Martina Navratilova and the Gender Equality Pay Gap Controversy
Recently, I was shocked by a TV
documentary (made in the UK and aired last month) in which Martina Navratilova
disclosed she was only paid one tenth (£15,000), or maybe even less, than John McEnroe
(£150,000 minimum) for commentating at the Wimbledon Championships. For those
who can access the BBC’s iplayer service, here’s a link to watch the programme.
It is available to watch for the rest of 2018.
To say I was outraged is an
understatement. I don’t accept any of the excuses given. In my opinion, there
is no excuse.
·
Martina Navratilova is by far and away the more
experienced and successful tennis player of the two. At Wimbledon she has won 9
singles titles, six of which were won consecutively, the only one to achieve
this! In comparison, John McEnroe has won 3 singles Wimbledon titles.
·
Navratilova is one of those rare women to have a
Grand Slam ‘boxed set’! McEnroe has never won the Australian or French Open (best
achievements for McEnroe were semi-finalist at Australian Open in 1983, runner
up at French Open 1984.) To compare McEnroe with another male player, Jimmy
Connors holds 3 Grand Slam singles titles in a calendar year (1974) something
McEnroe did not achieve, within a calendar year or not, given that he only won
titles at two out of the four Grand Slam tournaments.
·
Navratilova’s career titles are numerous – 167
singles titles, 177 doubles titles! In contrast, McEnroe has only 77 career singles
titles and 78 career doubles titles. This is significantly less than Jimmy Connors
who has won 109 singles titles, making him the only man to reach 100 singles
titles or more. So he’s the greater expert of the two men if we are going to go
by expertise.
Navratilova’s incredibly
successful tennis career and her status as a record-breaking legend is relevant
because it is argued in the programme that the media is a “talent business” so
talent, amongst other related things, are taken into account when deciding pay1.
So why is Navratilova’s talent not being valued, rewarded and taken into
consideration? Other than, unlike for female newsreaders for whom it’s harder
to objectively prove they are more talented, in Martina Navratilova’s case, the
talent factor would clearly be in her favour given it is objectively provable
through her tennis career statistics. Nevertheless, I think talent is a
problematic criteria for pay scales. One, talent is not part of the Equality
Act so is not a relevant legal claim for any field of work, so the media would
not be an exception to this. Quite the contrary, the Act emphasises valuing men
and women’s work equally so implicitly tries to prevent consistently valuing
the perceived talents of men higher than women. Two, talent is well-known to be
prone to gender bias and subjectivity. Men are commonly perceived to be more
talented than women at just about everything, which is stereotyping in itself. Three,
talent is not only within the media business, it goes across the board and applies
to all fields of work.
The main excuse given in reply to
Martina Navratilova was that she is on a different contract from John McEnroe which
entails different commitments. Hence, it was argued, the pay discrepancy
reflects the difference in work. However, I don’t think this justifies the
situation, for a number of reasons, three of which I discuss here.
One, as pointed out in the
documentary by lawyer Linda Wong2, the equal pay law in the UK is
not as simple as ‘same pay for same work’ because other things are taken into
consideration, for instance, not just conditions of work but also decision-making.
This intrigued me so I took a closer look at the clauses of the Equality Act,
namely the section on equal pay (all references in this post to the Equality
Act available here):
I found that the phrase ‘same
work’ has many definitions, not just ‘identical’ because it should be taken in
the sense of ‘comparable work’. See the Sex Equality section, under subsection 65
Equal Work. Here we see that ‘equal’ encompasses “like”, including merely “broadly
similar”, “rated as equivalent”, “of equal value”.
