Apartheid (Policy)

Subterms

    Latest story

    88 Shares129 Views

    Once Again, Tennis Is Disrupted by Politics

    by

    The sport has a long history of disputes, especially over apartheid. This year Wimbledon has banned Russian and Belarusian players.If he had it to do over, Brad Gilbert would never have played a professional tennis tournament in South Africa while the country was embroiled in apartheid.Martina Navratilova has never regretted challenging Czechoslovakia’s Communist government by defecting to the United States in 1975, but she wishes she had been able to convince her parents and younger sister to come with her.And Cliff Drysdale, the first president of the ATP, the men’s pro players’ association, is still in awe of his fellow pros for agreeing to boycott Wimbledon in 1973 when the Croatian player Nikola Pilic was suspended by his native Yugoslav Tennis Federation, which said he refused to play for Yugoslavia in the Davis Cup in New Zealand.Cliff Drysdale, far right, president of the ATP, announcing that its members would boycott Wimbledon in 1973 because the Yugoslav Tennis Federation had suspended the Croatian player Nikola Pilic. PA Images, via Getty ImagesTennis and politics have long had a craggy relationship. This year alone, the sport has been embroiled in three international incidents — Novak Djokovic’s deportation from Australia on the eve of the Australian Open because he did not have a Covid vaccination; the Women’s Tennis Association canceling all tournaments in China following accusations by Peng Shuai that she was sexually assaulted by a high-ranking government official; and Wimbledon banning Russian and Belarusian players because of the war in Ukraine. Both the WTA and the ATP subsequently stripped this year’s Wimbledon of all ranking points.As this tournament begins, five male players ranked in the world’s top 50, including No. 1 Daniil Medvedev and No. 8 Andrey Rublev, both Russians, will be absent because of the Wimbledon ban. Also banned are the Russians Karen Khachanov, ranked No. 22, and Aslan Karatsev, No. 43; and the Belarusian Ilya Ivashka, No. 40.Daniil Medvedev, the No. 1 player in the world, is among the Russians who will not be allowed to compete at Wimbledon. Thomas F. Starke/Getty ImagesFor the women, 13 players who would have qualified are not allowed to play, including the Russians Daria Kasatkina, ranked No. 13, Veronika Kudermetova, No. 22, and No. 83 Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, the 2021 French Open runner-up; and the Belarusians Aryna Sabalenka, No. 6 and a semifinalist last year at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, and No. 20 Victoria Azarenka, a former world No. 1.The United States Tennis Association has already announced that players from Russia and Belarus will be allowed to compete at the United States Open in August, though not under their nations’ flags.Better Understand the Russia-Ukraine WarHistory and Background: Here’s what to know about Russia and Ukraine’s relationship and the causes of the conflict.How the Battle Is Unfolding: Russian and Ukrainian forces are using a bevy of weapons as a deadly war of attrition grinds on in eastern Ukraine.Russia’s Brutal Strategy: An analysis of more than 1,000 photos found that Russia has used hundreds of weapons in Ukraine that are widely banned by international treaties.Outside Pressures: Governments, sports organizations and businesses are taking steps to punish Russia. Here are some of the sanctions adopted so far and a list of companies that have pulled out of the country.Stay Updated: To receive the latest updates on the war in your inbox, sign up here. The Times has also launched a Telegram channel to make its journalism more accessible around the world.“I have some sympathy for the Russian players, but Wimbledon did the right thing,” said Drysdale, a Wimbledon semifinalist in 1965 and 1966. “We have to do anything possible to send a message to the Kremlin that they are committing crimes against humanity.”In 1964, anti-apartheid demonstrators tried to stop a Davis Cup match in Oslo. Organizers eventually moved the match to a secret location without spectators.Keystone/Getty ImagesThroughout his decades in the sport, Drysdale has witnessed several instances in which tennis and world politics have collided. A native South African, Drysdale, 81, played against Norway in the Davis Cup in 1964 under police protection after demonstrators protesting apartheid tossed rocks and lay down on the court until event organizers were forced to move the match to a secret location without spectators.Drysdale was also a member of the team in 1974 when South Africa, which had been temporarily reinstated after it was banned in 1970, won the Davis Cup by default because India refused to travel to the country over objections to apartheid.And in the Pilic Affair, as it was called at the time, the newly formed ATP, led by Drysdale, objected to the disciplinary action taken against Pilic, which denied him the opportunity to compete at Wimbledon. About 80 men withdrew from the tournament in support of Pilic, including 13 of the top 16 seeds. Wimbledon went on, but with a significantly weakened field.