Ways of Grace

by James Blake

  The significance of equal prize money is twofold. One, the women are now locked into any Grand Slam prize money increases that are granted to the men, which is a function of TV rights sales, ticket revenues, and sponsorships. There have been enormous increases in recent years. Two, there is a trickle-down effect wherein the non–Grand Slam events (the ATP and WTA Tours) will increase their prize money so that they are not left behind. There are also some combined non–Grand Slam events that have promised equal prize money in an effort to follow the Slams. Soccer is the current sport that is in a very similar space to the WTA and ATP before equal prize money. The US women’s national soccer team is performing better at major events and is at a point where it should likely be paid the same as the men’s team. That will be interesting to watch over the coming years.

  But let’s go back before Venus Williams won her battle for equal pay. In 2005, Williams beat Lindsay Davenport in the longest women’s final in history and won the Wimbledon title. The day before the match, Williams attended a board meeting held by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the organization that runs the tournament, and asked everyone there to close their eyes and imagine being a little girl who trains for years only to “get to this stage, and you’re told you’re not the same as a boy.”

  That same year, Venus Williams won the women’s championship game, collecting $1.08 million in prize money. Roger Federer won the men’s championship and collected $1.13 million in prize money. Several months after Williams’s speech at the All England Club, the women’s championship prize money was increased, but it still did not match the men’s award. The club chairman, Tim Phillips, justified the prize discrepancy by saying that the physical demands of the men’s best-of-five matches are much higher than those of the women’s best-of-three. Phillips added that the club didn’t view the prize discrepancy as “an equal rights issue,” and he also noted that “the top ten ladies last year earned more from Wimbledon than the top ten men did” by also playing in the doubles tournament.

  Williams’s long and winding road to equal prize money finally culminated in 2006 when she wrote an op-ed in the Times of London calling for Wimbledon to pay men and women athletes equally. In it, Williams argued that Wimbledon’s prize structure “devalues the principle of meritocracy and diminishes the years of hard work that women on the tour have put into becoming professional tennis players. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message.” The piece generated enough attention from British politicians that then-MP Janet Anderson brought it up during a question-and-answer session in Parliament, prompting Prime Minister Tony Blair to endorse equal pay in his response.

  In 2007, Williams’s efforts finally paid off. A statement from Chairman Phillips read, “This year, taking into account both the overall progression and the fact that broader social factors are also relevant to the decision, they [the Committee] have decided that the time is right to bring this subject to a logical conclusion and eliminate the difference.”

  After Venus heard about this decision, she responded with her own statement: “The greatest tennis tournament in the world has reached an even greater height today. I applaud today’s decision by Wimbledon, which recognizes the value of women’s tennis.”

  That year, Venus Williams won her fourth Wimbledon singles title and was paid the same as the men’s winner, Roger Federer. By speaking out for equal prize money for women, Venus Williams, with support from Serena Williams, Jennifer Capriati, Maria Sharapova, Kim Clijsters, and Petra Kvitova, was able to win equal pay for female players. She also changed the way female tennis players are valued. To fully understand the difference achieving equal prize money made for female athletes, consider that Serena Williams’s earnings the year after women achieved equal prize money in 2007 was an impressive $12 million or more. This shows the impact of equal prize money financially for female athletes.

  When young girls watch the Williams sisters on the court, or see them in commercials or as spokespeople for one of their many business ventures, they know that despite their own appearance or socioeconomic backgrounds, they can be the best at anything they set out to do. All they need is the drive to be the best, and the strength of character to not care about what society, in its outmoded ideologies, may think.

  Billie Jean King and the Original Nine players in the newly conceived WTA opened the door to pay equality. Venus Williams and a new generation of superstars, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin, Jennifer Capriati, Martina Hingis, Serena Williams, Mary Pierce, Monica Seles, Anna Kournikova, Maria Sharapova, and Lindsay Davenport among them, kicked the door down. Capitalizing on King’s original fight to introduce the concept of equal prize money, the WTA leadership, led by Larry Scott, its CEO, made a business case to demonstrate that the women were on par in terms of the business metrics (match viewership, attendance, sponsorship interest, and so forth). This wave happened during the postretirement period of Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, when the women’s matches were often more commercially interesting than the men’s matches. For example, Venus or Serena have historically outrated almost any other match (male or female) on ESPN to this day. Sharapova, Serena, Venus, and other female players generated more endorsement income individually than almost all the men at that time. Women’s soccer should be next if it follows this model.

