Australia Says 'No' to Novak
. . . and the tennis world should follow its lead.
Dear readers,
For months, American sports fans have watched sports leagues and local governments accommodate professional athletes who have refused to get the covid vaccine. Kyrie Irving, initially sidelined by the Brooklyn Nets due to his unvaxxed status? Now back on the court. Aaron Rogers, a vocal vaccine skeptic? No vax, no problem.
This week, however, international sports fans were treated to a bit of Old Testament vaccine justice courtesy of the Australian government, which proudly denied tennis superstar (and champion of the unvaxxed ) Novak Djokovic entry into the country to play in the Australian Open.
Unsurprisingly, Australia’s decision has become something of a cause celebre for #resistance liberals and a source of outrage for anti-vaxxers—but what does the latest Djokovic saga signal about the state of tennis more broadly? That’s our topic this week. As always, happy reading.
-Calder and Ian
Australia finally said “no” to Novak—but tennis hasn’t needed him in a while.
For almost 20 years, men’s tennis has been dominated by three stars: Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic. All three own 20 Grand Slam titles, tied with one another for the most all-time. While Federer and Nadal’s age and recent injuries make it unlikely (though not impossible) that either will win another Grand Slam, Djokovic, now 34-years old, is still going strong, having won three of the four major tournaments in 2021.
Djokovic, whose sullen disposition and penchant for rageful outbursts on the court has earned him a reputation as the villain of the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic trio, has had his most consistent major success in Melbourne, where he has won nine titles at the Australian Open. And with the 2022 tournament set to kick off later this month, he is poised—once again—to surpass Nadal and Federer and secure an unchallenged spot atop the global tennis leaderboard.
There’s only one problem: Djokovic won’t get the vaccine.
Unlike in the United States, where unvaccinated athletes are allowed to play basically anywhere (except a few indoor arenas in a handful of covid-cautious cities like New York), Australia and the Australian Open have strict vaccine regulations for their athletes and their spectators.
Nevertheless, Tennis Australia, the Australian Open’s governing body, managed to get Novak a “medical exemption” on the grounds that Novak has had previous covid infections. (The Serb contracted the virus in June of 2020 after flaunting global lockdowns by hosting a series of exhibition matches in Serbia and Croatia—and, according to new documents released by his lawyers, again in mid-December.) Tennis Australia noted that the decision to grant Djokovic an exception was made by an independent panel of experts, but all you have to do is listen to Novak’s fellow player—and Australian—Alex de Minaur to see how “independent” he believes that decision to be.
So, for about a day it looked like Djokovic would be heading to the Australian Open. And to be fair, he did make it into the Melbourne airport—but no further than that. It seems that the Australian authorities didn’t care much about the verdict of the independent medical panel, and on Wednesday, they denied Djokovic entry into the country, citing visa requirements that all entrants be vaccinated. For now, Novak is being held in one of Australia’s “immigration hotels” pending a court decision Monday that will determine whether he is allowed to enter the country or not. Djokovic’s lawyers are arguing, basically, that he should be let in because he had Covid in December, which means that medical experts would recommend he wait to get the vaccine.
“Novak is currently in a room which no one can enter,” Djokovic's father, Srdjan Djokovic, told an internet portal on Wednesday while Novak was being detailed at the airport. “In front of the room are two policemen.”
It is very funny to imagine Novak sitting on some uncomfortable airport chair in a guarded room, likely doing what he does before every serve and bouncing a tennis ball an interminable (but always odd!) number of times. To add insult to injury, the immigration hotel where the star is being held has repeatedly drawn criticism for its unsanitary conditions, including serving food covered in mold and maggots. For Novak’s supporters, Novak’s detention represents an unforgivable insult. (Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic called it a “political witch hunt,” and Novak’s father compared it—we’re not making this up—to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.) For Novak-haters, it feels like a sweet bit of karma. But what does it all mean?
Tennis Australia had a clear financial interest in allowing Djokovic to play. For the past few years, tennis fans—and advertisers—around the world have been waiting for the moment when the Serb would ascend to the pinnacle of the Grand Slam rankings. This heady sense of expectation has been cultivated in large part by a tennis media that has hyped up individual records ad nauseam for years, both on the men’s side and on the women’s, where Serena Williams, who has won 23 Grand Slams, is still chasing Margaret Court’s 24.
Given the networks’ single-minded obsession with the title-chasing narrative, it’s hardly a surprise that they carved out a dubious exemption for their favored protagonist. Tennis is an individual game that has long obsessed over records, so it seems reasonable enough that the tennis media, which is composed of an outsized number of former players, is laser-focused on the sport’s most successful stars. The truth is, though, that since the halcyon days of Roger and Rafa, none of the “big three” is oozing much personality, even as Novak continues to rack up titles. It’s especially hard to market around Djokovic, whose primary strategy is to return everything that’s sent his way until his opponent suffers from an extended mental breakdown on the court.
But while the mainstream tennis establishment remains fixated on Djokovic’s record-breaking moment, something else has been happening with the sport. According to many, many trend reports, tennis fashion is taking off. The game itself has also gotten a lot more popular during COVID, due in part to the fact that it’s a low-risk sport. Tennis even boasts its own glossy, only-in-print magazine, Racquet, which is focused on the culture and aesthetics of the sport (and which has some pretty great merch).
All of this is to say that there are lots of ways to get into tennis that have very little to do with Djokovic and his quest for his 21st title. You can approach it as a hypebeast or as an athlete or a stats nerd—or as any combination of the above. The Australian Open might lose some ratings without Novak, but the financial hit wouldn’t be so hard if the people running the sport were willing to engage more directly with tennis’ real cultural cache rather than with the achievements of its top stars.
The truth is that many of the players currently on the tour are a lot more fun to watch than Djokovic and his ilk. Throw a dart at a board populated with the top 30 or so players on the men’s or women’s tour, and you’re more likely than not to find a rising star, or a plucky underdog, or a highlight machine. You’re more likely than not to find someone legitimately rootable. And while your new favorite tennis player might go out in the fourth round of the Australian Open after a hard fought battle not on a center court, who doesn’t love an underdog?
Rather than snipe at the Australian government for refusing to let their cash cow into the country, Tennis Australia and the tennis media should take this as an opportunity to cultivate a different brand of star and different entry points into the sport. It won’t happen in one tournament, but why not try making tennis fun?
RODNEY’S ROUNDUP
Do you want to read about . . .
. . . a new legal challenge to MLB’s anti-trust exemption? “A newly filed lawsuit is trying to upend baseball’s century-old status quo,” by Chelsea Janes in The Washington Post (January 8, 2021).
. . . Antonio Brown’s crash-and-burn exit from the NFL? “Antonio Brown Is a Damning Reflection of the NFL,” by Dave Zirin in The Nation (January 4, 2021).
. . . how college football creates economic inequality? “In Baton Rouge, there’s a $100 million football coach and everyone else,” by Kent Babb in The Washington Post (January 8, 2021).
. . . the sports media’s latest super-merger? “The Athletic Set Out to Destroy Newspapers. Then It Became One,” by Bryan Curtis in The Ringer (January 6, 2021).