The ‘Battle of the Sexes’ used to mean something
Gender comparisons are common in sports. Excluding gymnastics, where men and women compete under completely different circumstances and criteria, most sports are simply divided by gender. Not because they operate under a different set of rules or regulations but because putting them in the same field would simply be unfair.
After all, there are fundamental physical differences between men and women that no simple amount of training or experience can circumvent.
However, given that sports is a competitive field, no woman would ever want to hear or believe that they are less qualified than their male counterparts. On the other hand, no man would like to hear women chirping that they’re better when they believe they’re not. The conversation also goes on to include differences in pay, which is a whole other can of worms.
But forget discussions that won’t go anywhere. What better way is there to prove that one is better than the other than by having them play it out for the world to see?
In the latest iteration of the “Battle of the Sexes,” exhibition matches that pit men against women, Nick Kyrgios (currently ranked 671st on the men’s circuit owing to inactivity on the tour for the last couple years) and Aryna Sabalenka (the top-ranked women’s player) set out to put the debate to rest. But following a 6-3, 6-3 victory for Kyrgios, adjusted rules that favored Sabalenka, and an air of unseriousness surrounding the match, the exhibition drew criticism from onlookers.
Why? Because what began as a genuine fight for respect and equality in tennis in 1973 during the iconic “Battle of the Sexes” between Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs has since devolved into a public spectacle that demeans women more than anything else.
Unnecessary, frankly insulting handicaps
Played in the 17,000-seat Coca-Cola Arena in Dubai, the modern-day “Battle of the Sexes” wasn’t like your everyday tennis match: the game was played on a best-of-three format, the size of Sabalenka’s side of the court was reduced by nearly 10 percent, and players were only given one serve per point.
It’s not a matter of debate: Traditional tennis rules were skewed in favor of Sabalenka.
“Honestly, it was a really tough match. She is a hell of a player and such a great champion,” says Kyrgios. “She just proved she can go out and compete with someone who has beaten the greatest of all time. There’s nothing but positives that can be taken away from this.”
But, regardless of what Kyrgios said, Sabalenka lost despite the unfair advantage—not to mention, against a player who is nowhere near at the top of his game. In what way was this supposed to be uplifting for female athletes? Wouldn’t it have been better to have lost but competed on equal footing?
In the 1973 “Battle of the Sexes,” King played without any rule changes and won 6–4, 6–3, 6–3 against Riggs.
The missing subtext
The “Battle of the Sexes,” regardless of how misogynistic or outdated it sounds in this day and age, finds its roots in a legitimate fight to cement women’s position in tennis.
Prior to King and Riggs’ iconic match, Riggs defeated Margaret Court handily in a separate “Battle of the Sexes” in straight sets, 6–2, 6–1. He promptly challenged King to a $100,000 match following the victory. Riggs also notably embraced the chauvinist role leading up to the match, giving the usual “women belong in the kitchen” statements to rile up the competition.
“The only similarity is that one is a boy and one is a girl. That’s it,” says King to BBC Sport ahead of the Kyrgios-Sabalenka match. “Everything else, no. Ours was about social change, culturally, where we were in 1973. This one is not.”
King also says, following her victory in 1973: “I thought it would set us back 50 years if I didn’t win that match. It would ruin the women’s [tennis] tour and affect all women’s self-esteem. To beat a 55-year-old guy was no thrill for me. The thrill was exposing a lot of new people to tennis.”
Where was this in our “Battle of the Sexes”? It played out exactly like any other exhibition, with notably Kyrgios and Sabalenka delivering exaggerated grunts between hits, with an air of unseriousness surrounding the entire affair. Sabalenka also danced the “Macarena” during a pause. King fought for respect, for women to be viewed seriously in their sport. Sabalenka stepped up to entertain.
Not to mention, the King-Riggs match is one of the most-watched tennis matches of all time, with 30,472 people at the Houston Astrodome, and an estimated worldwide television audience of over 90 million. Kyrgios and Sabalenka? At a 17,000-seat Coca-Cola Arena in Dubai—and of course, Dubai of all places, which is known for investing in soft power (sports, e-sports, cultural events) to find favor with the international community and gloss over humanitarian concerns.
They’re not the same
The 2025 iteration of the “Battle of the Sexes” undoubtedly put more attention on tennis as a whole. But, tracing its roots, it was never only meant to bring eyes to the sport—it was their way to secure higher pay and earn respect from audiences and peers that didn’t view them as legitimate athletes.
A simple exhibition between Kyrgios and Sabalenka would’ve been fine as is. But to name it another “Battle of the Sexes” was simply a disservice to that historic match.
In the end, gender comparisons in sports find themselves walking a tightrope between two extremes: delusion, that women can compete at the highest level with men, and outright disrespect, with men dismissing the achievements and accolades of female athletes.
All this “Battle of the Sexes” accomplished was further divide the two parties. Because our takeaway wouldn’t be about how a female athlete competed on fair ground with a top male talent. Rather, how Sabalenka, despite an unfair advantage, easily lost to an out-of-prime Kyrgios after talking all that smack.
Now that’s one way to give the incels their ammunition.
