This weekend’s US Open women’s final between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka will be remembered for everything but the match itself.
By now, the chain of events that overshadowed 20-year-old Osaka’s groundbreaking triumph over her former idol are well-known. Portuguese umpire Carlos Ramos gave Williams a code violation for allegedly receiving coaching instructions. When Williams smashed her racket in frustration, she received a point penalty. The point penalty was followed by a game penalty, after Williams confronted Ramos, and labelled him a “thief”.
‘A disservice to women’s rights’?
Williams’ incendiary post-match press conference, where she accused Ramos of sexism, sent the outrage machine into overdrive. For some, Ramos’ puritanical adherence to the rulebook was yet another reminder of the gendered double standards tennis places on its female competitors. Others lined up to voice their dismay at William’s bad-sportsmanship and flagrant disrespect for the rules. “She’s doing a terrible disservice to women’s rights, to the MeToo movement, to gender equality,” journalist Caroline Wilson said on ABC’s Offsiders.
Irrespective of whether the umpire’s ruling was correct (and there is evidence that broken rackets and heated arguments do not see similar sanctions placed on male players), Williams, has a lot to be mad about. Her anger didn’t begin in the final set at Flushing Meadows, and to properly understand its source, we must look back over the narrative arc of a career pockmarked by racism and sexism. Serena’s rise is a modern American miracle — a story of a black girl from Compton who took on a sport dominated by the genteel, affluent and white, and made it her own. And like any modern American story, the malevolent hum of racism whirs in the foreground.
Serena’s rise and the black body
In the 1990s, Williams’ father Richard started pulling his daughters out of junior tournaments after overhearing the hushed racial barbs from other parents. By the turn of the millennium, as both sisters broke their way into the top 10, doubts about the legitimacy of their assent began to circle. An unsubstantiated throwaway claim by John McEnroe during Wimbledon in 2000 began the vicious rumour that matches between the sisters were fixed.
A year later, this rumour turned the normally polite crowd at the Indian Wells Masters into an ugly mob, as Williams’ victory was soured by a ceaseless chorus of jeers and racial slurs. Both Williams and her father heard the n-word. The fans, according to Williams’ mother Oracene Price, were “taking off their hoods”. A 19-year old Serena spent hours crying in the locker rooms after the final, and didn’t return to Indian Wells for 14 years.
As Serena kept on winning, the language used to describe her frequently overlooked her on-court exploits, instead fixating on her body.
In a 2006 Herald Sun piece, sports scientist Dr Peter Larkins stated that the “African American race … have this huge gluteal strength”. She has been described as “a monster truck that crushes Volkswagens at sports arenas” (Rolling Stone), “the alpha female in a pride of lions” (The Telegraph) and, most bizarrely, an “oozing pumpkin” (Fox Sports), to name just a few.
In 2014, the president of the Russian Tennis Federation referred (apparently in jest) to the “Williams’ brothers”. Other pros, such as Caroline Wozniacki, Andy Roddick and Novak Djokovic have all mocked her physique by stuffing their shirts with towels. Her choice of attire too is also policed — at this year’s French Open, Williams was forbidden from wearing a black catsuit designed to prevent blood clots. In response, Bernard Giudicelli, president of the French Tennis Federation, took the opportunity to lecture her about respect.
Today, Williams is the unquestioned queen of the sport. She has 23 grand slams and a net worth in the hundreds of millions. This dominance is, no doubt, why the finale of the US Open left such a bitter taste in so many people’s mouths. Maybe Serena could have been a little bit nicer. Maybe she should have coolly accepted Ramos’ zealous, black-letter enforcement of the rules. But after years of barbs, injustices, and double standards, how much more deferential politeness can we expect?
She’s a sportswoman. It is not “deferential politeness” to accept the umpire’s decision without throwing a racket-smashing tantrum and stopping the match to have a 5 minute tirade. Nor is the history of other people being sexist and racist justification for throwing that tantrum at someone else who made a decision with no racist or sexist overtones whatsoever (seriously, the umpire is officiating between two women of colour here, even implying he’s being sexist or racist by enforcing a rule against Serena Williams is very very unfair to the umpire who was just doing his job).
In most sports a player would be sent off or ejected or disqualified for a tiny portion of the ranting at the umpire Serena Williams did. I’ve never understood why tennis is so tolerant of it, but even in tennis there are lines. The umpire let her rant for 5 minutes or so before finally giving her the code violation, probably hoping he could avoid it, but once she’s accusing him of being a cheat the line has been crossed.
You can be a fan of Serena Williams and laud her record as a player and even still find her inspirational for all she has achieved despite all the obstacles in her way – without having to also find a way to excuse her terrible behaviour here. That behaviour doesn’t cancel out here achievements or anything, but let’s not lie to ourselves and say it didn’t happen. She was losing in a high pressure situation and (not for the first time) lost her temper, then tried to excuse it by saying she was fighting for inequality. No, if she believed the umpiring standards for women were wrong, it’s something she could have said before the game or after the game. Instead it’s something she comes out with when a call goes against her when she’s losing. Come on. It’s just excuse-making.
