Much Ado about. . . Something: Five Thoughts on “Equal Prize Money”

Posted on 1 November 2023 by amitric

This is a piece I published in early September 2012 on the now-defunct Tennis Space website. Though the original article didn’t include hyperlinks to my sources, I’ve added as many of those as I could here so that anyone interested in more information can track it down. (Despite being tempted to make other changes, I’ve left the content as is, with one exception placed in brackets.) A decade on, I’m gratified to note that many of the arguments I made are being voiced by top players; and with the formation of the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), there is now a group working full-time to advance the best interests of all players.

With extensive television coverage and more column inches dedicated to the sport, it’s not surprising that off-court controversies garner greater attention during the Slams than at other points in the tennis season. At the US Open, we’ve again been exposed to some of the more complicated aspects of life on tour, be it Maria Sharapova’s difficulties maintaining a long-distance relationship while traveling, the USTA’s decision to bench #1 junior Taylor Townsend until she improves her “fitness,” or frustration with tournament transportation, scheduling, and rain delays. And, as at Wimbledon two months ago, ongoing fascination with aspects of the women’s game—specifically, with debating a cluster of topics referred to, more for convenience than accuracy, as “equal prize money”—is a recurring theme. Oddly, though, it is male players who are doing most of the talking.

In London, it was Gilles Simon, newly-elected to the ATP Players Council, who kicked off the debate with comments to French press, only a few which were pursued after Simon made his second-round exit. Although he had raised a number of issues for the Council to tackle (including the 2014 tournament calendar), only remarks that seemed to disparage women’s tennis got much play in the English-speaking media: “You are only talking about [prize money], but I talked about many things,” Simon noted. Given the opportunity to clarify his views for a broader audience, the top-20 player made an argument rooted in entertainment value and market economics: since, in his words, “men’s tennis is actually more interesting than women’s tennis,” and the “price of the ticket from the men’s final” is more expensive than that for the women’s final, male players should get more money at the major tournaments.

Throughout the summer, including the past two weeks in New York, Simon’s views have been echoed and elaborated upon by the likes of Nikolay Davydenko, Sergiy Stakhovsky, and Janko Tipsarević. While continuing to discuss the women’s game, these players shifted the focus to what they see as the unequal work performed by male and female players. “Why,” asked Davydenko, upset after failing to capitalize on a two-set lead over Mardy Fish, do the “girls play best of three sets, and we should play best of five sets, and have the same prize money?” Stakhovsky, also a player representative, took the disagreement a step further, not only mentioning “the amount of time [men] spend on court” during matches but also complaining, in an interview with Lindsay Gibbs, that WTA players are ungrateful for the effort the ATP Council has made in securing prize-money increases and that their presence at “combined” events makes it difficult for male players to book practice courts. Tipsarević, tossing off a casual tweet with the hashtag “#equalprizemoney” after a dominant quarterfinal performance by Serena Williams, is merely the highest-profile ATP player to add his voice to the fray.

That there is “much ado” in the tennis world these days, we can all agree. Given the rapidity with which words circulate and get taken out of context in the age of social media, the opportunities for confusion and misunderstanding are ample, in this context as in any other. All concerned parties risk neglecting significant problems when much of the talk (on Twitter, online forums, and even in locker-rooms and press centers) is one-sided, adversarial, or off-topic. So, moving forward, it’s important that fans as well as players, media as well as management, are able to distinguish the real issues facing professional tennis from the distractions. It also can’t hurt to remind athletes—whose jobs require them to focus on winning—that the most effective debates often function like dialogues in which all parties are seeking common ground, rather than contests in which two sides square off and each tries mightily to force the capitulation of the other.

End of Discussion
The bottom line here, as in many instances, is monetary. Although some are insisting that what’s at stake has something to do with equality between the sexes, it’s really a matter of economic conditions on tour that affect male and female players, particularly those ranked outside the top 50 or lacking support from national federations, in identical ways. As Ivan Ljubičić, a former president of the ATP Player Council, observed from Melbourne in January, “the general feeling is that the money we are getting from the Slams…, it’s definitely not what we would like it to be.” In fact, the issue of player compensation is two-fold: it concerns both the what and the how of tour finances.

What is another word for revenue: specifically, the percentage of tournament intake that goes—or should go—toward prize money. (Christopher Clarey rightly noted in yesterday’s New York Times that there is no consensus among tournament officials about whether to “link” prize money to percentages of either tournament revenue or profit.) While the problem of revenue sharing is more urgent at the ITF-governed Slams, which now allocate between 11-17% of the monies they amass for player checks (compared to between 20-30% at tour events), that is also where there’s been progress of late, with prize-money increases at all of the majors in 2012.

How signifies the way prize money is distributed across tennis’s ranks: that is, according to tour wins. The further a player advances in a tournament draw, the bigger the check; the more overall wins, the greater the annual income. This much makes intuitive sense until we contrast the amounts awarded in early and later rounds and consider how top-heavy the men’s tour, in particular, has become over the last decade, with a small handful of players winning almost all of the big prizes. These results—which, in other contexts, are taken as evidence of a “golden age”— have contributed to what USA Today’s Doug Robson has called the “wealth disparity” in tennis: a class divide amongst players that is comparable to economic conditions protested by the Occupy Wall Street movement.

