The not-so-progressive Roland Garros

 Watching the semi-final between Mirra Andreeva and Marta Kostyuk, I am struck by how they both have women coaches to whom they are not related (i.e., their mothers are not coaching them, though Kostyuk's mother was her coach until 2022). I wonder how often this happens? From my fairly faithful watching of tennis, I would guess not often. But I have not run the numbers.

I am also watching the Women's College World Series the final of which pits Texas against Texas Tech. I am not rooting for either team (I am just in it for the softball which has been good. I stopped having a favorite when UCLA was eliminated.) Both those teams feature men coaches. And no one talks about this, that I have heard anyway. (I am less faithful watcher of DI softball until regionals come around every May.) I know Texas coach Mike White is a former softball player, so at least he has played the game at a high level. 

And then there are the ongoing conversations in the WNBA this season about the behaviors of men who are in head coaching positions (half of WNBA teams are now coached by men). The Liberty have a new head coach, Chris Demarco, who has been fining payers for playing badly. The Liberty are not off to the best start this season. Also, probably not the best tactic given that I get the feeling the players were not so on board with the release of Sandy Brondello (now coaching the Toronto Tempo who did lose to the Liberty last night). Dallas's new head coach threw his team under the bus early in the season and called them selfish, i.e., everyone wanting to be a star and thus not playing effectively. There is some weirdness around Mercury coach Nate Tibbetts (not new) and his interactions with women head coaches in the league. Hard to tell whether there are trends and themes here or if my algorithm is influencing my thinking. Regardless, the memes gave been entertaining. 


Oops--this was supposed to be a post about Roland Garros--not coaching.

What I came here to say originally was: WTF Roland Garros? You do not schedule women in night matches? 

Night matches, or more accurately night sessions, are a fairly recent edition to the tournament, starting in 2021. There have been 61 night session matches in that time. Only five of those were women's matches, a fact I learned when Aryna Sabalenka and Naomi Osaka met for their night session match--the first women's match since 2023. The argument has been that organizers (more on that in a second) are worried the matches will be too short and thus not worthwhile for fans. Le sigh. 

This has never been an issue in NY for the US Open, though they always schedule two: a men's and a women's match which they rotate from night to night. Basically the French Open could come up with no excuses for why the Osaka-Sabalenka match should not be at night. Sinner, the man every tournament counts on, was out. Osaka's outfits were themselves newsmakers and Sabalenka was trying to avenge her loss in last year's final. Still, there were apparently "conversations" about it. 

And those conversations involved Amelie Mauresmo. Amelie Mauresmo is the tournament director now. Amelie Mauresmo the gay woman, who got a lot of critique for that in her playing days. Amelie Mauresmo who coached Andy Murray for a while. (<-- that's where my coaching tangent came from btw) Les sighs.  

Obviously sport and cultural beliefs and ideologies are mutually constitutive but gaps exist. The US Open, as mentioned, seems to make a concerted effort to think about gender equality when scheduling matches. It was the first Grand Slam to offer equal prize money in 1973. (Though such progressive acts did not really trickle over to other sports in the US and did not affect what the other tournaments did.) Wimbledon is often believed to be the hold out with equal prize money (see the documentary Venus Vs for more). But it was actually Roland Garros. Only after Wimbledon announced, in 2007, that it would offer equal prize money did RG acquiesce--seven weeks later. 

It is as if history has an effect on the present. 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why trans athletes?

In a continuation of my last post in which I crib from GLAD lawyer Jennifer Levi's thoughtful social media posts, I offer here an explanation of why and how trans athletes became the target of the right. First, I keep seeing left of center posts/headlines/discourse that highlight how few trans girls/women are competing in sports. I don't love this framing. The underlying premise of inclusion and access does not have a tipping point.  Perhaps what it is meant to show is how the right is weaponizing this issue. This is both reasonable and true but not really very profound in its assessment. Look at some of the groups and people doing the work of banning trans athletes and you will also see agendas which are racist, and anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic, and anti-LGB as well.  If I have not already recommended Judith Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender? (though I am pretty sure I have), go read it. Some of what Butler says is what Levi echoed in a recent posting contemplating the...
Read more

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX] The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams.  The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at.  This is the synopsis at the top of the press release:  Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses. But it is not accurate.  The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's...
Read more

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports.  [I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog .] I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of ...
Read more