Officiating in sports has been the source of much debate and many rants from drunken fans over the years. Before kneeling for the national anthem became an argument about the nature of patriotism, the most controversial thing about the NFL was how it had tied itself in knots turning what it means to catch a football into a matter of a zebra’s opinion. As a fan of the NBA, one of the worst parts of watching a basketball game is the crap officiating that permeates the league through bias towards star players, makeup calls, and at least one case of an official betting on games. In baseball, what is and isn’t a strike is a subjective opinion based on which ump is behind home plate.
The usual response to fan (and player) complaints about this sort of thing is usually to argue “it’s just the way it is,” and that people need to “get over it” and play the game. It’s turned into a situation where the one more complains, the more likely words like “classless” get thrown around, and finally an admonishment that “it’s only a game.”
But is it?
The way we deal with the little things can be a reflection of how we deal with the big ones. What I’ve always found interesting is how the reaction to controversies in sports mirrors how we usually deal with both legal and political issues where someone criticizes their treatment of being screwed over. How someone is treated, both on and off the court is subject to all of the same biases. And instead of dealing with the problem, it devolves into an argument about proper decorum. One must protest being fucked over in a “civil” way when they appeal to the authority fucking them over, which in reality it’s a way to get people to shut up or complain in a way in which nothing will ever be done.
Strict adherence to tradition and rules, while sacrificing fairness and dismissing problems with said traditions, is also a way to rationalize treating people differently. Ever notice it’s almost always the self-proclaimed “small government” conservatives who are always bitching about how bad and intrusive government is, but are usually the first ones to say: “Why didn’t they just follow directions?” when video of a black person getting the shit beat out them by a cop for asking what they did wrong makes the news?
This is also reflective in the online commentary, where fans of different teams argue as bitterly as Republicans and Democrats and the political biases seep into the conversations, just as it has done with the national anthem protests. It’s not uncommon to see opinions where people dismiss any complaints as coming from “rich, black athletes who’ve got it good,” or don’t want to hear from women who are being “hysterical,” or see the entire mess as being one of big money/corporations and how that affects ideas around public policy.
On Saturday night, Naomi Osaka beat Serena Williams in straight sets to win the U.S. Open and become the first tennis player of Japanese (and Hatian) ancestry to win a Grand Slam. However, Osaka’s win has been overshadowed by an argument between Williams and chair umpire Carlos Ramos that occurred during the match, and the resulting perceptions about what followed. In the second game of the second set, Williams was cited by Ramos for getting coaching signals, breaking her racket, and ultimately calling the chair umpire a “thief,” which cost her a game. Loud booing directed at the match officials during the trophy ceremony pushed Osaka to tears, with Williams attempting to calm the crowd.
The commentary after the women’s final has attempted to judge whether there’s any deeper meaning to what happened. Is it a situation tinged by sexism and double standards? Or was it a case of Williams acting like a bully?
Williams: (To Ramos) You owe me an apology … I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what’s right for her. I’ve never cheated, and you owe me an apology. You will never do another one of my matches ... And you stole a point from me. You’re a thief too.
On Sunday, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) fined Williams $17,000, which included $4,000 for a coaching violation, $3,000 for racket abuse, and $10,000 for verbal abuse. The debate surrounding this has not as much centered on whether Williams broke these rules, as much as whether selective enforcement and bias may have seen an umpire come down harder on her than they would a white and/or male player.
Whether one buys into this is a matter of perspective, since for some people it’s strictly about the formality of the rules and etiquette, and whether a double-standard exists is immaterial to judging the incident (e.g., one can’t go before a judge and argue other people were speeding too to get out of a ticket). But on the other side are people who believe hiding behind enforcement of the rules and etiquette is a way to sidestep the bigger issues, and shut down criticisms.
Williams: I can’t sit here and say I wouldn’t say [the umpire] is a thief because I thought he took the game from me, but I’ve seen other men call other umpires several things and I’m here fighting for women’s rights and for women’s equality... and for me to say ‘thief’ and for him to take a game–it made me feel like it was a sexist remark. He’s never taken a game from a man because they said ‘thief.’ It blows my mind. But I’m going to continue to fight for women and to fight for us to have equal–[Alize Cornet] should be able to take her shirt off without getting a fine. This is outrageous ... the fact that I have to go through this is just an example for the next person that has emotions and that wanna express themselves, and they wanna be a strong woman, and they’re gonna be allowed to do that because of today. Maybe it didn’t work out for me, but it’s gonna work out for the next person.
Confidence and strength are character traits that people universally people respond to—whether it’s a leader outlining a plan of action, or someone trying to sell their attractiveness in order to get a date. But women who show too much strength get called a “bitch,” while those who act too nice are regarded as weak. We’re also a society that values a pretty face and uses images of women in various states of undress to sell almost everything. But, again, the balance between being demeaned for not being feminine enough or being called a “slut” or “whore” is sometimes a tough road to manage, even in the 21st century. Go to any forum or blog where women’s tennis is discussed and there’ll be comments calling Serena Williams a “beast.” Other animal-related terms will likely be present. There will probably also be comments questioning how much testosterone she might have in her body, questioning the image of her body, and wildly racist remarks which have gone hand-in-hand with wildly racist treatment over the years.
So in the aftermath of Saturday night’s final, the commentariat has been having a field day.
Women's Tennis Association (WTA) CEO Steve Simon: Yesterday ... brought to the forefront the question of whether different standards are applied to men and women in the officiating of matches. The WTA believes that there should be no difference in the standards of tolerance provided to the emotions expressed by men vs. women and is committed to working with the sport to ensure that all players are treated the same. We do not believe that this was done last night.
