Simon faces verbal volley over women's pay stance

TENNIS:WIMBLEDON WAS afflicted by an outbreak of foot-in-mouth this week. The quarantine period has yet to be determined. Gilles Simon was adjudged to have crossed a line. Ivo Karlovic had his issues with a white one.

Simon, newly elected to the ATP Council, decided to peddle a view that men were being demeaned and exploited financially by having to accept the same prize money as women at the four Grand Slams and three Masters tournaments. The women queued up to offer some volleying practice; unfortunately for the Frenchman it was of the verbal variety.

Their comments ranged from the gently chiding to the terse. After his opening remarks Simon was called back a second day and under cross examination, tried to offer a more persuasive argument in clarifying a point of two; very much a case of second serve and break points against.

The synopsis of his views were that men should earn more in prize money because they had a more attractive product and not because they played best of five sets as opposed to the three in the women’s game.

He introduced into the evidence the price of tickets for the respective finals at Wimbledon. Independent research revealed and by way of comparison that a debenture ticket for Centre Court next Saturday (women's final) costs £850 (€1,050), while the following day (men's final) it is an eye-watering £3,500 ( wimbledonticketsonline.co.uk).

Emily Davison might have thrown herself in front of an Andy Roddick serve had she been around to witness this debate. Simon maintained he was aware of how much women had to struggle for equity in so many aspects of life and that he supports that – but just not in terms of being paid the same money as men to play tennis.

He reasoned: “It just doesn’t work in entertainment, because entertainment is not about being a man or woman. It’s just about the public coming to watch you, or not. It’s not about how hard you work. You can work hard and be a very famous singer. You can work hard and just sing in your bathroom. That’s the way it works. It’s maybe sad but this is the way it works.

“It has nothing to do with men and women. In life in general, of course, I’m for it. Tomorrow if women’s tennis is more interesting than men’s tennis, if the price of the woman’s final is higher than the price of the men’s final, they will deserve to win more money than us.”

Simon was now sitting on the parapet, in full view of his critics.

He maintained his views were shared by the entire men’s locker-room. Roger Federer, who had been earlier invited to join the debate, demurred, offering the classic, “on the one hand . . . and on the other hand” argument.

When appraised, Simon shrugged and suggested: “Well, I’m pretty sure they’re thinking the same way as me. Maybe they can’t say it; maybe they won’t; maybe they will lose, I don’t know, $2 million on the contracts if they say that. I don’t know everything,” possibly the only thing upon which the women might concur. He added: “The conversation I had it in the locker room; for sure they agree with me. Trust me.”

To paraphrase the women’s response: “Sod off.” It was obviously more eloquent but the sentiment would be pretty accurate.

Simon will continue his crusade supported by 127 silent partners.

Ivo Karlovic might not. The Croat launched a furious attack on the integrity of the tournament after he was foot-faulted, by his own count, 11 times, during his defeat to Andy Murray, throwing in accusations of bias, describing his treatment as outrageous and suggesting his alleged dodgy footwork only came into the equation at crucial times in games. There wasn’t a toy left in the pram.

It should be noted the 6ft 10in Kalovic is softly spoken, not given to volcanic outbursts, and he obviously felt strongly about the issue; he was only off court minutes when he explored his theories. It’s a view shared by the All England club, who privately feel his comments were made in the heat of the moment. They are unlikely to maintain that stance if he repeats them after a cooling-off period.

Less fair were comments made by a presenter on Wimbledon dedicated television channel suggesting the word in the men’s locker-room was Karlovic had a tendency to foot-fault: scurrilous title-tattle, m’lud.

In mentioning Karlovic the quote of the week has to go the golfing icon Jack Nicklaus, a keen tennis player and ardent fan, who was asked about what it would be like to face the Croatian’s serve: “It’s like having someone serve at you from out of a tree.”

It’s interesting that Karlovic chooses not to serve and volley given his huge power. It might also help him resolve the alleged foot-fault conundrum. In the serve and volley the ball toss is more forward, and players tend to go airborne with forward momentum to get into the court as quickly as possible. Because the Croat doesn’t follow his serve in, he stays lower to the ground because he’s looking to check that forward impetus.

Sadly he is in good company these days, as Wimbledon is now a wasteland where once it was an oasis in terms of serve-and-volley exponents, common to the men’s and women’s games. Even Simon would have to agree on that point.