With regard to “income inequality,” Stakhovsky himself has been one of the most articulate members of the ATP, helping to convey what life is like for players outside of the tennis elite. In an April interview with journalist Evgeny Shvetz, the Ukrainian player used his own case as a player ranked near 100 to illustrate that many pros, far from enjoying the life of luxury suggested by Moët, Rolex, or Mercedes advertising, actually have a hard time breaking even after covering the ever-increasing costs of life on tour: equipment, airfare, food and lodging at tournaments, coaching, fitness training, physiotherapy, and so on. Of the players now at the top of the game, “Stako” remarks, “that’s simply another world. What those four earn—isn’t comparable to all the rest. We simply don’t exist in comparison with them. [Endorsement] contracts, clothes—that’s all for the top-5 or top-10 players. . . all the big brands [know] that they only need to pay the top players, all the rest are for free.” What Stakhovsky and others have described in detail are the realities on the ground—not simply for a handful of ATP players but for so many who make the tours possible in the first place. If men’s and women’s tournament draws each featured only 16 players instead of 64—or the 128 of the majors—how long would events last and how interesting would the competition be? Though tennis is an individual sport, the fates of almost all the players (veterans and newcomers, higher and lower ranks, male and female) are tied. Instead of using their public statements to score points or talk past each other, then, ATP and WTA players need to identify and prioritize their ends and work toward achieving them collectively.

Battle of the Sexes
One of the central impediments to progress stems from how the debate is currently being framed. During the last quarter of 2011 and the start of this season, the most central challenges facing professional tennis (concerns both economic and structural) were narrowly defined and thus more effectively discussed. Since then, the tennis world has gotten bogged down in numerous conversations pitting male and female players against one another. No one person is to blame for this, of course, but many have contributed to the conversation’s getting off track, including ATP and WTA stars, as well as fans, who’ve responded to perceived criticism by outspoken players with pointed one-liners and even ad hominem attacks.

The media, for their part, have not always helped. A case in point is the New York Times. Clarey’s piece, for instance, doesn’t quote (or even mention) a single female player or official. [Note: a few days after I read it, the NYT posted “a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print”; it now quotes Serena Williams.] Despite discussing issues that affect WTA players as much as they do those in the ATP, the article relegates women to a parenthetical aside and describes them as being “along for the ride” in terms of the fight for increased prize money. In doing so, it replicates precisely the sort of behavior that frustrates WTA Player Council members like Bethanie Mattek-Sands, who told Matt Cronin of Tennis.com that the ATP player representatives “really don’t talk to us a lot. We agree with some of the things of they want. . . but they haven’t approached us.” She added, “We’d love to sit down and talk to them. [But] it’s tough when it’s in the media and they aren’t even giving us a chance to say whether we agree.” Last week, the Gray Lady also asked several sports writers to respond to the question “Women’s Tennis: Is Best of Three Sets Enough?” While the implicit topic of this discussion is financial (and featured debater Megan Fernandez says so plainly in her segment, “This Is About Prize Money”), the NYT’s emphasis on gender suggests there is something inadequate about the women’s game as is and creates unnecessary tension between players on the two tours—and their fans, too. Somewhat ironically, blogger Cheri Britton and Tipsarević land on the same side of the “equal play” divide, with the former claiming that “women deserve epic matches” men sometimes experience at Slams (David Ferrer’s quarterfinal triumph over the Serb at the US Open comes immediately to mind) and the latter asserting that it’s wrong-headed to suggest women are “physically unable to play best-of-five sets.” But because no female player has expressed feeling deprived of meaningful victories (just ask Serena Williams how she felt after her come-from-behind win over Vika Azarenka in Sunday’s final!) and few in this day and age believe women aren’t fit or strong enough to go the distance, these arguments fall flat.

Particularly in an Olympic year, where there was a different format on the men’s side, it makes sense to ask “should men play best-of-three sets at major tournaments?” (as Ben Rothenberg did in the NYT‘s US Open preview). After all, it didn’t take Novak Djoković and Rafa Nadal playing nearly six hours in the Australian Open final for fans, tournament organizers, broadcasters, and players themselves to start wondering if less might be more when it comes to match length. But given that “should women get equal prize money” is a question that’s been answered—in the case of the US Open, for some forty years!—and that “should women play five sets like the men?” is not a question being seriously entertained by fans, WTA players, or the ITF, why are they being asked? And why now? Until I’m persuaded otherwise, my answer is that either we’ve got a serious misunderstanding on our hands or this way of presenting the problem benefits some constituencies—or both. Below, I’ve identified a few misconceptions that may be contributing to the confusion about what ails tennis. It’s also possible that the “battle of the sexes” frame works for attention- or conflict-seekers (there’s a reason “to troll” has become a popular verb), those looking to generate page views on media sites, &/or those who have something to lose if the real challenges are addressed. In this “battle,” that is, perhaps it’s not so much that sex sells but that controversy does.

Work It Out
A phrase much used in these debates—“equal pay for equal play”—has a nice ring to it but is, in fact, part of the problem. A conceptual obstacle in these discussions is that male players, in particular, tend to talk about “play” as if match-time represented the only effort they or members of the WTA put into their careers. While it’s of course true that they earn their living via prize money derived from fans who buy tickets to see them perform, most players would be taken aback, if not deeply offended, if anyone suggested the only real work they do is on show-courts at tournaments. As all will testify if asked, they clock hours and hours away from spectators’ eyes. Their days are packed with aerobic work-outs, weight-lifting, on-court practice sessions, stretching and yoga, physiotherapy, and meals prepared less for culinary delight than to maximize performance. In addition to all this physical activity is time in front of journalists and cameras being interviewed, photographed, and filmed for media and marketing purposes. This is all work, is it not? Are ATP players really prepared to not simply assert but actually prove that female players do less work, day in and day out, over the calendar year than they do, just because they happen to spend fewer hours engaged in tournament play at a handful of events?

