Wimbledon's Bias on Centre Court

marc45

G.O.A.T.
Wimbledon 'has made no progress' on male bias on top show courts

Exclusive: research finds significantly more men’s than women’s tennis seen on Centre and No 1 since 1993

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...as-on-top-show-courts-tennis?CMP=share_btn_tw

Haroon Siddique

Fri 22 Jun 2018

Wimbledon is behind the times when it comes to gender parity with a distinct lack of progress on affording women equal time on the championships’ main show courts over the past 25 years, it has been claimed.

The novelist, campaigner and tennis fan Mark Leyland found that in every year from 1993 to 2017 more men’s than women’s matches were scheduled on Centre and No 1 courts with an average of 61% men’s and 39% women’s matches.

Taking into account that men’s matches are longer than women’s, it suggests that two-and-a-half times more men’s than women’s play has been seen on these courts during the period covered, he says – and the discrepancy shows little sign of narrowing.

Leyland calculated last year’s split as 58% to 32% in favour of men. He had released research before the tournament showing an overwhelming gender bias in 2015 and 2016.

His latest research, shared exclusively with the Guardian, examines the imbalance over a longer period. To illustrate the lack of progress, Leyland highlights the case of the women’s No 4 seed, Elina Svitolina, who played four matches without ever being scheduled on a main show court last year, while the men’s eighth seed, Dominic Thiem, played his first three matches on No 1 Court.

He said: “The 2017 movie Battle of the Sexes portrays representatives of the 1970s world tennis authorities trying to justify vastly different levels of prize money by claiming that men’s play was more exciting and better to watch. The authorities at Wimbledon make no such claims to justify their own inequitable system, insisting that they value fairness and do not intentionally favour the men.

“They persist in blaming the imbalance on the complexities of a system which has long since achieved equality at the other grand slam tournaments, an argument which defies all logic. But it may be felt that their actions, in scheduling more men’s than women’s matches on their main show courts every year for more than a quarter of a century, speak louder than their words.”

After Leyland’s analysis was published before last year’s tournament, there was more controversy when, on the second Monday, all four men’s matches were scheduled for the main show courts but only two of four women’s matches. That prompted Andy Murray to join those calling for an equal split.

The latest statistics have been published as Serena Williams, winner of 23 grand slam singles titles, prepares to return to the tournament, which starts on Monday 2 July, for the first time since giving birth.

Williams and her sister, Venus, winner of seven grand slam titles, have complained in the past of being relegated to smaller courts and Leyland’s analysis suggests they were right to be disgruntled.

He found that in the decade from 2007 to 2016, over the first four rounds, Roger Federer played 31 times on Centre Court (84% of his matches), six times on No 1 Court (16%) and never anywhere else. By contrast, Serena Williams played 18 times (55%) on Centre, seven times (21%) on No 1, and on eight occasions (24%) on the much smaller Courts 2 or 3.

Since first winning the tournament in 2003, Federer has never had any match scheduled anywhere but the main show courts, while Serena Williams, who first won in 2002, has often been scheduled elsewhere, he said.

On only two occasions since 1995 have either the men’s No 1 or No 2 been scheduled to play elsewhere than on a main show court – Goran Ivanisevic and Andy Roddick in 1997 and 2004 respectively, both years that were severely affected by rain, Leyland found. By contrast, there was only one occasion (2000) when the top two women’s seeds played all their six first-week matches on the main courts.

A spokeswoman for the All England Lawn Tennis Club said it had not seen the latest analysis in detail but claimed previous analyses had offered an incomplete representation of scheduling.

She added: “It is fair to say that the expectation of the public has tended to be one of the most important considerations when scheduling matches, particularly regarding Centre and No 1 Courts, and this has been exacerbated in a current golden era of men’s tennis.

“However, these expectations are changing as the eras of tennis change. The scheduling at the championships will reflect this over time, and there will be variations from year to year depending on the way the draw falls.”
 
tenor.gif
 
All i know is, to protect their grass as long as possible (already not doing a great job) they only put on 3 matches a day instead of 4 like the other Majors do, and if I had been through the elitist country club ******** that they put you through to get a ticket I wouldn't want half my time on Centre to comprise of two 50 minute womens matches.
 
Am sure I will be under attack after this post , but still would like to continue and ask whether Roger would have won 8 wimbledons if his matches were scheduled on other courts???? Hell No would be my answer
 
Am sure I will be under attack after this post , but still would like to continue and ask whether Roger would have won 8 wimbledons if his matches were scheduled on other courts???? Hell No would be my answer

It depends, some of the smaller courts have more grass than the CC so probably he would have even more Wimbys!
 
