Tennis is the problem, not Djokovic

The Australian Open final in 2012 was one of the greatest battles in the history of sports. Novak Djokovic beat Rafa Nadal 7-5 in the fifth set after playing for 5 hours and 53 minutes, an hour longer than the previous longest final in history (Mats Wilander over Ivan Lendl at the 1988 US Open).

It launched the Decade of Endurance, in which Djokovic would win his 23rd slam, Nadal would win his 14th French Open title at Roland Garros, and Roger Federer would return from surgery to win the Australian Open twice and Wimbledon.

Back in 2012, the tennis industry and their sponsors, marketing partners and media members had a golden opportunity to grow the sport and reach working class sports fans who connect with boxing, hockey or football. Indeed, Djokovic and Nadal were gritty, street fighting men who survive epic battles because of their diligence, resilience and respect.

The tennis establishment could also have promoted tennis as a healthy way for people of all ages, races and genders to fight some of the plagues of the era: obesity, diabetes, anxiety, stress, attention deficit disorder and mental illness.

Djokovic, perhaps the healthiest person on Earth, was the ideal role model. He beat Nadal (perhaps the greatest competitor of all time) in almost six hours only two days after beating another all-time great competitor, Andy Murray, in a five-hour match. Increasingly mindful about his body, Djokovic would eschew gluten, meat, cigarettes, injections and alcohol. (He once joked that a bottle of champagne “attacked” him after a Rome final). He was like a Zen priest at a yoga retreat, but also a holy warrior on a mission. His emotional intelligence, mental toughness and ability to concentrate for hours amid hostile crowds set a shining example for anyone dealing with adversity. He was a Philosopher King who studied science and languages. He even had a show with guests discussing physical and mental health.

Press officers and broadcasters could have also highlighted the inspirational stories of other players. Alex Zverev was thriving despite diabetes. Felix Auger-Aliassime was overcoming a heart condition. Murray, Dominic Thiem, Borna Coric, Bianca Andreescu and other players were battling back from injuries that would have ruined most athletes. All of this fit a narrative that tennis is good for you.

The message should have been: if you pursue a diet and mindset like Djokovic, you might live to 100. If you believe in yourself like Nadal, and chase the doubts and demons out of your mind, you can achieve beyond your wildest dreams. If you emulate Federer and Murray, you can overcome crippling injuries and regain greatness late in your career. Or, like Serena Williams, you can transcend sexism, racism and ageism. These stories should have dominated the decade since Djokovic outlasted Nadal for almost six hours.

 

Instead of celebrating the Golden Age, many in the tennis industry and activist media dragged the sport into a pit of toxic ideology, petty politics, fake scandals, phony hysteria and salacious clickbait stories.

Week after week, they used press conferences, broadcasts, podcasts and Twitter feeds as platforms to cancel their perceived enemies and change the world through sport.  

In Melbourne, they demanded organizers remove the name of 24-time slam winner Margaret Court due to her intolerance, and then cheered on intolerant politicians who detained and deported Djokovic. In California, they achieved the removal of tournament director Raymond Moore, who was instrumental in building “tennis heaven” in the desert. In Madrid, they lambasted organizers for employing attractive women as “ball girls” (though some of these “models” were actually young tennis players). In Rome, they complained about rain, scheduling and sparse crowds at women’s matches. In Paris, they attacked tournament director Amelie Mauresmo (formerly their hero for coaching Andy Murray) because broadcasters, sponsors and ticket-sellers preferred to showcase men’s matches at night. In London, they punished players born in Russia and Belarus for the sins of the war-lords ruining their countries. In New York, they managed to get Djokovic disqualified; he was later banished from the country altogether.     

Year after year, tournament after tournament, they railed against “inequality” and “unequal pay” in tennis while forgetting that WTA players often dominate lists of the world’s wealthiest female athletes. They demanded that men only play 3 sets at slams in order to make them “equal” with women. They mystified the name and nationality of “Naomi Osaka”, who in fact was raised and trained in New York and Florida (not Japan) by her father Leonard Francois, an immigrant success story from Haiti. They vilified Djokovic, Sharapova, Jelena Ostapenko, Danielle Collins, Dayana Yastremska, Tennys Sandgren, Fabio Fognini, Sergiy Stakhovsky, Reilly Opelka, Ion Tiriac, Ilie Nastase and anybody else who didn’t conform.

They spent much of their promotional budgets overhyping teenagers as the coming messiahs, putting too much pressure on over-trained, under-educated youth such as Stefanos Tsitsipas, Denis Shapovalov, Jannick Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz.

“Sometimes I wish that I never won the US Open,” mused Emma Raducanu, who rose and fell from qualifier to champion to world number 130 seemingly in a New York minute. They championed China as the “future” of women’s tennis and then accused them of “abducting” Peng Shuai. They also mistakenly cast Canada as a “superpower” and created unreasonable expectations for Genie Bouchard, Milos Raonic, Leylah Fernandez and others.

Looking back, did the activists in tennis achieve anything on a societal level? Did women or minorities lose money or rights because of comments by Court, Moore or anyone else? Did the Madrid ball girls damage anyone? Did Amelie Mauresmo tarnish the legacy of Suzanne Lenglen? Did female soccer or basketball players become as wealthy as Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova? Did more girls stay in sports in Haiti and Japan because of Naomi Francois Osaka? Did Russian troops withdraw from Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk? Did Tsitsipas, Shapo, Felix, Sinner, Alcaraz and the others take over the slams from Roger, Rafa and Novak? 

No, none of this happened. Tennis didn’t change the world. The world mainly ignored tennis. As a whole, tennis squandered a chance to secure millions of new fans during its Golden Age. Tennis fans in the United States, for example, still complain about networks failing to show big matches. Tennis stadiums across China still yawn with empty seats. Women’s matches in Madrid, Rome, Paris or Tokyo still lack the packed stadiums that they deserve. 

This isn’t because Djokovic refused a vaccine, or because Djokovic is flexible, or because Djokovic praises God, or because Djokovic didn’t have to play Rafa at Roland Garros in 2016 and 2023. It’s because tennis executives, marketing departments and activist media members got it wrong. They took tennis in the wrong direction. They failed to seize the Golden Opportunity of the Golden Era. And now, with Roger retired and Rafa planning to say adios in 2024, some in the tennis establishment are claiming that tennis has a “Djokovic problem”.

Djokovic isn’t the problem. They are the problem. If anyone needs to change, it’s them, not Djokovic or any other player.

words and images copyright Christopher Johnson Globalite Media all rights reserved