This term is so broad that it
even encompasses different jobs involving different skills because the
assessment of what constitutes comparable work involves considering the man’s
and woman’s job as being of comparable worth. Hence, it was argued by Wong in
the programme that a woman working on the shop floor (tills and displays, jobs
mostly done by women) should be paid equally to men working in the
male-dominated world of distribution and storage. So, on this account, I think
it is easy to see that Martina Navratilova and John McEnroe’s jobs are
extremely comparable, given that they are both working in the same type of job
(commentating), at the same tournament (Wimbledon) and for the same TV Company
(BBC). Navratilova is demonstrating at least the same level, if not higher, “effort,
skill and decision-making” as McEnroe, which is a relevant factor cited in the
Equality Act, 65 (6) (b).
Two, the difference in time
commitment and amount of air time they receive, as outlined in their contracts,
merely shows that John McEnroe is on a more favourable contract than Martina
Navratilova. But the question should be:
why is he given a more favourable contract? Martina Navratilova did ask if she
was being paid the same as the men and it seems that the answer she received
was economical with the truth. She was given the impression that the pay was
the same. In fact, this did not equate to receiving the same amount of money
per day, but rather this was only in relation to their different types of
contracts which gives them unequal opportunities for earning the same money,
meaning they receive very different amounts. As I understand the equal pay law,
this may be an unacceptable and relevant gender bias in itself. The equal pay
law does take account of favouring one gender over another. If I understand Section
66 (2) correctly, it suggests that sex equality means that eg if a woman has
less favourable terms than a man, her terms of work should be modified so they correspond
to each other. This attempts to combat sex disadvantage. So, if it was never
discussed with Martina whether she’d like the opportunity to have the same
contract, including all the extra hours and commitments to go with it, then it may
constitute a form of discrimination. She’s getting paid less because the BBC
decided against giving her the opportunity to have a comparable contract to her
male counterpart. And, on her raising her dissatisfaction with her pay and
contract, surely it would be more in line with the Equality Act to offer to
amend her contract so McEnroe does not have more favourable terms than her. Furthermore,
I think it is hard to justify why the more favourable contract did not go to
the best person for the job, given that she is the more talented,
knowledgeable, experienced and successful tennis player of the two (which
counts as relevant experience and transferable skills for commentating). So, I
think Martina Navratilova should be on a more favourable contract which would
mean doing more commentating for the BBC because it would seem that, at the
moment, she is given far less opportunities than John McEnroe to do so. And she
should also be paid the kind of money John McEnroe has been given for doing
this.
Three, trying to claim that he is
seen as the greater expert and is more valued than her is certainly not an
excuse either, it’s an insult! Especially given their tennis career records,
there can be no objective basis for this perception so is underpinned by gender
bias and stereotype. Are people, whoever they are, merely perceiving the male
as more expert and more valuable through gender bias and gender stereotypes
about men’s and women’s authority, skills and intelligence? Valuing men’s work
as being worth more than women’s is a common gender bias and has always been
part of the pay gap problem, whether within the same profession or between
gender stereotypical professions. High profile companies especially should not
be normalising and perpetuating gender bias, including perceptions about
capabilities. It is also very subjective and a leading question to ask who is
the greater expert because some may come to believe that John McEnroe is the
greater expert in virtue of him receiving more visibility (eg coverage and air
space) rather than because they truly think that or would think that if he were
treated the same as other commentators. It’s also strange that he is given such
privileges, given his behaviour on and off the court over the years. This also
belies a gender bias in itself because it is yet another example of a man being
free to behave as badly as he wants yet is professionally rewarded, exonerated
and excused and given top jobs. While a woman who is more experienced,
qualified and generally more suitable for the role, taking her work seriously,
is denied the same opportunities, respect, reputation, professional rewards and
pay to go with it.
There are also the same amount of
women’s matches as men’s matches throughout the tournament so we should hear women
commentating in equal number. Otherwise, if commentators’ contracts favour men
having more airtime and they commentate on both women’s and men’s matches, then
we are overwhelmingly receiving men’s views on tennis and male and female
players’ matches.
In addition, male commentators
have been known to express negative views and propagate gender bias about women
players and the women’s game which devalue women’s work and image so
contributing to and sustaining gender bias and stereotypes within society.
