Why is Maria more marketable than Serena? You make some excellent points although I do disagree with you about the racism not being a factor. Racism is a factor although as you pointed out it is not the only factor. In the past, tennis has appealed to a specific demographics. It was usually viewed as a sport for the upper-middle class to wealthy white demographic groups. Many of the advertisers still try to appeal to those groups, although that is changing. Maria's looks does fit the type of people they want to buy their products. This does not eliminate the racism issue however, but it does show that it is not the only factor.federberg said:sk310 said:GameSetAndMath said:I am not claiming that there is no racism in America. I was just trying to dig deeper into the cause of why Serena is making less money.
You are talking about businesses marketing sportspersons. I doubt they do, at least not for the sake of the sportsperson involved. Businesses are basically trying to use the popularity of the sportsperson to peddle their goods. If they think that somebody is sufficiently popular and will be able to peddle their goods, they will go for that person (even if that person is famous just for being famous).
This is not so much about racism and more about sexism in my opinion. In Men's sports, tpically whomever is performing well gets the adulation independent of their looks etc. On the other hand, when it comes to Women's sports, the adulation goes to best combination of "looks" (a subjective biased opinion) and performance. Is not it the very same reason why Wimbledon typically wants to
put female players with good looks on center court. I am not saying this is justified. But, I am saying the primary reason here is more of sexism than racism and the double standards shown w.r.t. Men's and Women's sports.
I get what you're saying but there's a clear difference you're ignoring. Businesses don't grab onto someone only when they're an established star. Businesses make a judgement call and then ride the wave up. Sharapova was marketed by businesses massively almost as soon as she burst on the scene. The same situation with Tiger Woods. I agree sexism absolutely is at play. Just look at the numbers if Sharapova is only earning in the 20 millions and Federer in the 50s-70s then there's obviously a long way to go on that front also. Still you'd be blind to say that racism isn't at play. When you have a woman who has been chasing history in tennis since 1999 and is the winningest player of her generation and then you have a player who has only won 5 grand slams and earns twice the amount in endorsements and you say it's not about race you're ignoring the big black elephant in the room.
Very interesting discussion. 2 separate issues really.
1, Why is Sharapova perceived as more marketable than Serena? I think this is simple really, and I don't think it's racism as such. Marketers pick their demographic, and like it or now, they believe that a tall blonde beauty is more marketable than an athletic black beauty. For my tastes I find Serena physically more attractive than Sharapova. I don't particularly like either of their personalities, although I prefer Serena's I think she is a naturally more sporting/fair person than Sharapova. Unless marketers come to believe that society is as accepting of black beauty as caucasian, this isn't going to change any time soon. Why would it? There are far more wealthy caucasians than there are black.
2, Why do the women earn less money than the men? First of all... on an absolute basis the men are better athletes. That's just a fact. I'm sure if Serena played 2 sets against Novak she'll do well to even get a game. For that reason male sports will always be considered "superior" to female sports. I also believe that for this reason other considerations come into the marketing of female sports stars, i.e., aesthetics/ looks. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm merely trying to offer up an explanation. This also goes some way to explaining why there is a tendency to want to put the top males on the show courts rather than the top women. I'm not going to lie to you... I've been invited to more corporate sporting events than I care to remember. Including being given an option to watch women's semifinals day or mens semifinals day. There wasn't even a discussion in my mind. I picked the mens. I also prefer ATP to WTA generally, because the quality of the tennis is superior. Funnily enough I didn't feel this way back in the days between Sampras and Federer. I watched far more WTA then than ATP, as it was far more competitive. So it's not a permanent state of mind for me, I just go with the entertainment and quality level.
Why do the women earn less than the men? In the slams I believe that they earn the same amount unless I am mistaken? In terms of playing less tennis, that only occurs in the slams, which accounts for only 4 of the events on the tennis calendar. For the other 30+ events the men play 2 out of 3.
The quality of the men's tennis in early rounds is questionable and unless it is a marquee player, the stands are just as empty in the ATP early rounds.
It's a shame this Maria Vs Serena running commentary. Both ladies are more alike than different. Both came from families who sacrificed much in order for the ladies to achieve fame and fortune. Both worked hard and came from humble beginnings. Both show that with hard work and determination, the "American dream" can come through. Yet the media and fans pit them against each other and makes it seem that if you like one you cannot like the other. It's a shame. I hope that after tennis is over for Maria and Serena, they might not be friends, but at least have a strong respect for one another.