During the nearly 11 years I've done Sports Byline USA, I can always count on certain topics to get a passionate and emotional listener response. Most of the response confirms my belief that fans react more with their hearts then with their heads. Of course, there's also that element that reacts neither with their hearts or their heads, but with that part of their body they sit on.
On the topics of coaches of women's college teams being paid as much as their counterparts of men's teams, women players at Wimbledon being paid the same as the men players and the use of derogatory team nicknames and mascots, such as the Redskins and Chief Wahoo, I encounter anger, distorted thinking and reasoning, a fear of change and a lack of the basic belief that we have to do what is right at any time something is wrong.
In discussing equal pay for coaches, those who don't see the issue for what it is, an equality issue, use a line of thinking that borders on stupidity. Their arguments range from, women's sport don't drive as much revenue as the men's sports to, fans prefer to watch men's sports more them women's. Neither of which they can prove, nor applies to equality and the fairness of paying coaches, whether it's men's or women's teams, the same amount for doing the same job. What the sport drives in revenues or how many fans watch the sport is not a factor in determining equality.
Only a complete fool would deny that Pat Summit, the University of Tennessee women's basketball coach, deserves to make as much as her counterpart of the men's team. To do so would mean you should be on heavy medication and not allowed to have sharp objects. The many who would say she does deserve to make as much will point to her success, her championships and the attendance for Lady Vol games. But, that's not why she deserves to make as much. She deserves it because she works hard, recruits well, promotes her team, is a good coach and developer of talent and graduates her players. That has nothing to do with being the coach of a men's team or a women's team. That has to do with being a good coach. And, just to be consistent, even though the Lady Vols have been more successful, I also think the Vols men's coach, Jerry Green, should be paid as much as Summit. And, the argument that more people enjoy watching men's teams than women's teams is superficial. Until women's teams are funded and promoted equally, you can't compare the fan acceptance of each.
Also, I've found the same misguided thinking in the discussions about women players not sharing the prize money equally with the men players at Wimbledon. The All England Tennis Club, made up of stodgy old men, say that 3 surveys in the last 10 years show that 70 per cent of those surveyed prefer watching the men play then the women. These guys better get better glasses or seeing eye dogs because most tennis fans I talk to say they can't relate to the serve volley game the men play and prefer the rallies and strategy of the women's game. And, if you're looking for interesting personalities and colorful players, give me the Williams sisters, Martina Hingus, Steffi Graf and a host of other wonderfully, talented women over the "who do I play today, where's my check" crew on the men's side. Fans want to watch good tennis from successful and interesting players and personalities. I doubt they care whether that comes from a player wearing a skirt or a pair of shorts.
Again, the issue is equality. It's tennis, it's Wimbledon, it should be the same money. The TV networks pay a rights fee for Wimbledon, not a fee for when the women play and a different fee for when the men play. And, the argument that men play best of 5 sets and women best of 3 sets is also useless. The women are willing to play best of 5 sets. It's the All England Tennis Club that doesn't want them to. The reason, tradition, time and scheduling difficulties. There's a precedent for paying the players equally. The U.S. Open does. It's sad to see the usually fair-minded British are clueless when it comes to sports equality.
The most interesting discussions we've had on Sports Byline are over the use of offensive nicknames and mascots for sports teams. Most notably the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians mascot/symbol, Chief Wahoo. Nearly 100 percent of non-Native Americans say "the nickname Redskins honors Indians." First, non-Native Americans have no perspective. They don't understand the sensitivities, the challenges they've endured or the discrimination they've dealt with. "Redskins" is a racist name. The same as "blackie", "spic" or "whitey". They have no place in our vocabulary and certainly don't deserve to be glorified or promoted. End of discussion.
The strongest argument I hear from listeners on any emotional issue is "it's a tradition". For a long time so was segregation. Tradition doesn't make it always right and in some cases that tradition wasn't right in the first place. The Cleveland Indians mascot/symbol, Chief Wahoo, is outdated and insensitive. It depicts a part of American society in a "cartoonish" manner. Interestingly, I've found the pro sports leagues as some of the most PR sensitive companies we have. They don't like negative press and are super sensitive to public criticism and public debate over their actions and policies. They do all they can to steer clear of controversy and make a pro-active effort to prevent it. Yet Major League Baseball has failed to get Cleveland to update a symbol closely associated with the team. You'd think if for no other reason then a chance to make more money in merchandising by changing the mascot, MLB would do the right thing.
In the end, the answer is simple. Finding it is much harder. But it doesn't have to be. One only needs to think and say, "what's fair, what's equal, what's right." Then do it.
I feel better now.
I'm Ron Barr
Go to Ron's General Bulletin Board
Read Ron's Archived Commentaries