While the emphasis on play is limiting, it is also understandable. Because tennis players (especially those who aren’t high-profile enough to have a portfolio of endorsements) earn their way by winning, it makes sense they would think of match-play as paramount. Without the wins, there’s no money. But at the same time, without all the other work they do, there are few, if any, wins. For a variety of reasons, tennis professionals may be reluctant to think of themselves as engaged in labor—newly retired Andy Roddick, for one, prefers to call his peers “the talent.” Still, it may be time for them to start thinking of themselves as workers, rather than mere players, because only with a more nuanced and complete sense of their labor (and the conditions in which it takes place) will they be able to effectively negotiate to make sure they’re adequately compensated for it.

Divide and Be Conquered
The ATP and the WTA are separate entities with their own members, events, sponsors, budgets, staff, and leadership. And yet, the two enterprises overlap and cooperate in significant ways and have far more in common than not. Just as there is strength in numbers within the tours, there is also advantage to be gained from forming alliances between them. As Roddick recently acknowledged, getting players to come together is quite difficult: “you’re dealing with a bunch of different languages, different agendas, guys who play singles, guys who play doubles, guys who play clay, guys who play hard.” But, he added, his sights are fixed on a bigger target—on “what’s best for the game.”

In the end, how different are what’s best for the ATP and what’s best for the WTA? The current squabble over prize money suggests that the two constituencies are in competition for limited resources, like hungry children fighting over a single, already-cut piece of pie. Again, Roddick: the “powers that be,” he stated somewhat wearily after his first-round win last week, “are betting against us being able to unify, and they have been getting away with that gamble for 25 years and we haven’t proved them wrong yet.” Even though it would be difficult at first, it would also be more strategic, productive, and beneficial in the long run if ATP and WTA members started thinking of one another as collaborators working toward a shared goal. Ultimately, the fundamental change both groups are seeking is getting a larger slice of the revenue pie for players. Members of the ATP must give up on the idea that the Slams and elite combined events would undo deals that took decades to make by raising only men’s prize money. They have to recognize that the stakes in this specific argument are “all or nothing” and that the tournaments are more likely to give all players nothing than to give one group of players “something.” In sum, the effort expended in fighting with each other—largely through intermediaries in the press—is energy that could be better spent.

Pay Day
Increasing the players’ share of tournament revenue, at the Slams in particular, is important. But perhaps even more important is the matter of economic equity within the tours. To achieve greater parity, to ensure that being a professional tennis player is a viable career path for more than the top 50 on each side of the tour, there needs to be a reconsideration of the entire pay structure of the ATP and WTA. In other words, the main questions players should be debating are: “Is the pay structure in tennis working as is? Beyond how efficiently the system functions, is it fair? If not, how could it be improved? What outcomes would we like to bring about through our joint efforts?”

Answering these questions is a daunting task, one that requires strong leadership and organization among top and rank-and-file players, as well as creative and critical thinking about how—and on whose behalf—the tours operate. At present, players are individual contractors who are paid by way of tournament prize-money. This system is flawed, however, both because the players do far more than play and because the tours, to even exist, are dependent on the labor of workers, a majority of whom do more losing than winning throughout the year (for example, Stakhovsky, one of the hundred-best male tennis players in the world, came into the US Open with a record of 12-22). Sports like basketball set minimum annual salaries, based on years of service, thereby recognizing that every player makes a contribution to the team’s success, even if he or she is not the top scorer in a given game or the MVP of the league. In other professional spheres, there is often a distinction made between base salary, which hopefully sees annual cost-of-living increases, and merit- or bonus-pay, which is tied to specific measures of productivity or quality of performance. And in the realm of unskilled labor, there are debates about whether “minimum wage” should be substituted with a “living wage” ensuring that those working full-time jobs are able to support their families at a subsistence level. Rather than being a world apart, tennis might look to and learn from the best practices in other professions.

It isn’t beyond the imagination or ability of those in professional tennis to devise a pay structure that both incentivizes winning and provides a reasonably steady income for the dedicated workers who make it possible for the game we enjoy so much to exist beyond the exhibition format. But there has to be someone—in all likelihood, multiple people—working toward such significant change on a full-time basis. It’s not enough for individual players to speak out occasionally or for their councils to hold meetings a few times a year. These problems, which have been present for decades, will require focus and dedication to solve. Surely, tennis can find a few good men and women for the job.

Srdjan, Serbian Nationalism, & the Uses of Information

Posted on 18 February 2023 by amitric

Despite the title, this isn’t really a post about Srdjan Djoković. Like various others during the second week of the Australian Open, I’m using the father of the top men’s player in the world to get your attention. Unlike many of them, I’m doing so for what I hope is an edifying purpose. Namely, I want to unpack a widely-reported incident that took place outside Rod Laver Arena last month in order to make distinctions between different types of information. In the second part of the post, I’ll offer an interpretation of the varieties of fan sentiment, ethnic pride, nationalist iconography, &/or political ideology that were expressed on the tournament grounds after the quarterfinal match between Novak Djoković and Andrey Rublev.

Part 1

First, the facts: Following complaints by spectators during a first-round match between Kateryna Baindl (UKR) and Kamilla Rakhimova (RUS), as well as a demand from the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia, Tennis Australia belatedly introduced a ban on Russian and Belarusian flags. Over the course of the subsequent 12 days, they added more flags, banners, and symbols to the prohibited list in order to cast a wider net for potentially-provocative displays by attendees.

Though there may have been others who managed to sneak in flags here and there (and we know that security ejected unruly spectators for a variety of reasons throughout the fortnight), it wasn’t until the middle of the second week that there was a news-making incident involving about six men waving Russian (and related) flags and chanting pro-Putin slogans on the steps leading from the two main show-courts into Garden Square.

Map of Melbourne Park, with Garden Square at center, courtesy Tennis Australia

The timeline: Djoković’s on-court interview ended around 10:00pm; shortly thereafter, Novak fans began to assemble on the steps, as they had after each of his wins. Though at least one of the aforementioned men is visible in the background of my videos and photos of the festivities, it wasn’t until the significantly larger group began to disperse, at approximately 10:30, that these men briefly took center stage.

