Photo: Chris GampatFox News reports that during the early rounds at Wimbledon, a lot of second-level, but good-looking female tennis players have been on Center Court, while some of the stars have been relegated to side courts.
An event organizer noted, “It’s not a coincidence that those (on Center Court) are attractive.”
Not at all. The price of TV rights is based on viewership, so the sponsors want to maximize it: “Our preference would always be a Brit or a babe, as this always delivers high viewing figures.”
The product sold is a combination of good tennis and beauty — and consumer satisfaction is increased by more of both. Event planners would like the top-seeded players to be the most beautiful; absent that correlation, they believe customers are willing to trade off some tennis quality to watch more attractive players. Are they catering to customer discrimination, or are they merely indulging consumer preferences? Tough question, and one I explore at great length in my forthcoming book, Beauty Pays.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
And that’s precisely why most people have lost interest in women’s tennis…i.e. because the players seem to care more about their off-the-court activities, such as partying and product promotion, than they do about playing good tennis.
The quality of women’s tennis is at an all-time low, and the only two truly good players (the Williams sisters) play very few tournaments and often show up for non-majors out of shape and disinterested.
Never mind the grunting or lack of net play…
We already know that for men in the U.S., stature counts –look at the relative heights of our CEOs, U.S. presidents, and even models, and one would be hard pressed to find anyone under 5’9″ or 5’10″. The fact that beauty counts for females in any industry is hardly surprising. Both examples only reaffirm the fact that our biological and Darwinian nature cannot be denied, despite our laudable efforts at an egalitarian society.
Notice the careful verbiage: “…Brit or a babe…”
The sponsors are resigned, rather uncharitably, I might add, to the fact that the contingency of these two descriptors intersecting is quite remote.
Viewing figures…aside from the double entendre, here’s my take: I’d much rather watch attractive play by an unattractive player, than unattractive play by an attractive player
Phew.
At least they’re honest about it.
It is ironic that Wimbledon has cultivated a prestigious tradition and consistent branding, which has primarily been unfavorable to commercial sponsors. In this tournament the organizers are conceding that they compromise the value of the sport in order to market the product.
fully on board with the views expressed in poster #1…
I should point out that I enjoy watching women’s tennis more than men’s tennis, not for beauty nor the skill (though it is undoubtedly there in the latter case)- but because of the effort. The top women players let balls fly pass them a lot less regularly, and more likely to at least challenge every return rather than the men who seem content to let the ball fly pass them and just get it next time. There’s a wider diversity of playing style as well among the women. So there are other reasons why people might like watching women’s Tennis.
I don’t care at all about tennis, but I will stop and watch a few minutes if I see an attractive woman on the court.