On the comeback of mothers on the WTA
While watching Serena play at
Indian Wells, it struck me that, although she is eligible to enter up to 8
tournaments using her special ranking of number 1, she is nonetheless
technically playing at Indian Wells as an unseeded, unranked player despite winning
the Australian Open only last year so regaining the number 1 spot, whilst in the
very early stages of pregnancy. I was surprised and shocked because having
children is a normal occurrence and, I think, should entitle women to come back
to their original spot in the world rankings ie Serena should have returned as joint
number 1 with Halep. This would also enable her to be seeded in tournaments
because seeding is dependent on actual, official world ranking so a special
ranking doesn’t give you a seeding. Serena hasn’t even been away from the tour
for that long, in the scale of things, and is returning quickly after a
complicated childbirth.
The current system places
maternity in the same category as an injured player, which I think is a
category error. This means that their ranking falls dramatically during their
maternity leave so they cannot come back to the same place in the world rankings
as they were when they started their pregnancy leave. This, I think, is
unacceptable and in any other job would be looked upon as an unacceptable
demotion. On returning to competition, this means that the player must attempt
to regain their original ranking by using their old ranking (that they no
longer possess) to gain entry into 8 tournaments in a year (including 2 Grand
Slams, 2 mandatory tournaments, and 4 others) albeit playing as an unseeded
player (which means they can be given a tough draw, making it hard to use this
as an opportunity to regain their momentum and ranking). So returning mothers
have a harder time in the draw since higher ranked players don’t meet each
other until the later stages of the tournament, by and large. Pregnancy itself
is stressful enough without also having to worry about your ranking.
We can see this somewhat with
Serena. Despite being number 1 in the world rankings and being a record holding
grand slam winner, on returning from maternity leave she hasn’t kept her old ranking.
Worse still, taking time out to have a baby means she has lost her world
ranking altogether and is now an unranked player. So, despite being the best in
the world, she has gone from number 1 to unranked in a little over a year,
simply because she had an unexpected pregnancy. However, because Serena is a
Grand Slam winner, according to Sportypeek, she may be entitled to unlimited
wildcard main draw nominations to enter tournaments:
Sportypeek base this on a rule in
the 2017 WTA handbook. It’s complicated and there’s many sub-clauses and
exceptions. But I have tried to look at the 2018 rule book, where I found the
clauses they mention, although now on slightly different pages from the 2017
edition. It’s very dense. The term ‘special ranking’ comes up over 80 times!
The full Rulebook is available
at:
These extra wildcards would help
but still mean she is having to work her way up to the number 1 spot in the
actual world rankings. Furthermore, if another player were in her position but
were not a past Grand Slam champion, then they would have huge pressure to be
very successful in those 8 tournaments because they do not automatically have
the back-up option of unlimited wildcard main draw nominations.
All this, I think, is a system
failure. A woman in Serena’s circumstances shouldn’t be in the difficult
position of trying to calculate how to amass enough points and wins merely to get
back to where she was just over a year ago. This is despite Serena taking very
little time off altogether and returning to the WTA tour only 6 months after a
traumatic birth which entailed many health complications for her. Pregnancy is
not in any way analogous to being injured so I think should have its own
separate rules including for special rankings status. When Serena became
pregnant, she was perfectly fit for competition so why should she have the same
disadvantages as players whose bodies have become unfit and unable to compete?
Although I think being injured or ill shouldn’t entail quickly backsliding down
the rankings because this doesn’t reflect the reality of being an athlete where
injuries are commonplace or parallel what we think of as fair in other areas of
work. Taking sick leave doesn’t mean that you can’t return to your job but have
to take up a role several ranks below the one you had previously. Imagine if the
world of business functioned like that of tennis. Imagine, if you will, how
ludicrous it would seem if a person in middle management returns to work after
sick leave and finds they return to an entry level job! They then have to work
their way up again to the level they were at previously, prior to sick leave
before being able to make further progress in their career. Or imagine a
pregnant woman returns to her work as a university professor after maternity
leave only to be told she is now a post-doctorate entry level lecturer with the
job insecurity that goes with it. She would only be able to take a limited
amount of star turns as a professor until she works her way back up again to
supervising PhD students and having the role and pay of a professor again. This
imaginary professor would quite rightly have a fit and call in her union to
protect her women’s and workers’ rights! Yet we see nothing wrong with placing
female athletes in this position or a version of it. None of their past
achievements really count except if you are a Grand Slam winner and there
aren’t many of those. However, Grand Slam winners still do not return to the
tour with the same status as they left. So mothers on the WTA merely start all
over again in a variety of ways. This is serious both at the lower and higher
levels of the game. At the lower end of the game, it must seem a hopeless task
to climb back up to a ranking that was hard to come by and took years of hard
work to acquire. Also the special ranking rule only comes into force if you are
in the top 300 for singles or top 200 for doubles. This means you are under
undue stress to return before you are ready so risking injury or worsening your
health.