Just took a walk around Melbourne Park after filing and a group of people were standing on the Rod Laver Arena steps, holding up a flag with Vladimir Putin’s face and chanting in support of Russia. pic.twitter.com/2p0LfkyVC3
— Tumaini Carayol (@tumcarayol) January 25, 2023

A few minutes prior to that, some of the men in question had stopped Srdjan Djoković for a picture as he was leaving the fan gathering. As can be seen in the photo below, the main culprit is not only holding a flag emblazoned with Vladimir Putin’s face but also wearing a t-shirt with a “Z” symbol over the Night Wolves logo. (I’ll discuss the significance of these accoutrements in Part 2.)

Srdjan Djoković poses with fans & other attendees as AO security looks on (photo credit: Miodrag Dimitrijević of Nova)

Within minutes, event security confronted the men and escorted them from the site, where they were questioned by Victoria Police.

For the record: while I spent some time observing the celebration, and walked past Srdjan and his entourage on my way from the media center to the steps, I left the area 5-10 minutes before things got ugly. So, unfortunately, I’m not in a position to say whether people were dispersing organically or began leaving due to these men’s disruptive behavior. (I do know, however, that some fans wishing to say hello to Novak’s father turned away when they saw these men approaching him.)

In the background: An ethnic Russian activist named Semyon Boikov, who also goes by the name “Aussie Cossack,” had encouraged his social-media followers to “retaliate” against Tennis Australia for what he called their “discrimination,” “racism,” and “attack on honor and dignity” in banning various Russian flags. The very day TA announced the ban, Boikov offered a cash reward to anyone who succeeded in displaying a pro-Russian symbol during a televised match and provided a helpful list of all matches featuring Russian players. Subsequently, he congratulated attendees who had managed to evade the ban, before specifically suggesting the Djoković-Rublev quarterfinal as a high-profile opportunity to do so. In all, Boikov—who has some 161,000 YouTube subscribers, solicits volunteers, and raises money off his content—published twenty-two posts and videos about Russian flags at the Australian Open on his channel over a two-week period.

Assessment: Clearly, the Tennis Australia flag policy and the security measures in place to implement it weren’t enough to stop people determined to bring banned items into Melbourne Park. In fairness, though, it’s pretty tough to thoroughly search the bags—and bodies—of each of the tens of thousands of people coming through the gates every day; and AO security had the additional challenge of distinguishing between similar-looking Russian (🇷🇺) and Serbian (🇷🇸) flags. In a few cases, members of the security team were over-zealous with flag-draped fans there to support Djoković; in a handful of other cases, they missed people who, I think it’s safe to say, had ulterior motives for coming to the tournament on the day(s) they did. All things considered, my main criticism of the AO is that their security staff didn’t act sooner to remove these men. But, even so, my criticism is qualified, as there may have been other factors contributing to their decision, such as waiting for police back-up or prioritizing the safety of the larger crowd by delaying action in order to minimize chances of people getting hurt should any violence erupt as they attempted to detain the men.

Afterwards: In the interest of transparency, I’ll confess that I jumped to conclusions when I first saw the headlines about Srdjan Djoković. Anyone who has followed Novak’s career knows that the father has often been a public-relations liability to the son; and I’ve followed it more closely than most—not least, because I speak Serbian. So, I reacted to the photo a colleague sent our Serbian media group chat late Wednesday night by rolling my eyes. The next day, I reacted to the flurry of tweets I saw when I first checked Twitter like a lot of other people did: by making a judgment without clicking the accompanying links and reading the articles, never mind watching the video “evidence” and evaluating its source. And I did this despite having more contextual information at my disposal than most people, not less. So, this whole episode was a salutary reminder for me, too: slow down; take a breath; read the article; check the source; try to keep your confirmation bias at bay; and consider what else you know or where you can look for more information. Also: since no one needs to tweet (ever), there’s no professional obligation or journalistic value in tweeting about an event before you have the facts straight.

In terms of the way this incident was covered in the first 24-36 hours, I’d suggest readers look at when stories were published or broadcast, which outlets published or broadcast them first (and which waited on details), whether they were published online only or also in print (the editorial standards for the latter are generally higher), what sorts of reporting they were based on, and how they were framed. Five things, in particular, stand out to me:

Many stories were published too soon after the incident to allow for much reporting (e.g., verification, interviews, & research) or even fact-checking.
The main character of the stories shifted very quickly from a group of disruptive men tossed from Melbourne Park to Novak’s father.
None of the articles that I read or news segments that I watched quoted eyewitness accounts (by the journalists themselves or spectators who had observed the events in question).
Many of the reports highlighted an inaccurate translation based on a questionable quotation of what Srdjan Djoković said to the men, often in the headline or subhed.
The primary source for most stories, other than a Tennis Australia press release, was a video created by the culprits themselves, which included misleading edits, descriptions, and subtitles provided by the “Aussie Cossack” channel.

As a result, stories presented a mix of accurate information (Srdjan did indeed pose for a picture with two of these men), misinformation (the misquotation and inaccurate translation), and speculation (e.g., attempts to interpret the deeper meaning of Djoković senior’s behavior based on an incomplete &/or inadequate grasp of the facts). On top of that, the stories also—albeit inadvertently—spread disinformation by amplifying a propaganda video made to manipulate viewers and advocate specific ideological and policy positions.