However, although some women have been known to go-along with gender biased attitudes
about women players, they never generate gender stereotypes and biases about
male players or the men’s game which devalue men’s work or image. For instance,
John McEnroe has made uncomplimentary comparisons between the men’s and women’s
game, claiming the record-breaking female number 1, Serena Williams, would only
rank around 700 in the world on the men’s tour while he would rank in the top
500 on the women’s tour and be able to beat her, despite his age and years in
retirement! This is highly arrogant of him and illogical because if he were
able to predictably beat the world number 1 he would have a higher ranking than
somewhere in the top 500!! Unless he was being economical with the truth and
only taking on Serena while she was pregnant in which case he might have a slim
chance of beating her before she gives birth! I don’t remember any equivalent
remarks from women commentators about men yet they would be justified, on
scientific grounds, to do so. For instance, women are claimed by science to
have greater stamina than men, while men only have short bursts of energy
earlier on in an activity before it decreases as the activity continues.
For an article summarizing this
stamina gap between women and men showing that women outlast men whether the
activity is dynamic (eg running) or static (eg lifting weights), see:
This article also shows that we
should not place restrictions on women’s capabilities and success. After all it’s
only relatively recently that women were seen as capable of running marathons
at all! So how many more biased assumptions and false beliefs do we still hold
about women’s physical capabilities?
Despite this stamina gap, we don’t
see anyone using this scientific research to women’s benefit or credit. For
instance, it is never argued that this means that it’s the women who should be playing
5 sets not the men or that women would beat men in a 5 set match because the
man would wilt over the course of the match. Quite the contrary, women still
never play 5 sets on the tour because it is seen as too much for them. This
biased view is unscientific! So, given there is more gender bias about the
opposite sex in men’s commentating than in women’s, it follows that if anyone
should be commentating on the opposite sex, it should be women covering men’s
matches (as well as the women’s matches!)
Such negative attitudes towards
women in sport also contribute to girls being hesitant to go into sport if
they are going to be on the receiving end of such prejudiced views which will
affect their self-esteem. Surely this negative attitude harms girls’ career
choices and goes against the spirit of the Equality Act (2010) which calls for
valuing everyone’s work equally, regardless of their gender identity.
As the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘Mind
the Gender Pay Gap’ states in their programme summary:
“In 1918 Millicent Fawcett wrote,
'I can see no reason why the principle of equal pay for equal work should not
in the course of a few years find an almost universal acceptance'. Many of the
early feminist campaigners, like Fawcett, believed that from women's suffrage
would follow equal rights for women, including equal pay, yet one hundred years
on, despite having full voting rights, women still struggle with the gender pay
gap. Most people agree with the concept of equal pay, so why has it been so
difficult to accomplish in practice?” http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09v32jk
In the spirit of this, it is
unacceptable to continue the pay gap and discrepancy of employment
opportunities and contracts between commentators in 2018, especially since we
are commemorating 100 years of women gaining the vote in the UK this year. Yet 100
years after Millicent Fawcett hoped the equal pay problem would be resolved, not
only does it continue but we are still finding excuses rather than apologies
when gender discrepancies are uncovered and called out.
In the year of the historic
unveiling of the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, let’s not
just pay the Wimbledon tennis players the same prize money, but extend the
principle of equal pay and equal media coverage to the men and women commentating
on these matches! I hope this Wimbledon 2018 sees this discrepancy of pay put right
and that Navratilova is as visible as her male counterpart on TV, giving us,
the viewers, the opportunity to listen to her voice, her opinions as well as
learn from her vast knowledge and experience!! Time for Wimbledon to #PressforProgress!
1 22.49mins into the
programme available at:
2 ibid 12mins onwards
Disclaimer: This post does not
constitute legal advice and merely constitutes the opinion of the author.
Comments
Post a Comment