Navratilova Is Only Being Consistent

On Friday, Independent posted a sarcastically-toned column on Novak Djokovic's push to start a player's union for the ATP. The post said that Judy Murray and Martina Navratilova were both against the idea, and right on cue, both women retweeted the article to endorse the message.

Navratilova is an outspoken feminist, socialist, progressive, and leftist. Use whatever term you like. So it should come as no surprise that she would be against a player's union for the ATP, because it is perfectly consistent with her worldview.

What Djokovic is trying to do (among other things) is get a percentage increase in the prize money for all players on the ATP. Pure evil, right?

Let's say Djokovic gets his way, and there is a five percent increase in prize money at all ATP events. That means there would also be a five percent increase in prize money for the WTA in all joint events, but not the events that only feature the WTA. That means that if Djokovic gets his way, everybody wins.

So how could a retired tennis player like Navratilova possibly oppose something that will benefit all tennis players?

I'll let her speak for herself. "Certainly, giving more money to the men than the women is not a solution. That's the wrong thing to do, and I wish Novak would see that."

Look at what Martina is saying here. She is acknowledging that women would gain money from a player's union forming for the ATP, but is complaining that the players on the ATP would gain even more. The women would benefit from what Djokovic is doing, but since the men would benefit even more, it certainly can't be a solution.

Here's a bright idea. The WTA should form its own player's union and ask for more prize money. Why doesn't Navratilova support that idea? The answer is obvious. The WTA cannot increase the players' wages without the help of the popularity of the ATP.

The issue for Navratilova with what Djokovic is trying to accomplish is that it would help male tennis players more than it would help female tennis players. In other words, if Djokovic succeeds, it would be a win for the dreaded male privilege.

Like any good socialist, Navratilova's worldview is built on a foundation of jealousy. Privilege and inequality of any kind are the only true evils in Navratilova's worldview. Just scroll through her Twitter feed some time and see how much she talks about White Privilege and income inequality. She is motivated by jealousy.

Let's take the example of a mother of three happy children. The three kids are sitting on the couch, and they are happy. The mother goes into the kitchen and gets a bowl of ice cream and hands it to one of the kids. As you can imagine, the other two kids are now angry. Why? Nothing changed for them. They had no ice cream and continue to have no ice cream. They're angry because it is unfair that one kid received ice cream, while they didn't. They are jealous.

Let's say, the mother goes back into the kitchen a gets a larger bowl of ice cream and hands it to a different kid. Now, the one who was thrilled a second ago to have any ice cream at all is angry that he didn't get more ice cream. He was happier when nobody had any ice cream at all. His jealousy has ruined his happiness over having ice cream in the first place.

This is what's happening with the potential of a player's union. Any logical person can see that more prize money for the players is a good thing. All Navratilova sees is an increase in income inequality between the genders. She's decided that it's better for there to be no increase in prize money for anyone at all, than for the ATP to receive a bigger prize money increase than the WTA.

It's jealousy and it's the byproduct of a socialist worldview that holds equality as an absolute moral good.