How Wimbledon got it all wrong on tennis and politics

On 20 April, Wimbledon became the first standalone tennis tournament To refuse entries for Russian and Belarusian players, Against the backdrop of the Russo-Ukraine war, the All-England club, set to conduct the 2022 edition of the tournament from 27 June to 10 July, said the move would not “get any advantage” to the Russian government under Vladimir Putin. was to stop. from the participation of Russian or Belarusian players with the championship”.

This move was not the first of its kind. In the immediate aftermath of the crisis in Eastern Europe in early March, several sports governing bodies, including football’s FIFA, took steps to remove Russian teams from their competitions. Even the International Tennis Federation had announced that Russia will no longer be part of its major team competitionsDavis Cup – in which Russia is the defending champion – and the Billie Jean King Cup.

That’s not how tennis works

But the Wimbledon decision was unprecedented because of the structure of international tennis. It is the most individual of the game, with players acting as independent contractors, and whose cost is determined entirely by the magic ranking number next to their name. The link between tennis and national identity has been weak at best.

Obviously, the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) and WTA (Women’s Tennis Association), which run the men’s and women’s tours, respectively, saw it as a breach of agreement They have tournaments in which a player’s entry is based on ranking and not nationality. In fact, the fundamental principle of the WTA in 1973, when the great Billie Jean King led the movement, was “equal opportunity”. Wimbledon was seen going against it.

The merits of the debate aside, the end of apartheid in South Africa and not since the Cold War, has spurred so much discussion on sports bans acting as a deterrent. In fact, since the mid-1990s, there has been a steady decline in the number of such calls for boycotts and sanctions. When Beijing hosted the Olympics in 2008, Sochi hosted the 2014 Winter Olympics and Russia hosted the 2018 Football World Cup, there was a ruckus. Concerns have been raised about Qatar 2022 (football). But he did not get into big controversies.

The reason could be two fold. In a globalized world, built on the idea of ​​free movement of people and shared economic interests, sanctions can often be counterproductive, prompting nations to tread with caution. An example is the excessive dependence of European countries on Russian gas which is proving to be a hindrance in imposing far-reaching sanctions on Ukraine in the ongoing crisis. Even the US did the same until the diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. It caught the attention of the public very little.

The second reason is perhaps the checkered history of sanctions and boycotts that were actually imposed, including sports, to make a tangible contribution towards political change. The jury is still out on what the US and its allies achieved by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics (on the invasion of Afghanistan) and the then Soviet Union of the 1984 Los Angeles Games.

Exclusion takes work and logic

A lot needs to come together for the boycott to be successful. What they need is coordinated global action, a clear set of demands, domestic protests and a situation where the boycott would degrade the country. Only against apartheid-era South Africa did it all properly, with sanctions that included sports, giving a tough fight to the ruling elite and ending a brutal regime after decades of struggle.

It is very difficult to see this happening in the current Wimbledon scenario. The All-England club is, for now, a lone wolf, and there is a good chance that the ATP and WTA rankings could render the ban ineffective by removing the points phenomenon. While many nations use the success of the sport to advance their position in the world, tennis does not attach itself to national identities, e.g., track and field, which excommunicated Russian and Belarusian athletes in early March .

In fact, tennis did not suffer much in apartheid South Africa, as did Martina Navratilova criticizing Wimbledon’s stance. When India withdrew from the 1974 Davis Cup final in protest, South Africa were crowned champions by default. Johan Krick won the 1981 Australian Open men’s singles title and Kevin Curran reached the 1984 Australian Open singles final, while still representing South Africa. In the period since then, both became US citizens and continued to play.

Seen against this background, the Wimbledon decision seems purely symbolic, but a decision that could potentially set a dangerous precedent. Wimbledon argues that an “unfair and unprecedented military offensive” from Russia was the tipping point, a slippery slope. The undue aggression and threats to the rules-based international order are subjective and, in the present situation, largely a Western construct.

selective action

This is in no way to mitigate the tragedy and suffering that has been inflicted upon Ukraine and its people. The evidence is solid. It is also nobody’s case that human rights issues should not be raised. But it is a bit of a stretch to say that the West and its allies are working with clean hands. The need of the hour is continuity. Tunisia’s Ons Jabur, a leading Arab tennis player, asked on the sidelines of the Madrid Masters on Thursday: “What about all the countries where people and children are dying every day?”

She continued: “I have a few situations of my own in the BJK Cup… when we were supposed to play Israel. I am… very sorry for the Palestinian people and I am sorry for the children who died… So, I don’t understand how it is okay to mix politics and sports now.”

This present era is different from any other era for sports politics. While athlete activism, thanks to the proliferation of social media, is higher than ever, sporting bodies have systematically tried to crack down on various forms of protest. But like most professional set-ups, the imbalance in power between governments and the hosts (read employers) and players (read staff) means messages, when convenient, are allowed as per the establishment’s choice.

So, in 2014, English cricketer Moeen Ali was asked by the International Cricket Council to remove the “Save Gaza” wristband in a test match against India because the message was political. But in 2022, British Sports Minister Nigel Huddleston may demand that the likes of Daniil Medvedev and Andrey Rublev publicly condemn their president for playing at Wimbledon. The Russian pair’s initial message – a public one – was for peace, which unfortunately counted for little.

Acting under British pressure?

It may well be that Wimbledon didn’t want such a mess One involving Novak Djokovic and Australian immigration officials Amid conflicting advice from the government earlier this year. The trophy, considered the most sacred on tennis courts, may also be under pressure from a Russian or Belarusian player to leave the nation of optics.

But by putting itself front and center, and seemingly doing the British government’s bidding, Wimbledon may have dug a ditch that’s too deep to get out.