Director Charlie Pasarell addressed the question posed to Venus about whether it was unfair of the crowd to respond as they did. Pasarell reported that he cringed “when all that stuff was going on,” adding that “it was unfair for the crowd to do that” (Drucker, 2009, para. 51).

At the beginning of Drucker’s (2009) article, the editor noted that “the controversy surrounding Venus and Serena Williams’ decision not to play at Indian Wells has been composed of rumors, conjecture and  confusing comments about racism and match fixing” (para. 1). While it may be difficult to make sense of all that has been reported and recorded by the press about Indian Wells over the last 15 years, what happened there in 2001 was enough to make the Williams’ sisters decide not to play in the tournament for the past 14-15 years. I vividly remember watching that match and was embarrassed by the vitriol spewed toward Venus, Serena and their father Richard. I have always understood their decision not to play at Indian Wells. While I applaud their willingness to forgive and move on, I question if that chapter is truly over if we have not fully addressed the underlying impulse for the crowd’s (mis)behavior at Indian Wells in 2001.

References

Drucker, J. (2009, March 11). What happened at Indian Wells? ESPN.com. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/columns/story?id=3952939&columnist=drucker_joel

Rare tennis treat: Williams vs. Williams. (2001, March 15). USA Today, p. 1C.

Smith, D. (2001, March 26). Williams decries fans as racist. USA Today, p. 3C.

Williams, S., & Paisner, D. (2009). On the line. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing.

Serena Williams: The Return to Indian Wells (Part I)

Leave a reply

This post comes from, Bowling Green State University Sport Management Professor and Maxwell Media Watch faculty advisor, Dr. Nancy Spencer.

By Dr. Nancy Spencer

March 2, 2015

On March 13, 2001, I sat in front of my TV, eagerly awaiting the sixth match that Venus and Serena Williams were to play against one another in a professional tennis tournament. The tournament was at Indian Wells, a small affluent desert community in California that was home to many retirees from the entertainment world.

About five minutes before the match was to begin, an ESPN announcer reported that there would be no live match since Venus Williams had ‘just’ defaulted. The announcement was made in front of a packed stadium of angry fans that proceeded to boo loudly. They felt like they had been robbed.

Unlike in team sports, when a superstar fails to play on a given date, the game goes on. LeBron and Kyrie may not have played against the Indiana Pacers on Friday night, but the Cleveland Cavaliers still played. There may have been different match-ups, and fans may have been disappointed that they did not get to see Kyrie and LeBron, but they still got to see a meaningful game. When someone defaults in tennis – especially in the semifinals or finals, a substitute can step in to play an exhibition match, but it is not a meaningful match.

Unfortunately, for the Williams sisters, Venus’ default coincided with published reports (albeit in the National Enquirer) that their father, Richard, may have fixed their most recent match-up in the semifinals of the 2000 Wimbledon. Venus won that match and advanced to win her first Wimbledon title. The report (in the National Enquirer) was enough to fuel speculation that perhaps Richard Williams had fixed this match. There has never been proof to substantiate that or any other allegation, even though Venus and Serena Williams have made it clear repeatedly that it was difficult for them to play one another (since they are sisters as well as best friends).

Two days later, Serena met Kim Clijsters in the finals at Indian Wells. She could not have anticipated the boisterous environment she would encounter. Even as she was introduced and again, when her father and Venus entered the stadium, fans booed vociferously.

In response, Richard raised his fist, evoking the symbolism displayed by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics. Fans continued to boo Serena throughout the match, even when she hit winners and even at the end when she remarkably managed to come from behind to win in three sets. Later, Richard reported that he heard racist comments, including one fan who claimed that he was lucky it wasn’t 1975, or he would ‘skin him alive’ (Smith, 2001, p. 3C). The response from tournament director Charlie Pasarell was that those weren’t Indian Wells fans (Smith, 2001). That seemed a curious statement to make and certainly did not justify the unruly behavior in my book.

