USA TODAY International Edition
Ranking penalizes Serena for maternity
When Serena Williams left the women’s tennis tour in January 2017 to have her first child, she did so as the topranked player in the world. When she returned to the WTA this March after a 13-month break, Williams didn’t have a ranking at all.
Or, to use a real-world example, Williams went on maternity leave and came back to her job, only to find out she’d have to start from the bottom to get back to where she was.
Williams, currently ranked No. 491, lost Wednesday to 20-year-old Naomi Osaka in an opening-round match in the Miami Open, the second tournament of her return.
It comes on the heels of a loss to her sister Venus a week before. Williams’ draws in both events were difficult and not made any easier by the WTA, with its rule that deny Serena a seed even though she should still be considered the No. 1 player in the world. That seed is crucial — it helps protect her early in tournaments by avoiding other topranked players. Without it, the climb back becomes all the more arduous.
It’s an easy, painless fix. Institute a rule about women returning from maternity leave that allows them to play on the ranking they had before they stepped aside. That’s it. It’s that simple.
The fact that tennis doesn’t have such a rule is surprising. The sport has prided itself on its efforts toward gender equality since the trailblazing days of Billie Jean King. At Grand Slam tournaments and events such as Miami and Indian Wells, women get the same prize money as men, a practice that continues to set the standard in sports. But in 2018, women, who accomplished equality of pay decades ago (in the big tournaments,
at least), still don’t receive a basic right afforded to workers around the world?
(The WTA says it’s because the players are independent contractors, as if the organization’s hands are tied on the matter. It would help if tennis had a players union, but that’s a different topic.)
One gets the feeling that proper maternity leave hasn’t been addressed before because it hasn’t been a major issue before. A woman leaving tennis, having a child and returning to the sport is rare. There are four mothers in the current top 100, none of whom is known outside the tennis world or had the star power to bring this injustice to light.
Is there no rule because there’s been so little need for one?
Or is it the other way around? What if mothers playing tennis was rare because the rules make it so difficult? A Top 50 player has between five and 10 years of maximum earning potential. Giving up a year of that and then returning with absolutely no financial guarantee is a major risk. It shouldn’t be.
The biggest issue for returning moms is that they lose whatever rankings stature they had when they began their leave. That’s key in a sport that sets its fields by the current rankings.
Williams was at No. 1 and came back like she was a mid-tier player returning from knee surgery. The No. 1 ranking was gone, erased after 12 months of tennis inactivity. New mothers are given a nominal special ranking (equivalent to their old one) that has no power except to gain them acceptance into the draws of eight tournaments.
The ranking doesn’t allow for seeds and gives no assurance beyond those eight tournaments. If a new mother doesn’t get enough rankings points to make it into the top 100 during her time with the special ranking, she’s left to play catch up in small, globetrotting events, hoping to win enough to get back to the level where she automatically qualifies for big tournaments.
That’s not as much as an issue for Williams. She’ll almost certainly start winning matches and get herself to the point where she won’t have to rely on her special ranking. And even if the rust proves hard to shake, this is Serena Williams. Her fame guarantees her a wildcard entry into any tournament she wants. Other mothers don’t have that luxury.
The seed is crucial to those who can get it, such as Williams. Being in a draw without a seed leaves players vulnerable to tough draws that can end tournaments earlier and hinder efforts to accumulate the aforementioned points. It’s an issue that keeps compounding itself. At Wimbledon, for example, a seeded player wouldn’t face another seeded player until the third round at the earliest. If Williams arrives at the All England Club without a Top 32 ranking (or thereabouts), she won’t get a seed and could theoretically face the No. 1 player in the world in the opening round.
That’s a situation equally unfair to both Williams and the seeded player she’d face (though I bet the latter would consider it a worse draw). Both deserve the protection that comes with having a number aside your name.
All of that is why rankings points should be frozen from the time a woman leaves the sport until her return from maternity leave. Instead of merely getting into eight tournaments, all players should get a full 12 months under that ranking (with the usual rolling 52-week system) and qualified players should receive the seed they would have had before having a child. Basically, it should be like they never left.
To be fair, none of that would have mattered in Wednesday’s match. Osaka was unseeded despite her new No. 22 ranking (another WTA absurdity), so Williams could have played her just as easily if she’d been seeded No. 1. The lack of seed would have come into play if Williams had won the match. Up next was world No. 4 Elena Svitolina.
Depending on the luck of the draw (or lack thereof), this is a problem that will continue for Williams for the rest of the spring and into this summer. She’ll be entering tournaments as if she were a common player instead of the greatest champion the sport has seen, all because she chose to have a child. It’s bad for her, opponents, fans, tournament organizers and broadcast partners, let alone the WTA in its quest for equality.
Why should Williams have to work twice as hard to reacquire something she never lost?