“Our sport is always going to be subjected to political forces, said Drysdale, an ESPN commentator since the network’s inception in 1979. “There’s always something coming around the corner and rearing its head.”If it weren’t for politics, Jimmy Connors might have captured the Grand Slam in 1974. That year, Connors won 94 of 98 matches and 15 of 20 tournaments, including Wimbledon and the Australian and U.S. Opens. But he was barred from playing the French Open by the French Tennis Federation and the ATP when he signed a contract to play World TeamTennis, the fledging league founded in part by Billie Jean King. The French federation and the ATP argued that World TeamTennis took players away from tour events.Martina Navratilova in 1975 after requesting asylum in the United States. Navratilova, who was 18 at the time, said in a recent interview, “I knew I was brave at the time, but I had no idea what a political situation it would create.”Associated PressA year later, Navratilova created an international incident when she defected from Czechoslovakia right after losing to Chris Evert in the semifinals of the 1975 U.S. Open. Navratilova, then just 18, felt chafed by the then-Communist Czech government, which controlled her finances, travel visas, even her doubles partners.“I defected because my country wouldn’t let me out,” Navratilova, who would go on to win 18 major singles championships, including nine Wimbledons and four U.S. Opens, said in an interview this month. “I really had no idea what I was doing or when I would see my family again. I knew I was brave at the time, but I had no idea what a political situation it would create.”Seven years after Navratilova’s defection, the Chinese player Hu Na fled her hotel room during the 1982 Federation Cup in California and sought political asylum. Her request was granted, but only once, in 1985, did Hu reach the third round at Wimbledon. She ultimately settled in Taiwan.Andy Roddick doesn’t like to take credit, but he is partly responsible for Shahar Peer of Israel being allowed to compete in the United Arab Emirates.In 2009, Peer was denied a visa to play in a WTA tournament in Dubai. The U.A.E. and Israel had no diplomatic relations at the time, and tournament organizers said that Peer’s appearance would incite protests. The move prompted Tennis Channel to cancel its coverage of the tournament.The Israeli player Shahar Peer was allowed to play in a tournament in Dubai in 2010 only after Andy Roddick, the defending champion, refused to compete in the tournament in 2009 because Peer had been denied a visa.Marwan Naamani/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRoddick, in support of Peer, pulled out of the Dubai Tennis Championships despite being the defending champion. The next year Peer was granted a visa to compete in Dubai, though she was surrounded by security guards, and her matches, including a semifinal loss to Venus Williams, were relegated to an inconspicuous outside court.Gilbert is sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainian players and those from Russia and Belarus. He worries that if the players speak out against their governments’ policies they will jeopardize their families at home. Gilbert, a former player, coach and current ESPN analyst, also understands Wimbledon’s position.“You have to realize that Wimbledon is a private, member-owned club,” Gilbert said by phone last week. “The tournament is not run by a national federation the way the Australian, French and U.S. Opens are. Wimbledon makes its own decisions. They don’t answer to anyone.”Anti-apartheid demonstrators in 1977 outside the U.S. Open protesting the participation of South Africans in the tournament.Dave Pickoff/Associated PressGilbert didn’t answer to anyone when he decided to compete in South Africa five times from 1983 to 1988. Even though he said that Arthur Ashe, the president of the ATP, asked him to stay away because of the political situation, Gilbert opted to take both the appearance fees and the prize money.In 1987, Gilbert was vilified for playing in Johannesburg to amass enough points to qualify for the year-end Masters. By reaching the final of the South African Open, he overtook fellow American Tim Mayotte, who refused to compete on moral grounds.“It was probably the wrong thing to do. At 22, what did I know?” said Gilbert, referring to when he first played in South Africa. “I didn’t realize the gravity of the situation. Brad Gilbert now wouldn’t go there. I understand now that politics and sports can’t help but be intertwined. Back then I was just dumb.” More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Golf