My immediate response to watching ‘tennis fans behaving badly’ was that racism in tennis was now visible for the whole world to see – except that this was Indian Wells, not the U.S. Open or Wimbledon, where the whole world would have been watching.

And this was before Twitter and social media would have quickly spread the news. In 2009, Serena’s autobiography was published, containing a chapter on ‘The fiery darts at Indian Wells.’ That was the first I learned Serena’s version of what happened in 2001 (in her own words) (Williams & Paisner, 2009). That was when I discovered that Venus had injured her knee during her quarterfinal match against Elena Dementieva.

On the morning of the semifinal, Venus checked in with the trainer, informing him that she didn’t think she would be able to play. What should have happened at that point was that an announcement of Venus’ withdrawal should have been made and another match should have been scheduled for the Stadium. But it wasn’t – for whatever reason. As a result, when Venus defaulted, it appeared that she made the call at the last minute and fans made the Williams’ sisters the scapegoats.

In her autobiography, Serena details the devastating impact of the fans’ behavior that she and Venus faced at Indian Wells in 2001. Because of that behavior, Venus and Serena determined not to return to Indian Wells since 2001… until this year… Serena is returning to Indian Wells.

Next week: Part II – Serena’s Return: How it Happened/What it Means

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Mad Man At Courtside

Leave a reply

This is part of an ongoing series of guest posts by those in academia and in the professional world of sport. This week’s post is written Dr. Jacquelyn Cuneen, a retired Professor of Sport Management at Bowling Green State University. 

Viewers of the Emmy winning AMC series Mad Men are taken back to the 1960’s in America — an era of stringent social order when all individuals were branded by gender conformity. Even the most unattractive of males were able to swagger as if they were Frank Sinatra and even the brightest of females were expected to sashay as if they were Marilyn Monroe. Sport, of course, was the domain of males. Females were tolerated in certain “gender appropriate” activities (see Eleanor Metheny’s essay on Connotations of Movement in Sport), and women in some of those sports (e.g., golf, tennis, bowling) were starting to establish their place in athletics.

The Olympic Games provided the biggest stages for 1960’s athletes who happened to be female and some of the most visible athletes at both the summer and winter games were women from the former Soviet Bloc countries. The Soviet women were particularly dominant in track and field. They were highly trained, highly fit, very serious, and very muscular. Their appearances prompted the American media, particularly the print media, to focus more on the athletes’ bodies rather than their performances. Amid questions related to doping, chromosome testing, and sexuality, the Soviet athletes were chided for being too masculine. In other words, they were too good to be women. And, the collective Ministers of Sport from the Soviet countries were outraged over these insulting questions and accusations.

Fast-forward to half a century later when some of the best and most popular athletes in the world are skilled, strong, forceful, muscular women and the era of Mad Men is far behind — except perhaps in Russia, the principal country of the old Soviet Bloc. In October 2014, Russian tennis official Shamil Tarpischev appeared on his country’s late-night talk show Evening Urgant and, due either to unbelievable ignorance or a dim-witted attempt at comedy, referred to Venus and Serena Williams as The Williams brothers.

The Williams Brothers! Venus, who can walk a fashion runway to rival any Vogue model. Serena, so dazzling that she can walk on to the CBS Late Show set and render host David Letterman speechless. Brothers? What could prompt a coach to refer to such women as brothers? Could it be that, in his Mad Men mind, they are too good and too powerfully built to be women?

It is appalling that the Williams’ or any females who work to reach the top of their sport must hear such comments from their sports’ insiders. It is particularly disconcerting to hear such denigrating remarks from someone who has worked so closely with skilled women and ought to know their capabilities. A person such as Tarpischev, of all people, should know the success that comes to women who are accountable and committed to their sport and prepare themselves for excellence. He behaves like a mad man.

