That is staggering news, a decision that strikes me as unfair to the athletes—and sets a dangerous precedent. Should similar steps be taken with athletes from other countries whose leaders go to war, or engage in questionable human rights practices? The slope is slippery beyond belief. Who should next be considered for a banning?
My sense all along was that this was driven less by the All England Club and more by leaders in British government; most notably, British Sports Minister Nigel Huddleston. Sports Minister: That title alone intrigues me. Though once upon a time John Kennedy created The President’s Council on Physical Fitness, that has a lot more to do with citizens staying healthy than government leaders creating policies about professional sports and the fate of athletes who aren’t even from their country. So here, a British politician has pursued the banishment of individual athletes from tennis’ premier event. Does he really think this will change the tide of the war?
I’m also surprised that Wimbledon—usually independent and committed most of all to hosting the greatest players and staging a first-rate tournament—would join forces with the British government this way.
This is also one of those unfortunate moments that reveals how the lack of a player union hurts tennis. There are dozens of Russian players in the National Hockey League, but while the league has cut off business relations with Russia, its players remain—and the union’s power likely has much to do with that.
So I wonder what steps the ATP and WTA will take as they witness their players being banned. And what about the fledgling PTPA? Head back to 1973 when Niki Pilic was suspended from Wimbledon because he declined to play a Davis Cup tie. The ATP, at the time less than a year old, took a major step towards credibility when 80 of its members stood behind Pilic and boycotted Wimbledon. Woud the PTPA consider such an action?