Soraya Nadia McDonald: Anticipating the animus they would face if they ever became successful on the world stage, their father, Richard Williams, got passers-by to shout insults at the sisters as they practiced on the dilapidated public courts of Compton, California … In 2001, at Indian Wells, spectators hissed the word “n—–” at the Williamses and told Richard, “I wish it was ’75, we’d skin you alive.” But there was a challenge that not even Richard could foresee or head off … The stuff that plays games with your head and makes you question your own sanity. The stuff that skates by under benefit of the doubt or plausible deniability. The stuff that questions an athlete’s integrity without evidence or probable cause, like being tested for performance-enhancing drugs more than any other comparable player. The stuff that says you can’t wear a compression catsuit anymore at the French Open because “one must respect the game and the place.” … Williams is so often targeted and punished under the guise of “respect” or “professionalism” in a way that her white and male counterparts are not. The rules of tennis mean one thing for Williams and another for everyone else. She knows it, and she’s sick of it.
USTA Chairman of the Board and President Katrina Adams: We watch the guys do this all the time, they’re badgering the umpire on the changeovers. Nothing happens. There’s no equality. I think there has to be some consistency across the board. These are conversations that will be imposed in the next weeks.
I know what Serena did and her behaviour was not welcome. A line could have been drawn, but when you look at Carlos in this situation, it’s a judgment call to give that last penalty because she called him a thief. They’ve been called a lot more.
“[He could have said]: ‘Hey, we’re getting out of hand here, let’s tone it down.’ I think he would have [said that to a male player], I think it’s a bond that they have and they way they communicate, and maybe not understanding they can have that same conversation with the women.
Martina Navratilova: Serena Williams has part of it right. There is a huge double standard for women when it comes to how bad behavior is punished — and not just in tennis.
But in her protests against an umpire during the United States Open final on Saturday, she also got part of it wrong. I don’t believe it’s a good idea to apply a standard of “If men can get away with it, women should be able to, too.” Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents? … It’s difficult to know, and debatable, whether Ms. Williams could have gotten away with calling the umpire a thief if she were a male player. But to focus on that, I think, is missing the point. If, in fact, the guys are treated with a different measuring stick for the same transgressions, this needs to be thoroughly examined and must be fixed. But we cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with. In fact, this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court. There have been many times when I was playing that I wanted to break my racket into a thousand pieces. Then I thought about the kids watching. And I grudgingly held on to that racket.
Billie Jean King: The ceiling that women of color face on their path to leadership never felt more impenetrable than it did at the women’s U.S. Open final on Saturday. Ironic, perhaps, that the roof of Arthur Ashe Stadium was closed for the championship match. What was supposed to be a memorable moment for tennis, with Serena Williams, perhaps the greatest player of all time, facing off against Naomi Osaka, the future of our sport, turned into another example of people in positions of power abusing that power.
Lost in the craziness of the evening was the fact that Osaka played excellent tennis and won her first major title. Competing against her childhood idol, she summoned her A game and earned her championship — no need for any asterisk in the record book. She was the best player on the court Saturday.
But that’s not what many will remember. For fans, Osaka’s stellar play was overshadowed by an archaic tennis rule that eventually led to an abuse of power.
Rebecca Traister: I don’t care much about the rules of tennis that Serena Williams was accused of violating at Saturday night’s U.S. Open final. Those rules were written for a game and for players who were not supposed to look or express themselves or play the game as beautifully and passionately as either Serena Williams or the young woman who eventually beat her, 20-year-old Naomi Osaka, do. They are rules written for a sport that, until Williams and her sister came along, was dominated by white players, a sport in which white men have violated those rules in frequently spectacular fashion and rarely faced the kind of repercussions that Williams — and Osaka — did on Saturday night … Ramos’s censure of Williams on Saturday night cannot be disentangled from her gender and race any more than the other recent obstacles she’s faced, from the physical toll of pregnancy, to her profession’s status-tax on it, to her higher risk of maternal mortality and postpartum complication. Because in making the coaching call, in the midst of a match she was playing against a newcomer who looked likely to beat her fair and square, the umpire insinuated that Serena was herself not playing fair and square. That made her livid. And one thing black women are never allowed to be without consequence is livid.
Novak Djokovic: Look, I love Serena, first of all … I really felt for her yesterday. Tough thing for a chair umpire to deal with, as well. We have to empathize with him. Everyone was in a very awkward situation yesterday. A lot of emotions. Serena was crying. Naomi was crying. It was really, really tough … But I have my personal opinion that maybe the chair umpire should not have pushed Serena to the limit, especially in a Grand Slam final," he said. "Just maybe changed — not maybe, but he did change the course of the match. It was, in my opinion, maybe unnecessary. We all go through our emotions, especially when you're fighting for a Grand Slam trophy … I just feel like, as Serena said yesterday in the closing ceremonies, Osaka deserves to have her moment. As for Serena, she knows I love her. She really inspires everyone. To see her still being so dedicated and so committed to this sport, it's inspiring really to me and to many tennis players, both men and women, around the world.
Mary Carillo: [Ramos] has been doing big matches for decades … At [William’s] very best — and she is very often at her very best — I respect and admire Serena beyond measure. She is so powerful, she’s an important voice, she’s a ferocious competitor. But at her very worst, as she was on this night, she acts like a bully. And you make a career covering bullies. This is what you do for a living. You know what happens: you cannot talk to them, you cannot reason with them. I’m sorry it ended that way … If you follow tennis at all, you know those rules. They are inviolate. A lot of these people that are weighing in and saying double standard … I’m saying, you know what? This is not the hill you want to die on.