To expand on the disinformation point: even if one didn’t witness the scene that night or have enough information at hand to be able to spot the inaccuracies in the video posted by “Aussie Cossack,” one can make some inferences by viewing it in context. Specifically, who filmed the two parts of the incident: 1) the “photo” of Srdjan with two supposed Novak fans that abruptly (and presumably without explanation to Djoković senior) morphed into a video greeting to Alexander Zaldostanov; and 2) the group unfurling Russian flags and cheering Putin on the steps? Though The Guardian’s Tumaini Carayol happened to catch these guys in the latter act, they certainly weren’t leaving it to chance. Why were their short clips then featured in a longer video (set to patriotic Serbian music!) produced for social-media consumption? What can be gleaned about these fellows from a) what they were wearing, holding, and saying; b) the YouTube channel to which they submitted their cell-phone videos; &/or c) a simple Google search for either Boikov himself or the Night Wolves motorcycle “club”?

An aside: the initial media cycle lasted less than a day before it moved on to stories about reactions to the incident—interestingly, more to Srdjan Djoković himself than to the flag-ban-evading, political-statement-making culprits. If you’re interested in journalism, I’d recommend reading a post by NYU professor Jay Rosen about “scoops.” Rosen opens by observing that “Journalists tend to be obsessed with scoops, meaning: the first to break the news, and being seen as the first, which means getting credit for it among peers. But not all scoops,” he continues, “are created equal.” I’ll leave it to others to determine what kind of “scoop” the Srdjan story was—and how well the initial reports held up.
Jay Rosen, “Four Types of Scoops”

Answering only part of the last question: Boikov is someone with a substantial record of both pro-Russian activism in Australia, where he was born, and propagandistic videos and appearances on Russian television. Additionally, Boikov has stated, “We never felt ourselves to be Australian, we were aliens there. I consider myself to be a Russian.” He is not, to put it mildly, a reliable source. In fact, he has made his “Aussie Cossack” group’s motives quite clear in interviews: “We’ll always support the policies of the [Russian] state, we respect very much our Commander-in-Chief, Putin. And we have a unique capacity to support Russia from within a hostile state. Even the FSB or a battalion of the Russian SAS can’t achieve that, because unlike them we are citizens of this state.” Enough said. Why journalists would take what Boikov says on any subject at face value is beyond me.

To make matters worse: while most of Boikov’s videos have below 50 thousand views, the much-embedded, linked, and shared video about the “bold political statement” Srdjan Djoković supposedly made now has 181 thousand views. By every measure imaginable, this was a propaganda win for “Aussie Cossack” and his allies—not because his content is the work of a sophisticated genius but because so few media outlets could resist the lure of a controversy that could be tied to Djoković.

More to follow…

On the 2012 Serbia Open: If You Build It, They Will Come

Posted on 15 February 2023 by amitric

But will they come for the tennis? This remains a key question facing the organizers of the Serbia Open, which is being contested this week in Belgrade. Given the crowds during last weekend’s qualifying rounds and on Tuesday’s May Day holiday, there was room—despite the absence of local hero Novak Djoković and his Davis Cup teammates—for cautious optimism. But with the Wednesday retirement of Dušan Lajović, the only Serbian player remaining in the main draw, the answer was looking less hopeful.

The 250-series event, now in its fourth year, is a big deal for both Serbia, which has never hosted an ATP tournament before, and the Djoković family, who owns it. As Novak’s uncle Goran, who serves as tournament director, proudly noted on Friday, Serbia is one of only 32 countries to hold such an event, which has the potential to “contribute significantly to the positive image of the country.” That there is much at stake here is also made clear by the fliers distributed throughout the grounds encouraging spectators to observe proper behavior during matches—not only to help “maintain high standards” at the organizational level but also to “show that we are a tennis nation.” This week’s tournament, however, indicates that there is still a ways to go to prove this point.

First, the bad news. While the popularity of tennis has seen a dramatic increase over the past decade, Serbia does not have a well-developed tennis culture. Traditionally, the public gravitates toward team sports like football, basketball, and volleyball—in which Serbia has had considerable success and spectators are free to support their favorites with little restraint. Serbian fans of the “white sport,” as it is symbolically called, fall into three categories, each bigger than the last: life-long followers of tennis (most of whom also play recreationally), relatively recent converts to the sport (including youngsters with aspirations to play professionally), and bandwagon fans, who are less tennis enthusiasts than admirers of a few successful players.

For the latter group, Djoković is not merely the nation’s best athlete—its Michael Jordan, if you will—but also its Brad Pitt and even its Kim Kardashian. That is, they fill the stands to be near the bright light of celebrity as much as, if not more than, to see Nole play. That Djoković has earned his achievements through talent, dedication, and hard work is not lost on the many parents, teachers, and even politicians who hold him up as a role model for the nation’s youth. But his success also registers in more superficial ways: his money, status, and fame make him equally a focus of the tabloids and a mainstay of the sports pages. And some of Djoković’s allure has rubbed off on tennis itself, so that regardless of who’s playing, people will come along to the “Novak” Tennis Center to see and be seen. Alas, such patrons are unlikely to make it into the stands unless a familiar face is on court.

Without well-known Serbian players to draw the crowds, the tournament must rely on either the curiosity of the general public or the passion of a much smaller group: those who really care—or want to learn—about tennis. Unfortunately, given the state of the economy, most people can’t afford the seats; or, if they do splurge, it won’t be for more than one session. Perhaps recognizing this, organizers made entry to the site free—not just during the qualifying rounds, as planned, but all week. While this has meant that hard-core fans and students of the game can watch matches on the two outer courts without tickets, it has left the stadium court mostly empty. Unsurprisingly, the largest crowds all week have not been for the tournament’s top seed, Pablo Andujar, but for its biggest name: David Nalbandian, who is familiar from both competing in Belgrade for Davis Cup and, more importantly, being a former top-ten player.

