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 
Here is a way for women to make money that is closed off to men of equal tennis ability.
@Aaron
The ball is a lot more likely to fly by impossibly fast in a men’s game. I guess it’s harder to distinguish on TV, but the men’s game is far faster than the women’s, helping make it a bigger spectacle.
“Are they catering to customer discrimination, or are they merely indulging consumer preferences? ”
Customer discrimination and consumer preferences are the same thing.
same with the men’s- federer/roddick was the cosmetic matchup- if ivanicevich was there, it would have been the grandstands for sure
and rob- clock a venus serve before you boast how much faster the men are
As my wife and daughters would tell you, I’m not one to take up the feminist banner very often, but here I have to protest. Should Maria Sharapova get more product endorsements than Plain Jane tennis player? Yes, because I’m sure she sells products. Should she get preferential placement at Centre Court? No. On the court it should be a matter of tennis-playing ability. Period.
Aren’t these the same criteria used by Fox News to cast its female newscasters?
Women’s tennis has reached salary equality to Men’s tennis (at Wimbledon at least) because viewers, and the sponsorship dollars that they create, derive an equivalent amount of entertainment value as the Men’s game. And lets not kid around, all paid professional sports base their compensation on entertainment above sport.
It certainly may be a Faustian bargain but if top Women’s players can get equal monetary treatment as top Men’s players because Wimbledon shuffled around Centre vs Court 1 matches, I think it a relatively small price to pay.
Venus has been clocked at 129, Roddick at 155