  4

  Shut Up and Play

  The Impetus and Social Ramifications of Sports Activism

  Although not comparable to the hardships athletes faced for advocating for equality and human rights during the civil rights era, the challenges faced by sports activists today still constitute no small feat. The ramifications of sports activism today differ significantly from those in the past on many levels, because the sports world is now so vastly different, with a myriad of personal, familial, societal, and financial considerations. These days, professional athletes have to take into account corporate relationships, sponsorships, and endorsements as much as their fans’ response to their activism. Athletes also have varying considerations depending on their sport. Team-sport athletes face different challenges than individual-sport athletes. As a tennis player, I do have to consider how my actions may affect my corporate sponsors and endorsements, but not how they will affect my team or my teammates. However, if the basketball superstar LeBron James decides to endorse a candidate for president, he must take into account the potentially detrimental effect it could have on his Cleveland Cavaliers teammates, on the sponsorship and endorsement deals for the franchise, and on the Cavaliers’ dedicated and highly vocal fans.

  Today’s sports stars are stellar athletes at the top of their form who are functioning at unbelievable physical and mental levels. But the career of an athlete, depending on the sport, tends to be short. Football players have about three years at the top of their field to make enough money to be able to sustain themselves and their families and to achieve financial security before they leave the game. For baseball players it is a little longer depending on the player and the team. Hockey players, in their fast-moving and volatile sport, are always in danger of injury. Team players can be traded without notice, and their life, and their family’s life, can be turned upside down if they are forced to move across the country, or if they become free agents but are not signed to a team right away, or at all.

  The ramifications of activism in today’s sponsor- and endorsement-fueled sports world, the backlash from the community of superfans, and the cultural stereotypes of professional athletes as dumb jocks who should just “shut up and play” create hardships and consequences that should not and cannot be underestimated. They are wide-ranging and extend far from the playing field into our personal lives, and we have to consider our fans, our sport, and our brand, team, and franchise identity. At the end of the day, when the stadium lights dim and our careers come to an end, we will still have to be able to support our families. This is made even more dif
ficult because professional athletes do not always have a fallback plan, advanced degrees, or skills that are easily transferable from the field, ice, or court, because we have spent most of our lives training our body and mind for our sport.

  When an athlete protests or speaks out for a cause, he or she fully understands the ramifications. In today’s sports world we have to; it is part and parcel of playing the game. It is often surprising what athletes have to take into consideration because they play professional sports. When I decided, at the height of my tennis career, to cut my dreadlocks, my agent warned me that I would be losing millions of dollars in endorsement deals. To think: something as seemingly inconsequential and personal as cutting my hair would have such serious financial consequences, which could affect my family.

  In 2012 LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and several of their Miami Heat teammates wore hoodies before a game against the Detroit Pistons to protest the killing of Trayvon Martin and police brutality, knowing that they would face fines and fan backlash. James also wrote “Trayvon Martin RIP” on his sneaker to honor the African American teen who was shot to death by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer and German Peruvian who has been called “white” and “white Hispanic” in the media. Several members of the Heat posed together for a photo in the hooded sweatshirts. Their heads were bowed and their faces hidden in their hoods. Their message could be interpreted as meaning that off the court, in a hoodie, they could all be Trayvon Martin. James posted the photo on social media. The image—shared around the world—made the Heat the most prominent collection of athletes to protest Martin’s death. They were dedicated to the cause even in the face of a several-game suspension.

  LeBron James, the greatest player in basketball by far, does not often get commended or recognized for his advocacy, activism, and philanthropy. One of the most well-known athletes in the world right now, he fully endorsed Hillary Clinton during her 2016 campaign, despite what could have been considerable repercussions and at a time when few athletes were public about the candidate they supported. James even went on to make a stump speech for Clinton. He has also donated a significant amount of his own money to effect change in the country. Specifically, he has given $40 million to fund scholarships in his hometown of Akron. His is the first generation of athletes who are financially in a position to make these types of contributions, which is very different from the athletes of the 1960s. So while James wore the hoodie and later spoke out at the ESPYs, as an act of activism, he is also making tangible, far-reaching efforts to address social issues and implement social change.

  How James and other superstar athletes like Colin Kaepernick, who donated $1 million to communities in need and is donating $100,000 a month for a year to different local community groups, choose to financially augment their activism, often with an enormous amount of wealth invested into communities, to address social disparity, illustrates how many of today’s modern athletes practice activism. Many athletes are criticized for doing the PR part but not the real work behind the scenes. These types of financial commitment show a heightened level of dedication that is distinct from many others and can be considered real action.