It depends, some of the smaller courts have more grass than the CC so probably he would have even more Wimbys!
But then isn't former court no 1 a graveyard for former champions????? He never ever played there if am not wrong. This is bias at its worst.
 
It's what the fans want. They're not arranging it like this for nothing, or as part of some conspiracy to screw over the women just because they feel like it.
Men's sport is more popular because generally speaking it's a superior product. In fact tennis is incredibly equal compared to most sports, but still people complain.

It's market forces and that's that. The women already have equal pay, deservingly or not. Isn't there anything better to whine about today?
 
Would be fun, and right.

I don't see doctors, lawyers, salesmen divided by gender.

Women get an INSANE benefit from having gender-segregation in pro tennis.

And not only that, they pretty much do the best $$-wise of all pro sports because they are often playing at the same venues as the men and they play at similar times so they get to piggyback on marketing. (They are also some of the most attractive athletes in women's pro sports, so I will give them that).

So frankly any criticism of slight differences in total gender equality fall on deaf ears with me. You don't like it, try to make it on the men's tour. Now THAT's true equality.
 
Loll! It isn't tradition my Friend , it is called bias, unfair partiality etc etc

Nadal gets unfair partiality every single time he serves except for maybe a couple of ocasions in his entire playing career. Oh he gets this every where not just Wimbledon.
 
Nadal gets unfair partiality every single time he serves except for maybe a couple of ocasions in his entire playing career. Oh he gets this every where not just Wimbledon.
This has been discussed upteentimes on TT, but for a change, you fed fans for atleast one time in your life speak about about the unfair bias Fed gets in tournaments???? No you can't.... You must have heart to accept the fact
 
This has been discussed upteentimes on TT, but for a change, you fed fans for atleast one time in your life speak about about the unfair bias Fed gets in tournaments???? No you can't.... You must have heart to accept the fact

Top players get top billing and when there's a conflict the player considered more box office gets top billing. Federer like all top stars earn top billing so there's nothing unfair about it. He's earned it and based on results at 75% of slams he'll more than likely be the top attraction.
 
Am sure I will be under attack after this post , but still would like to continue and ask whether Roger would have won 8 wimbledons if his matches were scheduled on other courts???? Hell No would be my answer
I don't see any reason why he would have lost more on the other courts tbh. so I don't know what you're on about. Federer plays on the CC because he's the most popular player whom most people want to see.
 
Always trying to deviating discussios , this is what your entire life is in a nutshell.
Looks as if I may owe you an apology.

It would appear from your post that English is your 2nd language. I shouldn't expect you to understand what words like deviate actually mean.

Also. Thanks awfully for defining the meaning of my life. I had started to wonder a little.
 
I don't see any reason why he would have lost more on the other courts tbh. so I don't know what you're on about. Federer plays on the CC because he's the most popular player whom most people want to see.

Grass is grass. At Wimbledon there's no difference in how the grass plays from court to court. There's also basically no difference between Centre Court and Court 1, which are the 2 main joint show courts. Court 2 is also pretty big.
 
Also, to all the people advocating for a tour with no gender distinction (possibly as a joke), surely you know that it doesn't make sense any more than it makes sense for boxing to get rid of weight classes. Women can't help the fact that they have physiological differences that make it impossible for them to compete with men in almost all sports at the top level.

As someone who is never going to go to Wimbledon to see it live, I don't really care who plays on what court. I will watch more men's matches anyway.
 
Also, to all the people advocating for a tour with no gender distinction (possibly as a joke), surely you know that it doesn't make sense any more than it makes sense for boxing to get rid of weight classes. Women can't help the fact that they have physiological differences that make it impossible for them to compete with men in almost all sports at the top level.

As someone who is never going to go to Wimbledon to see it live, I don't really care who plays on what court. I will watch more men's matches anyway.

But I'm not advocating that flyweights make as much money or box as many HBO main events as Heavyweights.

Yet women's tennis fans are doing the functional equivalent to that.
 
How is this even a topic? Women earn almost as much as men and this is mostly thanks to the males!!! Since Fedal, the prize money went 100-300% and being in a ****y "everything needs to be equal and fair" era they cant increase just the ATP prize pool, they have to include the WTA.
Even after all that, there are still people who claim that women are somehow threated infairly.... If you put Federer on court 198 and Serena on centre court at the same time, the later would be half empty while people would seat in each others laps to watch Roger. Stop wasting energy for over the top topics just so you can complain for something.
 