On to the good news. One thing can certainly be said for Djoković Family Sport: they know how—and where—to throw a party. With courts on the banks of the Danube, adjacent to the Belgrade fortress, and just a short walk from the city’s main square, the tournament is ideally situated. Further, evidence of a previous family business, a pizzeria in the ski resort of Kopaonik, can be seen all over their latest enterprise, from the four different restaurants on site (one, naturally, offering gluten-free items) to the Balkan beauties in tennis outfits offering samples of sponsor products; from the expert wait-staff whisking fruit juices, beer, espresso, and clean ashtrays to packed tables at the centrally-located café to the entertainment of the nightly karaoke contest presented by odd couple Mercedes and MTV.

On a more substantive level, the Serbia Open is also doing well by arguably its most important attendees: players and serious fans. According to Andujar, it is a well-run event: “I think it’s a very good tournament,” he noted after his quarter-final win over Lukas Rosol, “even if it’s new and they are [just] starting.” While Andujar admits that he and other players always want “enormous” crowds at their matches (as at Indian Wells, where the stadium was “full of people, clapping every point”), he also acknowledges that the absence of players like Tipsarević is “good for us, for these kinds of people—players that want to grow and be more famous.”

Others, too, benefit from the presence of such an event: for instance, next-generation Serbian hopefuls, like seventeen-year-old Miki Janković, who played his first ATP event this week. Locals who follow the sport closely are also happy to have international talent on display in Belgrade, even if it’s not from the best-known names on tour. Last but not least thrilled by the tournament are practitioners and students of the game, like Hristijan Kovačević and his coach, who, though they couldn’t afford stadium seats, came every day to pick up tips from training sessions and observe the match-play of the professionals whose ranks the thirteen-year-old hopes to one day join.

Ultimately, what stands out at the Serbia Open is the aspirational quality of the venture. The organizers are committed to making the tournament a future success—and not simply in financial terms. Despite this year’s merely “satisfactory” crowds, the director is already talking about developing it into a 500-series event. Though a cynic might see the place as little more than a glorified gift shop selling brand Novak, there are numerous indicators that the venue serves a greater purpose. Take, for instance, the trophy room, full of glittering prizes won by the current #1: perhaps seeing an Olympic medal or a replica Wimbledon Cup will inspire a Serbian child to pick up a racket. And if that isn’t concrete enough, how about this: the center is set to host several ITF Futures events this summer.

Originally published on The Tennis Space (6 May 2012)

Faces in the Crowd: Australian Open Edition

Posted on 7 February 2023 by amitric

Last January, at the height of the Djoković debacle in Australia, I made the Twitter acquaintance of an American Novak fan named Claire (a.k.a. @luvinthetennis). Almost immediately, I was struck by how substantive and articulate her tweets were, including long threads about how the international media was—and, ideally, should be—covering the story. So, it didn’t come as a complete surprise when I eventually learned that Claire is a writer. (I’ll leave it to her to decide when and how to introduce herself more fully.) Like many fans I’ve met at tournaments, Claire doesn’t fit the stereotype of “Nole Fam” that has developed over the past decade, especially online—and this is one reason why I was interested in her personal path to fandom.

When I found out that, like me, Claire and her husband Pat would be traveling to Melbourne for this year’s Australian Open, I made a point of meeting them. We chatted a few times around the grounds before Claire and I found a shady spot to talk before the men’s singles final. She and Pat had arrived as the gates opened that Sunday to score seats outside Rod Laver Arena, so they could get the full Garden Square experience.

Before focusing on her Novak fandom, I asked Claire about her relationship to tennis in general. She told me she’d started watching the sport as a child, during the later years of the Evert-Navratilova rivalry. “I was the only person in the family who cared about tennis at all,” she noted, “and I remember being extremely young and just staring at the screen and sort of figuring out how scoring works. And, little by little, I just fell in love with what they were doing. I was a big Martina fan.” She kept watching as new players arrived on the scene, eventually becoming an Agassi fan: “that’s when I became a devoted fan and I started really following it. And I loved him. I loved his career: up and down, lots of drama and fun. Then he retired and I actually wasn’t interested in anyone else who was playing. I was also a huge Monica Seles fan, by the way; but then I stopped watching the women play [after] the stabbing.”

As for Djoković, Claire admits she “didn’t even know that Novak existed” until the summer he first ascended to the men’s #1 spot. “I was visiting a friend one day,” she recounted, “and that friend had the US Open on. It was 2011 and I saw Novak playing. I was talking to my friend, with the [tv] sound off, and I kept getting diverted because I loved the tennis. I was saying, ‘His tennis reminds me of Agassi’s tennis’: the precision shots, the baselining, the crisp returns. But he’s such a different player. He has so much passion just rolling off of him—and I love that about him. So, in the end, I started staring at the screen, and my friend and I watched the rest of the match. I know that a fan was born then and I’ve been following him ever since.”

However, like many Americans, it was challenging for Claire to be more than a casual fan due to the fragmented way tennis is broadcast in the US: “I don’t tend to pay for extra channels…. So, I would only see the majors.” Two more recent events contributed to Claire’s becoming a “really huge Novak fan.” First, significant personal losses in 2019; then, the start of the pandemic in 2020. “I was stuck at home, and I had some other big things going on in my life that were difficult and painful to work through. I needed a good distraction,” she said.

In fact, it was Djoković’s default at the 2020 US Open that seems to have transformed her fandom from a pastime into something more like a project. Claire “was shocked at the vitriol he got for” hitting a line judge with an errant ball, “since he obviously did not do it on purpose”; and she felt motivated to try “to figure out why” he was getting such a reaction.

I’ll let Claire take it from here. (What follows is an edited version of our conversation; though I made minor changes for clarity, I mostly cut for length.)

