Many might think it was a matter of course. The fact that representatives of the warring nations Russia and Belarus were not allowed to show up on not only the biggest stage of tennis, but in what is probably the most attractive tournament in any individual sport in the world. However, this is not the case. Discussions about the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes in international sports are as heated as they are difficult. And it will probably only become more difficult as the war continues. For where does one really set the limit for which practitioners can be considered so liberated from Putin’s regime that they can participate, albeit under a neutral flag? Wimbledon has its clear answer. And is now being punished for it. The organizers in London have been fined $ 1 million for their position, and only for the exclusion of athletes on the women’s side, which has its own international federation, WTA. More can be expected from the men’s own union, ATP. The fine has already been appealed. In addition, all the so-called ranking points have been removed, ie those that send the players up on the list of the world’s best players if they do well. It means a lot to them – not to the organizers’ principled position, although Wimbledon in practice ends up as a pure show tournament, albeit with generous cash prizes. In the middle of the selection of great champions on the grass in London’s SW19, as it is called, it is still the tournament itself that remains the biggest winner. CHAMPION: Kazakh Jelena Rybakina won the women’s edition, but the tournament is the biggest winner, if you listen to Jan Petter Saltvedt. Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth / AP Under the flag of neutrality The organizations that govern the sport of tennis, the WTA and ATP, have decided that players from the two warring nations can participate in all tournaments, including the biggest, under the symbolic and at the same time ineffective restriction that they do not may participate under their own flag. In such a context, neutrality is necessarily an illusion. No one was in doubt about who Russian Daria Kasatkina represented when she played the semifinals of the French Open in Paris in June. ILLUSION: Saltvedt believes Kasatkina’s neutrality in the French Open was only an illusion. Photo: YVES HERMAN / Reuters And at least no one would have been there if Kasatkina had managed to fulfill the dream of finally winning one of the attractive Grand Slam tournaments and could raise the solid silver trophy at Wimbledon’s famous Center Court this Saturday. As seemingly neutral. In the TV pictures you more than anyone else want to avoid watching. The argument that tennis is an individual sport in which the players act completely detached from the Russian regime has its obviously limited reach. Nevertheless, the argument should not be immediately rejected. Blankly excluding all Russian practitioners can quickly work against its purpose, by helping to confirm stereotypes about the West’s inherent injustice and hatred of Russia. In this sense, collective expulsions of Russian athletes could paradoxically end up having greater propaganda value than the sporting jubilation scenes we most of all want to avoid right now. Nevertheless, such considerations have had to give way in many places – and should continue to do so. No Ukrainian players would have to play against pseudo-neutral Russian or Belarusian players in tournaments like Wimbledon. At the same time, no Russian players would have to publicly distance themselves from the atrocities of the Putin regime as a requirement to participate, as has actually been discussed, with the danger they and their families in their home country could be exposed to. That’s why Wimbledon said a categorical “no” where the rest of the tennis world has come up with its florally conditioned “yes”. The organizers received open and clear support from their government, led by the future ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The steadfastness Johnson has shown in the Ukraine issue is likely to remain one of the few lasting pluses from his extremely turbulent prime ministerial term. The worthy winner Perhaps the organizers did not have a real choice either. The government’s line could have ended in Russian players being denied entry to Britain anyway. This has a kind of parallel to what happened to Serbian Novak Djokovic in Australia in January, when he, as unvaccinated against Covid, was refused to stay in the country to play the Australian Open. Now he can instead win Wimbledon for the seventh time. Djokovic is one of many stars who have been critical of the organizers’ decision. Another is Spanish Rafael Nadal. No one will ever know how the expected final settlement between the two giants would have turned out. FINAL READY: Scandal-ridden Nick Kyrgios will play his first Grand Slam final on Sunday. Photo: MATTHEW CHILDS / Reuters Nadal was injured when he won the quarterfinals against American Taylor Fritz, and the Australian noise center Nick Kyrgios instead got a walkover to his first Grand Slam final. Whoever is left with the giant silver trophy on the venerable grass in South London after the final is in any case the worthy winner. Whatever the circumstances. Nor does anyone know what the tournament would have looked like if the world number one on the men’s side, Russian Daniil Medvedev, had participated in the tournament. And it’s not interesting either. The only interesting thing here is that he is actually not with. As an example of how innocent players are obviously hit by such categorical exclusions. Medvedev himself has called the war in Ukraine “outrageous”. The world’s eighth best male tennis player went even further at the moment. He is also Russian and his name is Andrei Rublyov. On February 25, the day after his home country attacked Ukraine, he went straight from winning his match in Dubai to the nearest TV camera and wrote “no war please” on the lens. It can not be expressed more clearly. NO WAR: The message was clear from Andrei Rublyov the day after Russia attacked Ukraine in February. Photo: PHOTO: SCREEN / EUROSPORT But neither Medvedev, Rublev nor any of the other world stars from Russia or Belarus have repeated the criticism of their home countries’ warfare in public. Which in itself is understandable. Whether such statements should change anything about their possible Wimbledon participation is also a question that makes this even more complicated. Now they have followed the Wimbledon tournament from the sidelines anyway. In the next Grand Slam tournament, the US Open in New York in August, they are back on schedule. The many consequences of inconsistency This should not be the case. Tennis leaders have taken a stand that is inconsistent. While Russian players are allowed to participate in the individual competitions, Russia and Belarus are banned from team tournaments such as the Davis Cup. Should we transfer this to sports that, after all, occupy Norwegians more, it is not to be compared with pure team sports, but rather as if Bolshunov and Spitsov and the other Russian cross-country skiers can participate in individual races, but not go relay. A majority of international sports organizations have also decided that Russian athletes will be banned indefinitely. This includes, as the American media reported earlier this year, the International Cat Federation – which has been very clear in its condemnation, surprising or not. Several sports have nevertheless chosen the solution of allowing Russian athletes to participate on an individual basis, in what is a dilemma that will only grow in sports. AVOID: Saltvedt believes no one will see a Russian kiss an international trophy like Medvedev did during the US Open last year. Photo: John Minchillo / AP The pressure to get Russian and Belarusian athletes back into world sports will only increase as time goes on and war fatigue increases. Nevertheless, we must not forget a very basic logic here: There is no valid reason why the sanctions against Russia from other areas of society should not apply to at least as great an extent in sports. Therefore, sanctions and expulsions of practitioners from these countries should be continued and in many cases clarified, no matter how painful. Even if it has an unfair effect on individual practitioners, if it creates a precedent that can be difficult to continue when it comes to setting boundaries – and in its extreme consequence can be reversed for propaganda purposes in the twisted logic of the Russian authorities. And whether it will always raise the question of other nations’ actions in war and other human rights violations. Consideration for Ukraine and Ukrainian practitioners must always be the most important. The power of symbolism In 2000, the new president Putin stated that “victories in sport do more to unite the nation than 100 political slogans.” Since then, he has spent around 500 billion kroner on a propaganda Olympics at home, including the most comprehensive doping program of all time, as well as a football World Cup four years later dedicated in an obviously corrupt way. A few days ago, the same president said that the war against the neighboring country had only just begun. The sport must take note of this. It does not change the war. But sport can contribute the means of power it possesses, which is first and foremost a symbolism that has proved so valuable to the destructive forces that currently rule Russia. No one is better known for his steadfastness than Hans Christian Andersen’s adventurous tin soldier. And even if it eventually took the life of both him and his beloved ballerina, one should not forget what they and their steadfastness left behind, namely the essence of everything human – a heart.
ttn-69
Tennis’ steadfast soldiers – news Sport – Sports news, results and broadcast schedule
