Close menu

WTA anniversary: The Day Sport Changed Forever

By Jonathan OverendBBC Radio 5 live

Last updated on .From the section Tenniscomments57

Billie Jean King

Wimbledon legend Billie Jean King has spoken of the loneliness she felt taking on friends in the tennis establishment - the "old boy network", she describes it - for the good for women's sport.

The six-time All England Club champion spoke to BBC Sport in a 5 live Sport Special "Billie Jean King and the Day Sport Changed Forever", on the 40th anniversary of the formation of the WTA (Women's Tennis Association).

King, now 69, told the programme that modern day tennis stars are "living the life we used to dream about".

"I really mean it," she said. "It's great to see a dream come true through the future generations."

Current world number two Maria Sharapova added: "What they did and their motivation and work helped us today and gives us a pretty good reason to look unselfishly to the future.

"What you do today will eventually affect players you don't even know, and I think that's a very unselfish and appropriate way to think about what you do on and off the court."

The tennis summer of 1973 arrived with plenty of unrest in the sport - for two reasons. It was a summer of discontent.

The men were unhappy about a suspension issued to Yugoslav player Nicki Pilic for not playing in the Davis Cup. Behind the scenes, tensions were running high, the threats and fall-outs were unpleasant and damaging, and Wimbledon was braced for a boycott.

As for the women, their complaints about sexism at tournaments and appalling comparative prize money had fallen mainly on deaf ears. So when Billie Jean King called a mass meeting of female players - 64 in total - in a room at The Gloucester Hotel in London on 20 June 1973, many expected another strike.

Instead, they emerged waving legal papers, triumphant and apprehensive in equal measure, announcing the formation of the Women's Tennis Association.

On the 5 live Sport Special, Billie Jean King, plus friends who were in the room, told the story of the day female athletes demanded to be taken seriously, the day which built the platform for women such as Serena Williams and Sharapova, plus superstars from other sports, to make a living from playing sport and become commercially successful.

"I got everyone in the room and told Betty Stove to lock the door," said King.

"I said: 'Don't let anybody out because I can't spend one more ounce of my life on this. If we can't make this happen today I'm finished.'"

Her friend and doubles partner Rosie Casals was by her side: "Nobody was going past Betty Stove, right? She's 6ft 4in. It was crazy. You know how crazy it is when you get a room full of women."

The legal documents were drawn up by King's husband at the time, Larry King.

He is named on the official minutes of that first meeting, a three-page A4 document in classic typewriter print, which has been seen by BBC Sport for the purposes of this documentary.

It starts in triumphant capital letters: "WELL, WE'VE FINALLY DONE IT!" And indeed they had.

The WTA, now a thriving professional tour with events in 33 countries and prize money of more than $100m (£64.3m), was born that day.

The programme traces the embryo of the WTA back to the landmark breakaway in 1970, when nine women signed one dollar contracts, much to the annoyance of national federations and the male-dominated tennis establishment.

And we discover how the entire reputation of women's tennis went on the line in the "Battle of the Sexes" later in 1973.

You can listen to the podcast of 'The Day Sport Changed Forever' by downloading it from the BBC Radio 5 live website

Comments

Join the conversation

These comments are now closed.

57 comments

  • Comment posted by Trace, at 07:45 11 Jun 2013

    I as a woman, I want to see women play the same amount of sets as men. I don't understand why they don't. It can only better the game, the players and finally you will get the respect of everyone when you get equal prize money.

  • Comment posted by planetbloo, at 11:14 11 Jun 2013

    @6.Sweeeny
    And I remember watching (bits of) the Court vs King "epic" (longest ever)women's Wimb. final of 1970, which Court won 14-11, 11-9. It was the most tedious pat-ball fest ever and both were dead on their feet well before the end of it. Yet they only played 45 games; the men regularly play many more games in a match than this several times throughout the course of a championship.

  • Comment posted by cmel, at 10:11 11 Jun 2013

    In ladies tennis, as in any professional sport it seems that the enjoyment of the spectators is now of less importance to those involved than the money generated by advertising.( aka sponsorship ). It is common knowledge that 'attractive' women earn more in sponsorship deals.than those of 'average' appearance, Regardless of the quality of the tennis, what's equal about that?

  • Comment posted by dazzlin, at 09:26 11 Jun 2013

    Back in the real world, you get (supposedly) the same pay for the same job. That's not 3 vs 5 sets. That's men and women in the same workplace competing with each other. Very few of the women tennis players would be making a living, let alone earning a fortune.