A final word to Shamil: Watch Mad Men and be happy you live in an era when you have accomplished women to coach. Then, get yourself off the talk show circuit, go back on court, leave social commentary to Gloria Steinem, leave comedy to Chelsea Handler, and start coaching better so some of your Russian players can come up to the Williams standard.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

What’s So Funny About the “Williams Brothers?”

Leave a reply

This is part of an ongoing series of guest posts by those in academia and in the professional world of sport. This week’s post is written by Dr. Nancy Spencer Ph.D, a Sport Management Professor at Bowling Green State University.

On October 13, Shamil Tarpischev, head of the Russian Tennis Federation appeared on a Russian television show (Evening Urgant) with former player Elena Dementieva. During the interview, the host of the show asked Dementieva what it was like to play the Williams’ sisters. Before she could respond, Tarpischev interjected by calling them the ‘Williams’ brothers,’ and describing them as ‘scary.’ Merlisa Lawrence Corbett urged the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) to respond to the derogatory comments. Several former players Martina Navratilova and Katrina Adams – both now members of the media – also tweeted their disapproval of Tarpischev’s remarks. Martina even called for the ouster of Tarpischev. By the end of the week, heads of both the USTA and WTA had responded to the derogatory comments.

This is clearly not the first time that sexist comments have been made about world-class female athletes such as Venus and Serena Williams or others. When former Wimbledon winner Amelie Mauresmo emerged on the tennis scene in 1999, WTA players Lindsay Davenport and Martina Hingis said it was like playing against a man. In 2013, after Marion Bartoli won the Wimbledon Women’s Singles title, BBC announcer John Inverdale made sexist remarks, suggesting she needed to become a great tennis player since she would never be a ‘looker’ (like Maria Sharapova). And when Baylor University star Britney Griner led her team to the 2012 NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship over Notre Dame, ND Coach Muffet McGraw said it was like playing against a guy, a statement she meant as a compliment.

In 1988, sport sociologist Mike Messner wrote about the dilemma facing women athletes who become so good that they are said to ‘play like men.’ Messner called it a “double-edged” sword. He explained that on one hand, it appears to be a compliment about an individual woman’s skills (indeed, Tarpischev later claimed that was what he meant). On the other hand, the implication is that because she is so good, perhaps she is not a ‘real woman’ after all.

By the end of last week, Stacey Allaster, Chairman and CEO of the WTA announced that Tarpischev would be fined $25,000 (the maximum allowable) and suspended for a year. Allaster also sought to remove Tarpischev from his position as Chairman of the Board for the Kremlin Cup, a position he has held for 18 years. In announcing these sanctions, Allaster said that Tarpischev’s comments were “insulting, demeaning and have absolutely no place in our sport.” She described Venus and Serena Williams as “outstanding human beings, incredible sportswomen, and amazing role models who have done so much to inspire women and girls around the world.”

Meanwhile, Dave Haggerty, the President and CEO of the USTA called on Tarpischev to formally apologize to Venus and Serena. Less than a week after making the initial comments on Russian television, Shamil Tarpischev issued a letter of apology that is now posted on the WTA website. In it, he apologizes for the “insensitive remarks” which he understands “could be construed as discriminatory by the public.”

The USTA and WTA have not always been swift to speak out on behalf of the Williams sisters. When Richard Williams reported that he and his daughters faced racist epithets at Indian Wells in 2001, the tournament director Charlie Pasarell replied that ‘those weren’t Indian Wells people.’ To be fair, that incident occurred before Stacey Allaster or Dave Haggerty were in leadership positions with the WTA and USTA, respectively. In reporting on Serena Williams’ response to Allaster’s fine, the New York Times’ Ben Rothenberg wrote that she “praised the swift and decisive action taken by the WTA.” If Serena can praise the actions of the WTA, that is good enough for me. Hopefully this incident and the swift responses of the WTA and USTA will serve to curb the thoughtless sexist (and racist) comments about female athletes at all levels.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