C: The more I looked into it—the more I would dig and watch previous matches, would see some press conferences with him—I started to realize how misrepresented [Novak] has been in the press. And that really annoyed me because the more I watched those pressers, the more I really liked this guy. I was only into his tennis [at first] and I didn’t care that he broke a racquet—I love to see passion on the tennis court. But I actually fell in love with him as a person once I started to dig deep and see who he was.

So, I just got more and more devoted to him, watching all these old matches. It was a great distraction during the pandemic—and I really needed it. Then, I followed his 2021 calendar Grand Slam race. I was so devastated with the loss in the US Open final; but it was a great season and I was excited to start again. And here comes 2022 Australian Open! We all know what happened there…

I was completely devastated by that and I realized I had really connected with him. And, again, a lot of things had been happening in my life: I lost both of my parents, six weeks apart, right before the pandemic; and I couldn’t be with my sister and brother to grieve over that. So, I think what happened to me was that I was using Novak’s tennis to sort of help me through that period of grief, watching all those old matches, watching his career [develop], being so impressed with his commitment to excellence, watching all his old press conferences, finding out what a great guy he is. I just became really attached to him as a person—in a weird way, since I know he’s a person I’ll never meet.

I really appreciate what he did for me. He helped me through the worst time of my life, really, and so I wanted to come here and support him.

AM: Going back to what you said about how, during the pandemic and after the US Open default, you started to dig into old matches and that kind of thing. This may seem like a strange question, but I’m curious how you came to the conclusion that he was being misrepresented. In other words, did you go on Twitter and meet a bunch of Novak fans, for whom that is a big issue? Or is that a conclusion you drew simply on the basis of watching him, reading his press conferences, and then reading the coverage?

C: No, I came to it completely on my own and this is how it happened. When I saw the disqualification, I went on to Twitter. This is how I follow the news—by Twitter—because I follow a lot of journalists who post articles. And I saw that it was trending, so I was looking at what people were saying. I didn’t land on Djoković fans at first. I was just reading these really vitriolic comments that did not match what I had seen [on tv]. You know, disqualification—fair, not fair—people can disagree about that. But it’s clear he didn’t do it on purpose. And I was seeing people say, “Well, of course he did it on purpose; he’s that kind of person.” In effect, they were saying that, and I was just very curious about that, so I started looking into it.

I had heard the commentary on the US Open 2020, [in which] they kept referring to the Adria Tour, and how supposedly badly Novak had behaved during the pandemic. I was curious about that too; so, I went back and read a news article about it, and I was like, “Oh, that’s kind of disappointing.” And then I read another news article and I thought, “Well, wait, those two things don’t really match.” Then, actually, I started digging around and I found the piece that you did on it. And I read the details and realized that it was being misrepresented.

AM: Thank you for being one of the 15 people who’s read my blog.

C: Well, you did such a great job of covering that and you answered all my questions. It was just very clear to me, because the things that I was seeing about the Adria Tour just didn’t really make sense. They kept saying, “He organized this event” and “Novak did this thing.” And I thought, “This was a whole country—a region, actually. One man cannot organize an event [like this on his own]. Obviously, he had to follow rules, he had to be in touch with people who would allow these things. So, what on earth is going on here?” As you pointed out, there was a big soccer event at the same time [etc.]. So, it was just very clear that was being misrepresented.

But the real key part of feeling like he’s been misrepresented through the years is when I went back. I actually followed every Grand Slam victory he’s had: I watched every semifinal I could get in whole and every final, and I watched highlights of other things. I went chronologically because I wanted to understand what had happened.

AM: So, you started roughly in 2007?

C: Yeah, I did.

AM: Okay. Wow.

C: I would listen to the match commentary, then I would go to the presser—almost all this stuff is available online, if you look for it. I would hear the things that the commentators were saying about him—something he had done or said, or they would quote him, “Well, in his press conference, Novak said ‘blah, blah, blah’—and I’d go back and listen. And I was like, “Oh, they took that entirely out of context. Interesting.” And that just kept happening and happening and happening. I mean, commentators that I have no reason to think are intentionally misrepresenting him, but they are taking things out of context and twisting what the meaning is. I’ve actually been very shocked by it. I had no idea.

AM: I happen to know—because I found out a little bit about you before we met in person, now, for the first time—that you studied linguistics [in graduate school]. Do you think there’s any connection between your study of linguistics and how you approached reading and viewing the pressers? Is there any link there?

C: I think there’s one small link there in that I’m very aware of language barriers. So, when I am listening to how Novak answers a question, I feel like I can tell when he didn’t catch all the connotations that were in the question. So, he’s answering it a little bit differently because he heard it differently. I feel like I can tell what he means to be saying, sometimes, when he doesn’t use quite the same word we would use—and maybe, because of the phrasing or the word he uses, it has a negative connotation or a connotation no American or English speaker would put in it. I can kind of tell what he’s going for.

I think that’s true of anyone, if you pay attention, you watch everything in its entirety, and you take someone on good faith. That’s the key—you take someone on good faith. I think anyone can see that. But, yes, I think I do pay even closer attention to that—I’m a writer and I studied linguistics. So, I do pay attention to what’s going on, how people are wording things, why they’re wording them the way they are. And I’m very aware of the language barrier, even though he’s a fluent speaker of English and has a much higher vocabulary level than your average English speaker, frankly. Still, he says things in a different way sometimes—and I’m aware of that.

AM: Obviously, someone reading this won’t necessarily see what you’re wearing. But I can’t help but note that you’ve got on a t-shirt that says, “No, I’m not Serbian, but I’m 100% Novakian.” There’s this myth that the majority of Novak fans around the world are Serbian—and you’re kind of debunking that on your very body. [Note: after posting this, I learned both the identity of the woman who came up with the original shirt idea in 2021 and that still other fans have created variations on the theme. Djoković himself has joked about this media narrative.]