Oh, and saying “(and there is evidence that broken rackets and heated arguments do not see similar sanctions placed on male players)” by linking to an article which just makes an assertion and provides no evidence is just lazy writing.
There’s also plenty of examples of male players being penalised for broken rackets and abusing umpires.
If you want to say men are penalised less, come back with statistics, that’s evidence, not assertions from people with an ax to grind.
Breaking a racket is an automatic violation, men or women’s tennis.
Because she had already had a violation (coaching), the penalty for breaking the racket was 1 point. Pretty sure that was automatic too.
I agree entirely Arky, you beat me to the post. I would also add that, even if it proves to be the case that refs are less likely to penalise men for similar behaviour, that’s an argument for them toughening up with men. The forgotten person, and the real victim, is Osaka.
Where I come from, feminism is a radical critique of power structures in society, not an argument for women to behave like recalcitrant men.
You did beat me to the post, but, hang the expense, I’ll cut and paste what I was going to say anyway:
Williams is a great player who does not want to cheat or accept unfair advantage, as a matter of personal integrity and as an example to her daughter. So, when she had cooled down and realised that the original penalty was for something her coach did, did she chastise him? Did she tell him not to make any gestures in her direction, let alone ambiguous or highly suspicious ones? Did she tell him it was patronising of him to assume she would need such instruction? Did she tell him to keep still in future or she would sack him?
And then, on a more general level, as an opponent of all forms of injustice, did she wonder whether the referee would have been more or less likely to impose a penalty had her coach been female? Or did she ponder on the possible impact on her female opponent had the three penalties NOT been imposed? (Attempting to upset rhythm by throwing tantrums is worse then receiving instruction, in the view of many.) Did she wonder what the Japanese would have thought had the penalties not been awarded? Did she think through the implications, for her OPPONENT, of the claim that something had been stolen from her (Williams) by the referee?
Finally, if it IS the case that male tennis players tend get away with worse, which is the worse of the two sides of this problem? (1) penalising aggression (directed at the umpire but distracting for the opponent) in women but tolerating it in men, or (2) awarding compensatory redress in a match between females, but not in a match between males?
Strangely enough I observed a well respected umpire doing his job efficiently. If other players have dodged penalties perhaps their umpires were being slack.
Williams did not accuse Ramos of racism but of sexism. She is correct about sexism in tennis: the men play five sets, the women three. Definitely sexist.
Wozniacki mocked her? You know they’re close friends, right. I love Serena and desperately want her to get to 25 Grand Slams, but she got this wrong. Her coach gave her the first code violation, no question. Serena had no-one to advise her that this is not an accusation of cheating, but a routine penalty based on clear facts, confirmed by her coach.
No doubt this triggered her memories of substantial injustice as per this article. Many of us would have reacted as badly, or worse. Serena could’ve got away with the verbal abuse of the umpire (no swearing), except that she then turned her back on the umpire and told him not to talk to her or explain his position. That doesn’t leave him much of a choice, as all umpires & referees will confirm, except to issue another violation.
Congratulations to Naomi Osaka, who somehow kept her composure when her idol couldn’t, and served it out in front of a baying crowd after Serena had fought back to 4-5. Amazing to watch.
Before things accelerated Williams told Ramos she was not a cheat, to which he responded, “I know that.” But Williams refused to let it go, she seemed hellbent on being offended by making relentless demands for an apology.
There was no need for an apology, the umpire had not accused her of cheating, the penalty was for coaching from the box. According to ITA rules the players are held responsible for infractions by coaches or others in their box.
Osaka demonstrated amazing nerve and composure in the situation. The crowd was a complete disgrace.
From memory, Wimbledon also had its moments with John.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Nyc9jzSDg
Sexism/racism in any form is abhorrent, but banging on about the “disadvantage” of a working woman worth around $180 million feels like virtue signaling.
The typical experience for men and women in the rest of the working world is not $180 million dollars of wealth.
We have female dominated careers which are systematically disadvantaged when compared to male dominated fields in terms of hours worked to remuneration received, which if addressed would change the experience millions of women around the world as it relates to their gender. If we raised wages for the lowest paid half of all industries, the primary beneficiaries would be women. (NB: Female dominated industries were paid less initially because they could get away with paying women less. Now they’re paid less because the industries historically paid less. New branding on the same ol’ thang.)
That is the most black and white display of modern day sexism in our society. Instead we focus on this noise and argue over the relative disadvantage of one millionaire when compared to their millionaire peers.
By any reasonable measure, Serena Williams “disadvantage” at work is not typical of what it is to be disadvantaged in work for the rest of the world.