At the top, for instance, in
Serena’s case, the system is making it harder for her to gain more titles,
Grand Slams and break more records than it would have been had she never become
pregnant. This I think constitutes gender bias because it is penalising her for
being a female of childbearing age. This bias and gender gap widens severely
the lower the ranking is of the pregnant player concerned. Federer cannot become pregnant so the only
obstacle he has is staying fit and healthy, which is also somewhat under his
control. Hence it is unfair because while Serena couldn’t play while pregnant
or recovering from giving birth and the complications that resulted from it,
his future status and title opportunities (including seedings and so favourable
draws) remains constant. So not only could he carry on winning more titles and
Grand Slams during the time she was out of the game, he retains the same
opportunities to do so in the future. Federer is a father of four, 2 sets of
twins! But this does not impact on his career. It is up to the male players
whether they take paternity leave and how long for but that’s not the case for
women. Federer chose to return after 5 days of paternity leave because he
needed to defend 600 points. If he didn’t, another player would overtake him.
So the ATP tour equally doesn’t support fathers fully so they can spend time
with their partners/wives and newborn babies.
A special maternity rule, I
think, should also factor in pregnancy related issues, not just be a one-size
fits all, time out rule.
If there are medical
complications from pregnancy and or childbirth, this should be accounted for
with players of all rankings. There are already special rules concerning
medical issues on the tour. For instance, you notify the tour of any medical
issues you have then certain exemptions apply.
A debate that arose last year was
why the ATP circuit provides crèche facilities for male players whereas the WTA
does not and, as far as I am aware, has no plans to introduce them. Cara Black
championed the introduction of creches at all WTA tournaments last year:
Other players have also called
for the same childcare facilities the men have on the ATP tour and for more
support given to mothers on the WTA tour:
This is clear bias that’s making
it harder for mothers to return to the tour and possibly squeezing many into
early retirement unnecessarily meaning they either leave the game or have a
very tough comeback as an unranked or much lower ranked player. That’s
unnecessary and detrimental because it’ll limit the records, titles etc. any
individual player can achieve. Hence, there are more than four times as many
dads on the tour as mothers on the WTA. And the solution is not to try to
retire players at a young age. Some players don’t win a Grand Slam until they
are older eg Schiavone was 30 yrs old when she won her first Grand Slam title
at Roland Garros making her the first Italian woman to win a Grand Slam title.
What an important achievement!
In golf, Laura Davis is playing
on the main tour at the age of 54 and only last week was tied runner up at a
major golf tournament, Bank of Hope Founders Cup. It’s her 32nd year
on the tour! We also shouldn’t put pressure on older athletes to retire as soon
as they are not winning all the time. It’s Laura’s best result for 11 years so
it was worth her carrying on and we are all delighted she is still there and
keen to win majors. Laura is an awesome golfing legend!
Here’s a great interview with
Laura:
Here’s a video of one of her
amazing shots during the tournament (achieving an eagle which is an extremely
difficult thing to pull off)
Not to mention, there are sports
people playing competitively well past the age of 80 eg Lisa Modlich:
I think Azarenka’s situation
demonstrates a further aspect of maternity that needs to be factored in, making
the long-term injury approach unworkable. She is now ranked at around 204, as a
result of being limited by a custody battle as to how many tournaments she can
play because she was told she couldn’t leave California with her baby and she
doesn’t want to tour without him. The battle is very protracted which is
adversely affecting her comeback. If she had protected ranking and returned to
the ranking she had when she became pregnant this would have helped because it
would mean she could enter more tournaments automatically and be seeded. This
situation shouldn’t be allowed to occur. However, since the law has struggled
to resolve the dilemma swiftly, the WTA needs to have something in place so
they can quickly respond sympathetically and flexibly enough to step in and
alleviate some of her concerns about this career interruption eg give her a
seeding in Grand Slams and compulsory tournaments eg Indian Wells, Miami.
And flexibility in alleviating
concerns should not just apply to those at the top. For example, non-Grand Slam
winners in Azarenka’s problematic custody battle situations should be guaranteed
wildcards to enter main draws for as many tournaments as they want to compete
in for at least 1 year. I’m sure some would argue that this causes a squeeze in
availability of wildcards for young players or those returning from injury but I
think when a case is exceptionally severe it should be accommodated so that
players’ welfare is protected. The tour should not feel like yet another battle
ground, adding to already stressful circumstances, especially when they
experience circumstances outside of their control.
A simple gesture like the one
I’ve suggested from the WTA to encourage her on her comeback could make both a
massive practical and emotional/psychological difference to Azarenka. It would
also send out a positive message to other players and to tennis fans that the
WTA does all it can to make the tour a welcoming place for returning mothers. I
think this would create a fairer system and be in line with Halep’s sentiment
that although she is number 1 in the world, she sees Serena as still being the
world number 1. I think we all agree with her and it’s very gracious and
sportswoman-like for Halep to state it publically.
Comments
Post a Comment