Why mocking Marion Bartoli is still acceptable in world tennis

“I am not blonde, yes. That is a fact. Have I dreamt about having a model contract? No. I’m sorry…. But have I dreamed about winning Wimbledon? Absolutely, yes.” – Marion Bartoli, super tennis player, not supermodel It is a truth that is not universally acknowledged but is an unspoken truth nonetheless. There are two kinds of hierarchy in women’s tennis. There is the one determined by rankings and points. Then there is the one shaped by the firmness of the player’s derriere and the leanness of her limbs. Crude, yes? But true, you will agree. Sample this. There isn’t much to choose between the on-court earnings of Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova at $5.3 million and $5.1 million respectively. Now consider their off-court earnings: Sharapova’s $22 million is twice the amount Williams earns. Of course, Serena is the top-earning female tennis player of all time but a significant component of her income would accrue from actual wins as opposed to the wealth of endorsement deals Sharapova’s blonde perfection attracts. This is not to take away from either player but a reflection of the times. Looks are the unspoken criteria for women’s tennis superstardom. They may not help you win matches but they certainly lure the sponsors if you do. Marion Bartoli, thankfully, was hankering for the former. Her reaction to a BBC radio commentator’s presumptuous comments about her looks reflects her brand of ambition. She does not aim to be a Sharapova. She had her sights on becoming a Bartoli, Wimbledon winner, and she had just got there when John Inverdale, the commentator, reiterated to his listeners – given that they couldn’t quite see, one assumes – that the Sharapova-factor was missing. [caption id=“attachment_938261” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Bartoli only cares about winning. And that’s not wrong. AP[/caption] “I just wonder if her dad, because he has obviously been the most influential person in her life, did say to her when she was 12, 13, 14 maybe, ’listen, you are never going to be, you know, a looker. You are never going to be somebody like a Sharapova, you’re never going to be 5ft 11, you’re never going to be somebody with long legs, so you have to compensate for that’,” he said pointing to four things all at once. One) Bartoli’s father’s apparent lack of parenting skill and sensitivity. Two) Her assumed desire to be somebody like Sharapova. Three) His own judgment of women players and how he personally categorises them. Four) How women’s tennis is, in fact, viewed by the world at large, with Inverdale as just a mere manifestation. A Bleacher Report article mirrors this reality. “Looks matter,” it says. “Why else is Sharapova making nearly twice as much in endorsement money as Novak Djokovic?” There have always been the beauties that have played the sport but, back then, there seemed to be a grace to being beautiful. Remember Steffi Graf? She transcended her own physical appearance which is never mentioned as part of her enormous tennis legacy. Or Chris Evert? Sure, her pretty girl-next-door appearance had a way of garnering more votes than rival-in-chief Martina Navratilova, she too ensured her biographer could spend more time on her tennis than her face. In fact, the rivalry between Evert and Navratilova was less about looks but more about persona. But the age of high-octane media has changed much. The lens has become sharper, demanding and somewhat myopic. Bartoli, in her remarks, inadvertently indicated the pressure that exists should players choose to succumb. Daniela Hantuchova, referred to as a pin-up during her playing days, had once been accused of being an anorexic and called “too thin to play”. She brushed that aside attributing weight loss to over-training but the burden of staying relevant in the ‘glamour’ department is real. Some women have happily taken to this requirement. The Bleacher Report article points out that “when Victoria Azarenka injured herself in the first round at Wimbledon, she began to cry. You could see the mascara smudges around her eyes”. Now, there’s nothing wrong with eye-shadow and mascara. If a player wants to be feminine and girly, more power to her. But, in turn, can we not judge those who don’t want to or feel they can’t be cookie-cutter perfect? The Williams’ sisters are proud African-American women who have long been the butt of jokes about masculinity. They don’t conform to some men’s notion of attractiveness and are, therefore, ridiculed. Their success, fortunately, has never been dependent on that. This is a rant as familiar as it is tiresome. Problems with no solutions tend to be frustrating. But how does one blame just the tennis watcher, though? This cuts across all sectors. It may upset independent-thinking women (and a few good men) to find that achievements and ability can sometimes not be enough. In sport, at work and at play, women, far more than men – despite protests by my male colleagues – are subject to judgement on appearance. It is an inescapable reality, unfortunately, one that women survive by trying to keep up with. A couple of decades ago, Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth outlined the lack of self-belief that stemmed from anxiety about not meeting the beautiful stereotype. But despite such reassurances and wake-up calls, feminism often withers while sexism thrives. Simply put, Inverdale is not the problem. He is just a symptom of this malaise. As the Bleacher Report article said, “he is just keeping it real”. Bartoli seems to have made her peace with the fact that though she may be a winner, she is not going to be a postergirl in a hurry. That is Sharapova’s turf. The Russian has willy-nilly become the face of the glamour that women’s tennis is expected to showcase. Her tennis accomplishments are almost irrelevant when pitted against the buzz her looks generate. Her business acumen that has led to generation of her wealth, including a candy line called Sugarpova, is rarely mentioned as men sigh over her appearance. Take a moment and you will find that neither player is being fairly perceived. After all, the reverse is true too. Style does not mean lack of substance. This is a vicious cycle that looks unbreakable. A documentary was recently released on the Battle of the Sexes, the tennis match that became one of the symbols for the fight for women’s liberation in America. In September 1973, Billie Jean King had agreed to face 1940s world champion and self-proclaimed “male chauvinist pig” Bobby Riggs. It was, apparently, the most watched tennis game ever. In a triumph for womankind, she defeated him in three sets in a five-set match. King has been on the vanguard in the fight for equality in price earnings as well, and that is another battle that women’s tennis seems to be winning. There is the third battle, though, one of perception. Women’s tennis has become a game played by beautiful people. How does it become a beautiful game, independent of the looks of its players? This battle may prove far more difficult to win. Postscript: Incidentally, Bartoli boasts an IQ of 175. Apparently, this is more than Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison. Also, irrespective of her WTA or her glamour quotient ranking, this puts her in the top 0.0003 percent of the world. I don’t know if Inverdale or the rest of the world cares, but here it is. The author writes on popular culture, cricket and whatever else takes her fancy. She tweets @abbykhaitan