  James continues to speak out on issues that are important to him, regardless of backlash. His approach may be different from Colin Kaepernick’s steady approach, or Chris Kluwe’s steadfast and outspoken one, but sports activism in today’s corporate franchise environment is, first and foremost, a personal choice, which warrants an individualized approach. It is not for everyone, and what matters is not the impetus, the timing, or the steps taken, but only that the athlete walks the road best for him or her, while still being able to succeed in and love the game he or she has worked so hard to be able to play professionally.

  Dedication and Determination

  Professional athletes can become a conduit through which the sports community can work to unite people to create solutions that will improve race and gender relations. Athletes and the sports community as a whole have been critical components of bringing people together to fight inequality. They can be a crucial element to healing our nation right now at a very divisive moment in our history. Their actions have helped achieve social justice, historically and today.

  A Super Bowl champion and a three-time NFL Pro Bowler, Brendon Ayanbadejo, a former linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, has been an outspoken advocate of gay rights and a champion of marriage equality since 2009. Born to an Irish American mother and a Nigerian father, he grew up determined to make a difference by fighting bias and discrimination. To Ayanbadejo, the fight to legalize same-sex marriage is the twenty-first-century version of the fight for racial equality. He has publicly announced that, as the son of interracial parents whose own marriage would have been illegal in sixteen states prior to the US Supreme Court’s landmark Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967, he had no intention of remaining silent on an issue of conscience and public importance.

  Ayanbadejo’s advocacy is wide-ranging and seemingly tireless. He has posed with his family and other NFL members of Athlete Ally for the NOH8 (No Hate) photo campaign shot by Adam Bouska. Ayanbadejo was also a guest editor of the Washington Blade’s special August 2013 LGBT sports edition. In 2009, he wrote an article for the Huffington Post titled “Same-Sex Marriages: What’s the Big Deal?” In the piece, he suggested a separation of church and state in creating policy. “First and foremost,” he wrote, “church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! . . . Maybe I am a man ahead of my time. However, looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two-thirds [historically three-fifths] of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as everyone else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?”

  Founded in 2008, NOH8 was originally formed in response to California’s Proposition 8, a statewide ballot proposition that in 2008 made same-sex marriage illegal in California. In 2013, to counter homophobic comments about gay players in the NFL and to raise awareness for marriage equality and gay rights, Ayanbadejo decided to showcase many of the athletes who support NOH8. Ayanbadejo and Athlete Ally arranged a photo campaign with NOH8, which he and his family also posed for. In the campaign, Ayanbadejo wanted to show that there are NFL players who proudly support equal rights. A few athletes who were photographed in support of the campaign were the former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, the New York Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie and safety Bret Lockett, the Carolina Panthers linebacker Nic Harris, the Saint Louis Rams defensive tackle Matt Willig, and Athlete Ally’s founder, Hudson Taylor, a three-time All-American wrestler.

  Chris Kluwe is also a staunch and very outspoken advocate for marriage equality. Kluwe, a supporter of Minnesotans for Equality, actively campaigned against Minnesota’s Amendment 1 in 2012, which would have defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Kluwe’s activism even landed him on the cover of Out magazine that year. In 2012, Ayanbadejo supported a Maryland ballot initiative to legalize same-sex marriage in the state, which passed, albeit with a narrow margin. His public support drew ire from Maryland Democratic state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr., who wrote a letter to the Baltimore Ravens expressing his dismay that Ayanbadejo was voicing his support for same-sex marriage.

  In the letter addressed to the Ravens’ owner, Steve Bisciotti, Burns wrote, “I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically as a Ravens football player.” According to WBAL-TV, Burns became upset when he learned that Ayanbadejo had contributed a pair of Ravens tickets to a fund-raiser for Mar
ylanders for Marriage Equality. After expressing his dismay at Ayanbadejo’s actions in his letter, Burns then asked the Ravens to silence the football veteran. “I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football League Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employees and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing.”

  Defending Ayanbadejo, Kluwe shot back in an open letter, saying that perhaps Burns did not have an understanding of the Constitution, since the “very first amendment deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom.” An excerpt from his letter, published in the Huffington Post, reads:

  I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, childcare tax credits, family and medical leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA health care for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gay Americans? Full-fledged citizens, just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?