It's what the fans want. They're not arranging it like this for nothing, or as part of some conspiracy to screw over the women just because they feel like it.
Men's sport is more popular because generally speaking it's a superior product. In fact tennis is incredibly equal compared to most sports, but still people complain.

It's market forces and that's that. The women already have equal pay, deservingly or not. Isn't there anything better to whine about today?

There's your thread ender. I'll say the same thing I said yesterday. Nobody watches the WNBA when they can watch Lebron or Steph Curry instead.

I don't even see the big deal quite frankly. Men and women are different. More people need to accept that. Men are better athletes in general. Women are more likely to be nurses or primary school teachers etc.... It's just the way it is.
 
Looks as if I may owe you an apology.

It would appear from your post that English is your 2nd language. I shouldn't expect you to understand what words like deviate actually mean.

Also. Thanks awfully for defining the meaning of my life. I had started to wonder a little.

You’re new in here. At some point you’ll bump into @stringertom - English isn’t his first language. Or his second. It’s anyone’s guess. Fifth? Eight? Ninth?

Really, he just casts letters your direction and you have to put them in some order. In a way it’s quite impressive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your ideas come out of the ark ... it's just the way it is.
There's your thread ender. I'll say the same thing I said yesterday. Nobody watches the WNBA when they can watch Lebron or Steph Curry instead.

I don't even see the big deal quite frankly. Men and women are different. More people need to accept that. Men are better athletes in general. Women are more likely to be nurses or primary school teachers etc.... It's just the way it is.
 
The problem with these analyses is that they assume equality must mean equal along every conceivable parameter.

I can't see why it should mean this.

The test for placing matches on courts should be one that centres on the potential excitement of and interest in the match.

Bias means systematically selecting matches based on gender rather than the qualities of the match.

Needless to say, it is an error simply to impute bias based on the absence of statistical equality.

As long as there are women involved in such considerations and care is taken to eliminate any bias then I can't see any problem.

A 60/40 split in terms of the more important courts seems reasonable.
The novelist, campaigner and tennis fan Mark Leyland found that in every year from 1993 to 2017 more men’s than women’s matches were scheduled on Centre and No 1 courts with an average of 61% men’s and 39% women’s matches.

Taking into account that men’s matches are longer than women’s, it suggests that two-and-a-half times more men’s than women’s play has been seen on these courts during the period covered, he says – and the discrepancy shows little sign of narrowing.

Leyland calculated last year’s split as 58% to 32% in favour of men. He had released research before the tournament showing an overwhelming gender bias in 2015 and 2016.

He found that in the decade from 2007 to 2016, over the first four rounds, Roger Federer played 31 times on Centre Court (84% of his matches), six times on No 1 Court (16%) and never anywhere else. By contrast, Serena Williams played 18 times (55%) on Centre, seven times (21%) on No 1, and on eight occasions (24%) on the much smaller Courts 2 or 3.
 
Last edited:
The problem with these analyses is that they assume equality must mean equal along every conceivable parameter.

I can't see why it should mean this.

The test for placing matches on courts should be one that centres on the potential excitement of the match.

Bias means systematically selecting matches based on gender rather than the qualities of the match.

Needless to say, it is an error simply to impute bias based on the absence of statistical equality.

As long as there are women involved in such considerations and care is taken to eliminate any bias then I can't see any problem.

A 60/40 split in terms of the more important courts seems reasonable.

The test for putting matches on courts should be how many seats are going to sell. This isnt a charity.
 
The test for putting matches on courts should be how many seats are going to sell. This isnt a charity.

It isn’t and you’d be right.

It’s about equality.

And if you believe equality is best measured in monitory value it’s an argument that, to say the least, could use some refining.
 
It isn’t and you’d be right.

It’s about equality.

And if you believe equality is best measured in monitory value it’s an argument that, to say the least, could use some refining.

As long as you are arguing that two unseeded mens players should play on centre court while Roger plays on Court 16 in the first round
 
As long as you are arguing that two unseeded mens players should play on centre court while Roger plays on Court 16 in the first round

You’ve removed women from the conversation, all of them.

The best WTA matches and ATP matches are on somewhat equal footing. Something we ascribe to as a value or we don’t.
 
You’ve removed women from the conversation, all of them.

The best WTA matches and ATP matches are on somewhat equal footing. Something we ascribe to as a value or we don’t.

I dont ascribe any value

People buying the tickets do

At the US Open they have bumped top mens players down for Serena for example
 
Back
Top