The implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine continue to expand beyond politics and the economy and into new contexts, the latest of which has been sport. The highly esteemed English tennis competition Wimbledon has made the decision to impose a ban as part of a global effort in all spheres to sanction Russia for its attack on Ukraine.
Background on Wimbledon
In the immediate aftermath of the conflict, Russian and Belarusian players were permitted to play on the ATP and WTA tours this year, though they have had to do so under a neutral flag. Wimbledon, however, is run by the All-England Club and independent of the ATP. As such, Wimbledon’s unprecedented decision to impose a total ban has seen dissonant responses – either utmost support or unrelenting criticism.
Importantly, Wimbledon is not merely an annual tennis tournament organised by the All-England club. It has a long-standing history and is synonymous with England’s cultural identity. For Brits and many abroad, the Major Grand Slam is an icon of sport itself in world affairs. In this sense, it is not so easy to separate politics and sport, as the old proverb states.
Political concerns
As one could easily infer, the ban was imposed under advisement from the UK government. The UK has been at the helm of NATO and the West’s condemnation of Russia with bans, tariffs and sanctions across several industries. Earlier in May, the UK even banned service exports to Russia, including management consulting, accounting, and public relations. According to the Daily Telegraph, a major consideration in the ban was the unbecoming vision of a member of the British royal family potentially having to present the trophy to a Russian or Belarusian player at Centre Court. With Russian No. 2 seed Daniil Medvedev in the hunt for his second Grand Slam win, this possibility could have very well eventuated.
Medvedev commented, “On the one hand, I can understand (the decision) and, on the other, I find it unfair”. The Russian tennis player raised an interesting proposition that under the law, tennis players are considered independent workers, much like average self-employed Russians living in the United Kingdom. Such individuals currently have the right to work in the UK, despite their country of origin’s ongoing war in Ukraine. However, it must be noted that these ordinary citizens do not represent their countries on a world stage as an international sportsperson does. The citizenship of a sportsperson encourages patriotism and national pride by nature. However, that does not mean that discrimination based on nationality is the viable alternative. That is far from the solution. A tennis player’s nationality does not in and of itself represent their current political administration, nor their government’s actions. Responding with prejudice towards all Russian citizens alike simply dilutes the blame and responsibility that only those originally responsible should bear.
Consequences of Wimbledon’s ban
In the tennis world, The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) is tasked with running the men’s tour as well as representing their male players’ interests. Following Wimbledon’s ban, the ATP responded that “unilateral decisions of this nature, if unaddressed, set a damaging precedent”. Such a decision would “undermine the principle and integrity of the ATP’s ranking system”. To combat this, the ATP has removed Wimbledon’s allocated points. The Womens’ Tennis Association’s (WTA) rhetoric aligns with that of the ATP, stating that it stands to protect “the equal opportunities that players should have to compete as individuals”.
This means that winners will not be able to gain points to improve their world ranking, and last year’s defending champions will not have the opportunity to retain their points. Stripping points will have consequences on the sport’s pecking order. Medvedev, ranked No. 2, is now in an excellent position to displace No. 1 Novak Djokovic after Wimbledon, as Djokovic’s 2,000 points for winning Wimbledon last year is not able to be retained. If the purpose of these measures is to prevent Russian athletes from succeeding and showcasing their success on international platforms, Wimbledon’s ban seems rather futile and even counteractive. Consequently, Medvedev will become No. 1 and other tournaments have refused to follow Wimbledon’s move.
Political motives in Russia’s sporting history
Wimbledon did not equivocate from their original stance though. They reasserted that they were “unwilling to accept success or participation at Wimbledon being used to benefit the propaganda machine of the Russian regime, which, through its closely controlled state media, has an acknowledged history of using sporting success to support a triumphant narrative to the Russian people”. This is of course in reference to Russia’s state-sponsored doping program that resulted in their remarkable success in the 2018 Sochi Winter Olympic Games. When this scheme was discovered six years later, 46 medals were stripped, as their athletes had shown evidence of doping. Although it was never officially admitted, it is evident that the Russian administration recognised how sport and sporting success could play into their political agenda on an international scale.
Sport and politics
Wimbledon’s ban was underpinned by the principle that sport can be inextricably linked to politics. It seems irreconcilable to watch a Russian tennis player compete in a match whilst Ukrainian tennis players, such as Sergiy Stakohvsky. have had to retire to join their armed forces. Can sport really put aside the atrocities that have occurred within the two countries, and more importantly, should it?
Nonetheless, the humanitarian crisis that sees Ukrainian citizens forced into an armed conflict is greater than any match or competition. Tennis players will be able to regain their rankings and defend their titles at any given point in the future. However, for many in Ukraine, there is dimming hope for a future at all. In and of itself, this should take precedence. However, there is an overt issue of remoteness, wherein the actions of a tennis player cannot reasonably be linked to the conduct of their government – especially if the player displays no tenable links to any political administration. Further, many Russian tennis players have pleaded that they would denounce their government and play under a neutral flag if it meant they were allowed to participate. However, this possibility was swiftly ruled out, as it meant those players and their families could put themselves in great danger from their respective national governments if they did so. These mitigating factors complicate a binary understanding of right and wrong within this issue and there is no clear answer that presents itself. Rather, there is some truth in both sides of the debate.
The wider sporting world
For now, Wimbledon is the only outlier. No other ATP or WTA tour event has followed their lead. Russian and Belarusian players, including Medvedev and the women’s No. 7, Aryna Sabalenka of Belarus, competed in the French Open in June, the second Grand Slam tournament of the year. The United States Tennis Association, which runs the U.S. Open that will be played after Wimbledon, called for the tours to reconsider and reinstate Wimbledon’s points, but has made no move on banning Russians and Belarusians in their own competitions.
That is not to say that no action has been taken in the wider sporting world. Russia has been stripped of the hosting rights to events such as the Russian Grand Prix and has seen its teams disqualified from major competitions like the FIFA World Cup. But only a few sports, notably figure skating and track and field, have banned individual athletes from Russia and Belarus from competing. Whether this will extend to other sports will depend greatly on the future trajectory of the war.
However, the irreconcilable views of Wimbledon and the ATP are representative of a broader dissonance. Both viewpoints represent legitimate interests whether it is of an individual’s right to compete or a broader acknowledgement of state-led wrongdoing. Neither can be conclusive or determinative.