      Where Have You Gone, Arthur Ashe? LIV Tour Golfers Need You.

      by

      Our columnist asks whether players who have defected to the Saudi-financed golf series will use their platform to bring awareness to human rights violations. Don’t hold your breath.Maybe some good for the world can come out of the lavish new golf tour backed by Saudi Arabia, among the most repressive governments in the world in the eyes of human rights groups.Maybe Greg Norman will use his perch to speak loudly about the Saudi’s crackdown on dissent.Maybe Dustin Johnson will challenge the Saudis to create an open justice system that follows the rule of law.Maybe Phil Mickelson will stand at a podium and demand the Saudis give a full accounting of what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post journalist brutally murdered by henchmen on orders, the Central Intelligence Agency has said, from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Yes, the same Prince Mohammed now using the LIV Golf series to distract from the truth about his homeland.Don’t hold your breath. None of the golfers who signed on to the LIV tour in exchange for staggering sums will speak up. They are too spineless and too compromised, working as they do for a tour funded by a government that tramples human rights.Sure, in February, Mickelson had to turn tail and hide after admitting to the journalist Alan Shipnuck that the tour he was about to join was funded by “less than savory individuals.” And yes, in a wince-worthy news conference last week, Mickelson hailed LIV Golf in one breath and then, in another, said he did not condone “human rights violations.”But Mickelson wasn’t about to take the risk of saying anything specific or truly challenging. He went for the one-inch putt and moved on. Don’t expect any of these golfers, or the others who have decided to jump aboard despite banishment from the PGA Tour, to use their fame as a bullhorn and their newfound ties to Saudi Arabia to effect change on the international stage.If you want a potent example of someone who did that, look up Arthur Ashe, his controversial visits to play in apartheid-era South Africa in the 1970s, and how he used his celebrity and gravitas to shame the racist regime while playing the South African Open.There were plenty of activists who disagreed with Ashe’s decision to visit a country where the Black majority lived under the boot of racist whites. But right or wrong, he went, believing engagement would bring more reform than cutting South Africa off. He took with him the guts to confront power — right up until 1977, when he realized real change was not happening and vowed to never play again while the nation was ruled by apartheid.The tennis star Arthur Ashe during hearings of the General Assembly’s Special Committee on Apartheid in 1970.As a frustrated Ashe wrote at the time: “What good is it, the grand scheme of human rights and dignity, to say to a Black South African, ‘You can run in this track meet,’ when he still can’t vote, own a home, make a decent living, attend a school, change his residence without government permission or even walk the streets without carrying that loathsome pass?”After Nelson Mandela’s release from prison in 1990, he was asked if he wanted to meet anybody in the United States. His response: How about Arthur Ashe?What matters most is that Ashe tried to make change. He spoke up. He made demands. He took an American news crew to South Africa to document what was really going on. These golfers won’t do anything close. They seem bent on silence while making a fortune stained by blood.Fattening their already fattened wallets is the only concern. And in this regard, they appear to have made a prudent decision. Their rogue tour promises to host the richest tournaments in golf history. Mickelson is reportedly making $200 million to play in the LIV Golf series. Johnson is said to be earning $150 million, no matter how he fares.The tour’s inaugural event, held in London, ended Saturday. Five events will be held in the United States this year. The South African Charl Schwartzel, 37, whose career peaked with a win at the Masters in 2011, finished first in both the individual and team competitions in the opening event, and took home $4.75 million.In a news conference after the tournament, he deflected criticism of the Saudi-backed windfall, saying “where the money comes from” is not something he has ever considered in his career.There are 4.75 million reasons he won’t start now.“I think if I start digging everywhere where we played,” he added, “you could find fault in anything.”Ah, the all-too-typical response. Imagine Ashe saying the same thing when visiting Schwartzel’s homeland at the height of its racist depravity. Cynics claim no one has the high ground, so it makes little sense to mix sports with politics and human rights — as, for instance, Wimbledon did this year when it barred Russian and Belarusian players because of their nations’ war against Ukraine.A Quick Guide to the LIV Golf SeriesCard 1 of 6A new series. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Tennis

