As the world burns, I tend to watch tennis more and more to decompress. I watch tennis so much that I’ve developed a great deal of affection for my favorite tennis commentators, like Robbie Koenig, a South African-accented former player who loves to use explosive terminology as he’s commentating (everything is a “wrecking ball” and “BOOM!” and you get the sense that he just loves his job so much). I’ve grown pretty weary of Martina Navratilova’s commentary though – she’s extremely knowledgeable and analytical of players’ flaws, strengths, motivations, etc, but her commentary is often wall-to-wall, so much so that it’s hard to focus on the actual match. As for John McEnroe… I’m just sick of his worship of certain male players, and I’m sick of him doing commentary on Serena Williams’ matches in particular, especially given all of the bulls–t criticism he’s lodged at her over the years. They should just let Chris Evert do commentary with whoever she chooses.
All of these people are working for or have worked for all of the tennis-programming outlets, from ESPN to the Tennis Channel to the BBC. The BBC employs Navratilova and McEnroe to do commentary, and Martina now says that McEnroe was paid ten times more than her. Because he’s a dude.
Tennis champion Martina Navratilova has accused the BBC of valuing male voices more than female voices, after discovering that fellow Wimbledon pundit John McEnroe is paid at least 10 times more than her. Navratilova, who was crowned Wimbledon ladies’ champion nine times, told Panorama she was paid about £15,000 by the BBC for her commentator role at Wimbledon while McEnroe earned between £150,000 and £199,999. McEnroe’s pay packet was revealed in a list of the BBC’s top-paid talent last summer.
In an interview for Panorama: Britain’s Equal Pay Scandal, which airs on Monday, Navratilova said: “It was a shock because John McEnroe makes at least £150,000 … I get about £15,000 for Wimbledon and unless John McEnroe’s doing a whole bunch of stuff outside of Wimbledon he’s getting at least 10 times as much money.”
Navratilova said she was told she was getting paid a comparable amount to men doing the same job as her, adding: “We were not told the truth, that’s for sure. It’s still the good old boys’ network … The bottom line is that male voices are valued more than women’s voices,” she said.
She added that that her agent would ask for more money in future. BBC Sport defended the discrepancy, saying McEnroe’s role was of “a different scale, scope and time commitment”, to Navratilova, adding: “They are simply not comparable.”
A spokeswoman said: “Along with Sue Barker, John is regarded as the face of our Wimbledon coverage. He is a defining voice within the BBC’s coverage. He is widely considered to be the best expert/commentator in the sport, highly valued by our audiences and his contract means he cannot work for another UK broadcaster without our permission. His pay reflects all of this – gender isn’t a factor.”
Panorama said it estimated that McEnroe, who was crowned Wimbledon champion three times, appeared about 30 times for the BBC at Wimbledon last year, compared with Navratilova’s 10 appearances.
If McEnroe did commentary on three times as many matches as Martina, then sure, pay him three times as much. NOT TEN TIMES AS MUCH. And why is McEnroe praised as “the best expert/commentator in the sport” while Martina – who holds a ridiculous amount of records from her years as a pro – is just some afterthought? Martina knows as much about tennis (the women’s game and the men’s game) as McEnroe. She holds more Slam titles, she was a pro for longer than McEnroe and she has an encyclopedic knowledge of players’ match histories. Oh, and she doesn’t play favorites like McEnroe. So… yeah, this is some bullsh-t.
"John McEnroe makes at least £150,000 – I get about £15,000 for Wimbledon."
Former tennis champion and Wimbledon commentator @martina talks about the pay inequality at the BBC #BBCPanorama pic.twitter.com/qKMUnsypS0
— Panorama 🌐 (@BBCPanorama) March 19, 2018
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Bullshit…she should be paid the same or more
Right…and Martina is just some random woman commenting on tennis.
More people tune in to hear McEnroe
I thought people watch tennis because they love the sport and to watch the players. I’ve never heard anybody say “I refuse to watch because so-and-so is the commentator” or “I only watch because so-and-so is the commentator.” In ANY sport. They could have literally anybody with knowledge of the sport as commentator and people will still watch. Unless their voice is really annoying, but then viewers would just hit mute and watch the match. Having a penis does not justify 10x salary. BBC should just apologize, correct the discrepancy going forward, and stop making excuses for their blatant discrimination.
People do turn down the commentary on people they don’t like and it might effect the viewership on less than stellar matches. Eg So and So is playing who and who, I’m not a big fan of either but Joanne Bloggs is commentating and I think she’s great so I’ll watch the match. The big name tennis matches however will be watched no matter who is commentating.
Source?
By the way, Sue Barker is the face and voice of BBC Tennis and has been for as long as I have followed it. What do you want to bet that this big stupid man baby out earns her too?
Well that’s not true—I think if they really tested they, BBC etc, would find that Dude bro has some high negatives. He can be a lot of fun, but 1) his bias toward certain players (well-known or blond and white) and 2) his distain for the women’s game and that whole “she’s uppity” thing he has going on, make him pretty tough to take. His dinosaur is showing and it’s not a good look.
That said I also find MN overly critical and dismissive generally—her commentary does not add to my enjoyment however encyclopedic her knowledge. These folks are the stars of the 70s-80s; the coverage really needs a general refreshment.
No one tunes in to hear McEnroe. They tune in to watch the coverage and suffer through McEnroe’s commentary.
i dont like J McEnroe’s commentary at all. He loves to talk about himself, his commentary is biased, and he cant admit to being wrong ever. He isnt even the best commentator in his own family.
What a load of bullocks. Shame on them! Good for Martina calling those liars out.
She’s a trail blazer, nothing was handed to her she worked so much more to get herself to the top. She deserves more than equal pay. She’s a better commentator.
As a long time Wimbledon viewer, I can also say Martina is a better announcer than McEnroe. This is BS.
McEnroe has been commentating at Wimbledon for many more years that Martina and has built up a bigger profile as a commentator/pundit during Wimbledon. He also has much more screen time. I appreciate Martina more as a person and a player and want her to be paid equally but I’d prob agree with the BBC’s statement here.
John McEnroe has an amazing agent, similar to Michael Strahan. I swear, he got pushed for the most random stuff and gets the most pieced together jobs, but clearly it’s working.