  • Comment posted by U15724814, at 07:48 11 Jun 2013

    Billie Jean King was an amazing Tennis player in her time. Her campaigning has brought equal pay to women's Tennis but has done nothing to improve the standard of the women's game. We are witnessing the weakest era of female Tennis and yet there is still campaigning for even more money from tv & sponsorship. Her priorities should be channeled into improving the game NOT lining the player's pockets

  • Comment posted by planetbloo, at 09:32 11 Jun 2013

    The "...appalling comparative prize money" is an interesting point. If you do the same job then you get the same pay. The women didn't and still don't. They play fewer sets at the slams, and attract far less sponsorship generally. And they can't/couldn't compete with the men. They got lucky.

  • Comment posted by U15710284, at 08:27 11 Jun 2013

    @3 is correct - if you take the prize money for a tournament such as Wimbledon and divide by the maximum sets played in a match, the women's prize money in tennis is far greater per set played than the men's. Another example of sexual equality?

  • Comment posted by U1677408, at 02:22 13 Jun 2013

    @51 [ braitch ]

    "my favourite by a long way is Hannah Mandlikova, forget the statistics and GOAT debates, she played simply beautiful tennis."

    Bang on. Mandlikova was a phenomenon, beautiful player.

    Her performance in the '87 Australian Open final against Navratilova - wow.

    Also, before my time, but I like watching BJK on YouTube. Could turn an entire match simply by her tennis intellect...

  • Comment posted by nonethewiser, at 12:55 12 Jun 2013

    In many ways BJK's dedication to women's tennis has been selfless. Until 1972 Margaret Court and BJK were in a class of their own and neither needed the financial reward desperately, so organising the WTA might not have been her top priority. I just wish she could instruct all the present WTA players that all their incidental "noise" should be penalisable by points then games, then cash.

  • Comment posted by U15591976, at 12:23 12 Jun 2013

    King did a lot for the game, her legacy remains, it's just a shame the women's game had gone so flat, they get paid so much now for such low quality tennis and competition. Back in the Navratilova. Graf, Seles days the complaint was the lack of competition in the early rounds but we ended up with so many memorable/competitive grand slam finals from the 80s and 90s

  • Comment posted by U15357596, at 05:12 12 Jun 2013

    @34
    is it bad that i had to google which woman won wimbeldon last year when i could tell you the last 10 winners of the mens comp, who they beat in the final, and what year it was that they won off the top of my head?

  • Comment posted by U15357596, at 04:41 12 Jun 2013

    equality should mean getting treated fairly on what you bring to the table

    it baffles me how men and women get the same prize money considering men play more sets, generally longer matches, bring in the spectators and bring in the sponsors.

  • Comment posted by U971888, at 00:16 12 Jun 2013

    It isn't really about how many sets they play, but about the money they attract to the tournament. Where the tournaments run along side each other then there is money in women's tennis. If you hold a men's tournament then a women's tournament back to back then half the sponsors go home after the men have finished. If someone asks 'Who won Wimbledon last year?', what is the answer?

  • Comment posted by JohnnySluff, at 14:46 11 Jun 2013

    Actually I've changed my mind, women should get the same, so should the juniors and over 40s. It's ageism otherwise. In fact, its not fair on the doubles and wheelchair athletes either.

  • Comment posted by Martin, at 11:20 11 Jun 2013

    I'm glad most people posting here see that tennis is fundamentally unequal in how prize money is distributed, and it's not as if the best female players could beat any male professionals, over however many sets. Endorsements and sponsorship being awarded much more on looks and media savvy is a problem in most sports, male and female. Kournikova won zero grand slams yet she's set for life,

  • Comment posted by U6516963, at 10:29 11 Jun 2013

    In the real world, the prize money is not equal at all at the slams. Because the women only play best of 3 sets, they have more energy to play in the doubles and therefore earn even MORE than the men. The top men's players would put going far in the tournament in jeopardy if they did the same.

  • Comment posted by Sweeeny, at 07:32 11 Jun 2013

    @1 - I have some news for you. Ditto the men's game. If you watch the "epic" between Gonzales & Pasarell it will put you to sleep. It looked like short tennis in comparison with today's game. Also, remember Borg coming back with his wooden racket? Sport today is better - period. It is down to the equipment, science and to the athleticism of the players - men and women.

  • Comment posted by The Matelot, at 11:12 13 Jun 2013

    @38 lol i must agree very very true,

  • Comment posted by The Matelot, at 10:43 13 Jun 2013

    Ludicrous suggestion @55 we are talking about majors here. the whole point of a major is to test yourself over the two weeks playing up to 5 sets. thats what is good about a major. reducing the sets played would devalue the competition. As for the ladies in my opinion i get moderate entertainment from watching them play. im sorry but they should not get the same money as the men, there is no value

  • Comment posted by U14966714, at 03:44 13 Jun 2013

    To achieve equality of the setses without sending the schedulers into paroxysms, why not have both men and women playing best of 3 in rounds 1, 2 and 3, and best of 5 from the fourth round onwards. There's plenty of court time in the second week for everyone to play 5-setters at the pointy end of the tournament.

Top Stories