Nick Kyrgios and Aryna Sabalenka “battled” it out last week, but there were few winners in the Dubai exhibition that utterly failed to hit its mark.
Let’s talk about the most recent “Battle of the Sexes” for a moment, shall we? Nick Kyrgios, who is semi-retired and ranked No. 671 in the world (but once made the final of Wimbledon) took on the current WTA world No. 1, Aryna Sabalenka. As you can see from the post on X below, the court was not the same size for both players. Kyrgios “won” 6-3, 6-3.
At first glance, it’s another in a long line of offseason publicity stunts designed to make money for promoters and athletes while leaving tennis pundits rolling our collective eyes.
Remember the half grass-half clay court they built for Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal?
Or the time they played on a floating tennis court in Doha?
At best, they were silly spectacles that captured the attention of the casual fan and traded on the ubiquitous popularity of the ATP’s most famous stars and their near-mythical rivalry. At worst it was a harmless, largely meaningless money grab for promoters.
The Battle of the Sexes, held on December 28, was none of those things. It wasn’t just a silly spectacle, it didn’t trade in on anyone’s ubiquitous popularity, and it was neither harmless nor meaningless. The only thing I’d agree to is that it was a cash grab. Was. It. Ever.
For context, in case you are unfamiliar with tennis history, we already had a Battle of the Sexes back in 1973. Billie Jean King, at age 28 and in her prime, took on Bobby Riggs, a 55 year-old chauvinist who was 22 years retired and spent his time denigrating women’s tennis at every opportunity. King won the exhibition in straight sets.
Did this prove that women and men ought to play against each other professionally? Of course it didn’t. What it did was provide a vehicle and a frame. That women’s tennis is not to be dismissed as “less than.” That a woman’s sporting event could draw an audience (a reported 50 million audience members, to be precise). That female professional athletes should be taken seriously. The first Battle of the Sexes did all of those things with the world watching.
This NEW battle of the sexes did nothing but set us back. What point did it prove? Nothing valuable – except to validate a thing that Serena Williams has said numerous times, which is that men’s and women’s tennis are different sports.
We have ALREADY ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS. Yes, women’s tennis is important. No, it doesn’t need to be compared to men’s tennis. It sure as hell doesn’t need to be contested against the ATP for some sort of validation.
Once upon a time, people believed otherwise. Not so anymore. When Serena was still playing professionally, she was the headliner. Not the WTA headliner — the legitimate U.S. Open prime time slot headliner. In short, the superstar of tennis was a woman. A brilliant tennis player, a marketing genius.
And instead of celebrating Coco Gauff picking up the Serena mantle, we have a match played on a court that was bigger on one side than the other and with the current world No. 1 losing to a largely unmotivated part-time commentator who doesn’t even like tennis.
Sorry. Is my disdain showing? How clumsy of me.
surprised Nick got 7 games against Kovacevic after what I saw in the BOTS
Just a grift. No idea why Saba played. I didn’t watch it although it was on the beeb.
Battle of the sexes is a silly demeaning headline…
Belated comment but totally agree with Cheryl. This was just so tawdry a spectacle. Pity the “competitors” couldn’t see it but then each have long displayed quite a number of classic narcissistic traits, so both their participation in this event and their brushing off of valid critiques aren’t surprising from that perspective, nor given the money-grubbing impulse.
It’s proven nothing about men’s versus women’s tennis. It’s just reflected badly on the willing participants, and brought the misogynistic trolls out of their caverns.