Aryna Sabalenka’s Battle of the Sexes loss exposed what we still get wrong about women’s sport

The modified rules were the evening’s most debated element. To purists, the smaller court was a concession of inferiority. For Sabalenka, the rules were intended to “level the playing field” and create a “competitive spectacle”. In practice, the court proved challenging to navigate, and the single-serve rule appeared to favour Kyrgios. Yet, Sabalenka viewed the tactical difficulty as “great training”.

“I love to challenge myself,” she noted, adding with characteristic grit, “next time, I already know the tactics... and it will be a better match for sure.” This is the language of an elite athlete treating a game against a strong male opponent as an opportunity for growth. Yet, while Sabalenka viewed it this way, social media saw it in the most derogatory light. The resulting wave of online dismissiveness served as a reminder that 50 years on, a woman’s loss is still frequently treated as a referendum on her entire gender’s right to be on the court.

The criticism surrounding the match revealed a persistent double standard: when male athletes engage in cross-disciplinary or exhibition “super-fights”, it is celebrated as brand expansion. When a woman does the same, her performance is often weighed against the credibility of her peers.

We celebrate women’s excellence in isolation, but the moment they enter a male-dominated arena, the narrative shifts from individual achievement to a collective judgement on their professional standing. In the aftermath of the showdown in Dubai, this shift turned toxic. Social media and comment sections became a repository for the same brand of misogyny King faced five decades ago—critics weaponising the score to mock equal pay and using the modified rules to infantilise the women’s game—ultimately missing the event’s point.

The backlash was loud enough that Sabalenka weighed in to defend the “entertaining match”, noting it “brought more eyes on tennis”. By stepping onto the court, she demonstrated that the modern female athlete no longer needs the public’s permission to experiment or take risks. She may not have been immune to the vitriol, but she refused to be silenced by it. Her status is not a fragile thing to be protected from comparison, but a position of power from which she chooses her own battles.

Ultimately, whether such exhibitions “advance” women’s sport is a question of perspective. The visceral, often misogynistic reaction to the match suggests that while the sport has evolved, the public psyche remains stuck in 1973. Some fear such games risk distorting hard-won progress into mere spectacle. However, the value of the Kyrgios–Sabalenka match was exactly this provocation. It unmasked the fact that for a vocal segment of the audience, a woman’s defeat is still seen as a “proof” of her inferiority rather than just a result on a scoreboard.

Sabalenka’s response to the noise has been one of pure defiance. Speaking in Brisbane, Australia, on January 1, 2026, she called for a rematch on even more ambitious terms: “I love revenge, and I don’t like to leave it the way it is,” she told reporters, proposing a return to a full-sized court.

Progress in sport is measured by more than just prize money or policy; it is measured by narrative control. By stepping onto that court on her own terms—and then demanding to do it again—Sabalenka demonstrated that she has the power to define the parameters of her own career. Fifty years after Billie Jean King’s Battle of the Sexes match, the question is no longer whether women can play the game. It’s how many different ways they can choose to command it.

NOW READ

Roger Federer exclusive interview: a man and his mountains

The making of Lhakpa Sherpa: inside the extreme athlete’s record-breaking journey

9 Asian billionaires entering global sports ownership, from Joseph Tsai’s Nets to Ambani’s Mumbai Indians