Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Tennis season may be over, but silly season is in full swing, and the final match of 2025 could be the worst yet. It will be performed on Sunday”battle of the sexes”, an exhibition that is the first in the world for women in every sense of the word Alina Sabalenka Part-time tennis player, full-time follower Nick Kyrgios.
If you’ve been living under a rock – in which case I envy you – Here’s how it works. The two will play a three-set match in Dubai, with the possibility of a 10-point tiebreaker if necessary, with only one serve in each point (yes, the irony of hosting this event is that it is a huge setback for women in an authoritarian country like the UAE, which is overwhelming).
It’s reminiscent of the original, now-iconic Battle of the Sexes in 1973, when the best women’s players in the world, billie jane kingdefeated 55-year-old retired player Bobby Riggs in straight sets. But the basic format—brilliant woman versus mediocre man—is pretty much what both have in common.
Let’s start with the obvious. The original Battle of the Sexes had a point to prove. The match pits perhaps the biggest trailblazer in women’s sports against an open misogynist who considers himself a “macho pig” and boasts that women’s sports are “inferior”.
It was about finally getting women’s tennis taken seriously and launching in the same year as King and the Original Nine Founded WTA. The fight for fair pay and fair treatment goes hand in hand with the feminist movement.
King later said: “I think if I hadn’t won that tournament we would have set back 50 years. It would have ruined the women’s tour and affected the self-esteem of all women.” she told this British Broadcasting Corporation This month, she plays Riggs, trying out “social change.”
Frustratingly, perhaps we will end up with a twisted version of this in 2025, with the Trump administration, “traditional wives,” and reactionary forces pulling us back to the era of the last century.
This week’s game doesn’t have the same seriousness. It is not intended to achieve any goals. It wasn’t even billed as a celebration of tennis. It doesn’t claim to have any higher purpose other than naked profit making, and it’s a lucrative scam for a player who really should know better and another player who relies on being in the spotlight for their sense of self-worth. This is the sequel no one wanted.
Sabalenka’s side of the court will be 9 percent smaller than Kyrgios’ side because researchers at Evolve, the agency that houses both players and organizes the tournament, say women move on average 9 percent slower than men. Does this serve any purpose other than further gamifying something that’s already a complete gimmick and giving Kyrgios an early excuse if he loses? Of course not.
The unfortunate truth is that regardless of the outcome, Kyrgios and his ilk will view it as a success. An on-court victory would inflate his already considerable ego and provide more ammunition for trolls, misogynists, and non-cons to argue that women’s tennis is inferior and that women’s worth comes from how they measure up to men.
No doubt a loss would be viewed as a blip and his name would still be in the headlines, which is where he likes to be (King hit 68 percent of his shots against Riggs on game-winners but still had to live with the suggestion that he lost the game on purpose. The headline at the time was: “Women are ecstatic, men are making excuses.” Will history repeat itself?).
There is, of course, a way to implement this concept nicely, perhaps as a tribute to King and his achievements. It takes different players. Sabalenka is a popular, interesting figure, but calling her an ambassador for women’s sports is a stretch. She was forced to rebut comments that men’s tennis was “more interesting” and that she would rather not watch the women’s matches.
As for her opponent, Kyrgios has not played an official match since March and has slipped to No. 673 in the world rankings, with his run at the Wimbledon final in 2022 now a distant memory. He was notorious for his bad behavior rather than his tennis prowess. He admitted assaulting his ex-girlfriend in 2021 but avoided conviction for it and liked a post by Andrew Tate last year before being forced to distance himself from the far-right influencer.
Afterwards he told British Broadcasting Corporation he is a “different people” But his protests are unlikely to stem the tide of misogynistic abuse his victory will unleash online. Nor is he what you’d call a glowing advertisement for newcomers to the sport, someone the game hopes to attract.
Now the BBC is airing this drivel, embroiling itself in the cesspool of modern gender politics and the fight for clicks over a real sporting event. This feels like another misstep that could and should have been avoided. This is yet another letdown in a story where no one does a great job.
Event organizers encouraged viewers to “pick a side,” turning the original concept — that anyone with a moral compass would support King — into a decidedly gendered battle of personalities. Poor Claire Balding and Andrew Cotter were recruited to try and give the film a semblance of respectability, but it’s a waste of their talents.
You might say it’s just a match, just to fill five minutes of tennis’s offseason; to provide more content for an already overloaded attention economy. But it represents something bigger and darker than the game of tennis.
King vs Riggs isn’t the only time this concept has been used. As early as 1888, Wimbledon’s men’s and women’s singles champions had met on several occasions. Ilie Nastase – another person notorious for his behavior towards women – wore a skirt against Evonne Goolagong, reaffirming that these matches are always hijacked to undermine women’s sport, even without a clear purpose. Over the years, wins have been fairly evenly distributed between men and women, with some games having handicaps for men.
But the reason “Battle of the Sexes” has such staying power, and its grip on sports culture, is because the stakes are so high. It has a higher purpose. Over time, this event may have faded into obscurity, perhaps almost as quickly as it occurred. But the damage has been done.