Tag 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.

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. ✨