      Should Russian Athletes Be Barred From Competition?

      by

      Our columnist examines whether the soft power of sport should be wielded against Russia, penalizing athletes with little or no say in its actions.Russia’s Daniil Medvedev, the top-ranked male tennis player in the world, is the No. 1 seed at the big Indian Wells tournament set to finish this weekend.Should he still be playing while his country is invading Ukraine?Russia’s Alex Ovechkin is one of the most gifted hockey players the world has seen. And oh, by the way, he’s a longtime supporter of President Vladimir V. Putin. Should Ovechkin still be scoring goals for the N.H.L.’s Washington Capitals?Should any Russian nationals be allowed on the sports world stage right now?In an effort to condemn sports-loving Putin and further isolate his nation, the sports world reacted with remarkable swiftness as the war in Ukraine began. We’ve seen Russia barred from World Cup qualifiers in soccer and its basketball teams cut from international play. Tennis called off its Moscow tournament, and Formula 1 ended ties with the Russian Grand Prix.Even the normally tentative International Olympic Committee got in the mix by recommending athletes from Russia and Belarus, which has supported the invasion, be barred from sports events, and the Paralympics after some wavering did just that.But the bans are not complete.Many Russian athletes continue to prosper right in front of us. Individual soccer players can still participate in European soccer leagues. Ovechkin leads a robust Russian contingent in professional hockey, and the country’s tennis players continue to make good livings on the pro tours, though they cannot participate in tournaments with any national identification.Should these players’ days as competitors outside Russia be numbered — at least until the war ends and Ukraine sovereignty is restored?Bruce Kidd thinks so. Kidd represented Canada at the 1964 Summer Olympics as a distance runner, and has long been a human rights leader in sports.During the era of South African apartheid, he helped lead the charge for Canadian restrictions on South African athletes, which began taking effect in the 1970s.When I spoke to him last week, Kidd was adamant: Using hockey as an example that could spread globally, he believes Russian nationals in the N.H.L. should be barred once the current season ends in June, their immigration visas suspended with the door open for asylum.Such a move would not stop the war, of course. But similar to the effort he promoted during apartheid, ending Russian sports participation would buttress economic penalties, deprive Putin the chance to revel in the athletic exploits of Russian players and send a message of support to Ukraine.“The No. 1 argument is to say, ‘Mr. Putin, the sports community is so outraged by your repeated violations of human rights, your violation of the basic values of sports and fair play, that we are saying enough is enough,” said Kidd, whose idea has been echoed in similar form by the Ukrainian Embassy in Canada. “We are showing you and your population our abhorrence.”Bruce Kidd, a professor and longtime humanitarian in the Canadian sports world, at his home in Toronto.Cole Burston for The New York TimesKidd, now the ombudsperson at the University of Toronto, knows detractors will tell him that such a move runs contrary to the principles of a free society. In normal times, he would agree. Not now.All Russian athletes, he added, are highly visible representatives of the nation they come from, “whether they like it or not.”I tend to agree with Kidd. But I’m also wary. Barring individual athletes is likely to add to the unfounded feeling of grievance shared by Putin and many in Russia. It may also fuel dangerous xenophobia against everyday people of Russian descent.That eerie silence from most Russian athletes, the refusal to say anything critical after blood doping scandals and now the bombing and killing in Ukraine? No doubt some stay quiet because they support Putin and want to steer clear of controversy.Some also stay quiet out of well-placed fear for their safety and that of family in Russia.If we bar all sports stars from the aggressive nation in this war, what about those who have taken the risk of speaking against it?Russia-Ukraine War: Key Things to KnowCard 1 of 3Looking for a way out. More