Also, you’re not from Novak’s part of the world—I mean, you’re not from Europe; you’re not from Eastern Europe; you’re not from the former Yugoslavia; you’re not from Serbia. As far as I’m aware, you don’t have any connection to that part of the world. You may not “get” him and get his background in the same way that people who do have that in common with him do. So, I’m curious both what you make of that myth (that all, or the majority, of his fans have ties to Serbia) and what it is about Novak that you connect to, despite the significant age gap as well as cultural differences?

C: The first question, what do I make of the myth? I feel like the people who are shaping the tennis narrative—the primary people in the media who shape the tennis narrative and who have shaped the narrative of the Big 3—I think they find Novak off-putting. I mean, I don’t see any other way to think about that. I’m sure they must admire his tennis and probably some of them admire him and like him; but, overall, they seem to find him off-putting. So, I think that when they see fans waving flags with his face on it—which is inevitably going to be a Serbian flag—they just assume only people who are connected with Serbia can like him, because he’s so unlikable. I really think that this is what they believe: he’s so unlikable that the only fans are people who only care about pretty tennis, first of all, a small segment of people, but the devoted fans must be connected to Serbia in some way. I think that they think that—and I think that they have to be completely wrong about that. I mean, I myself have met people who love him and have no connection to Serbia. I don’t know why it’s so hard for them to believe.

AM: If you had to guess, or if you’ve seen articles or coverage, what are the handful of things that you think they think make him unlikable?

C: I think that they don’t like the way that he responds to difficulty on the court and the way that he manages his matches when he’s fighting various things. Mind you, from what I can tell (because I’ve watched him play Andy Murray quite a bit, because I’ve watched his career), Andy Murray has a very similar way of managing himself on the court. And, yet, it’s okay. So, I think that they don’t like it that he smashes racquets. I think they don’t like it that he screams Serbian curse words. I think they don’t like it when he yells at his box, even though they have no idea what he’s saying to them.

I just think that he gets this over-scrutiny of how he behaves, and people expect him to behave a certain way. And I think he sort of gives off all this passion that Anglo people—so, Americans and UK and Australians—find distasteful. Somehow, Andy Murray is able to do all that, and it doesn’t bother them a bit. So, it may have a certain color to it that’s sort of intangible.

AM: Back to the second part of the original question: why do you connect with Novak?

C: We’re getting into the realm of emotion and intangibles here…. You know, I connect with his authenticity. There’s this sense that there’s a veneer over people who come from a certain class—who are raised a certain way, live a certain way. There’s kind of a veneer there. And those of us who were not don’t have that veneer.

I know anything can happen–something as small as a blister can throw a player off his path–but if all goes well I'll get to see #Djokovic play in the 2nd week of AO '23. A year after I vowed never to set foot in *spit* Australia… I'll be saying G'day & then IDEMOOOOO. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/Ui7foSquEQ
— Claire (@luvinthetennis) December 11, 2022

AM: I saw, on your Twitter feed, photos of your passports—is it true that you and your husband did not have passports before you planned this trip?

C: That is true. I mean, we had them once, but they were well expired.

AM: When was the last time you took an overseas trip?

C: I took one single overseas trip before this one when I was 15 years old. That’s the only time I’ve been outside of the country.

AM: So, this is your second trip—in your life—outside of the country…

C: Yes.

AM: and you came from Maine to Melbourne…

C: That’s right.

AM: to see Novak Djoković?

C: To see Novak Djoković, yes.

AM: Whom you’ve never seen play live?

C: I’ve never seen him in person—I had never attended a tennis match before in my life.

AM: What was the route that you guys took from where you live in Maine?

C: We drove to the Portland airport and we took a plane from Portland, Maine to Philadelphia; and then we took a plane from Philadelphia to LA and from LA to Melbourne.

AM: And how long did that take?

C: It took us over 24 hours to get here, door to door.

“As I’ve thought about our trip. . . it seems absolutely crazy that we rolled the dice on a) traveling all that way to see one guy, and b) picked the SECOND week to visit, when there was no guarantee that he’d get that far. And it paid off. Bonkers, just bonkers. And Novak proving us right to do so will probably just make us more insufferable.”
PAT REFLECTS ON THEIR DECISION TO BOARD an airplane on sunday night, aware that DJOKOVIĆ could lose his FOURTH-ROUND MATCH while they were in flight

AM: Why did you and your apparently very supportive husband decide to travel in January, when it’s not a natural kind of break? It’s not the holidays; it’s not a normal vacation time. Why did you guys feel it was worth the time and money to do that?

C: Well, I really wanted to see Novak play in person, ever since what happened last year in Australia. I was really afraid that Australia had destroyed his career—very afraid. I still believe that Novak is probably the only tennis player who could endure what he endured and come back from it. And I was really afraid it was all over. So, when Novak wound up getting deported, I just told Pat, “I will see this man play. If he’s going to play again, I will make sure I see him play.”

Even though I won’t meet him or have a chance to talk to him, I can at least be there, put the vibe out there to support him, and thank him in my own personal way for his tennis—and cheer him on whenever he’s playing. I had originally wanted to go to the Serbia Open; and then I couldn’t get my [stuff] together in time to do that…. So, once I couldn’t do that, I thought, “Well, I’ll go to Belgrade next year”—and then I found out that they were not going to play in Belgrade. And so I said, “Ok, I’ve been avoiding the obvious: I need to go to the Australian Open.”

AM: Do you think that if Novak had been allowed into the United States last summer, you would have gone to the US Open instead?

C: Yes. I know I would have gotten to Belgrade as well, so I may have ended up in this situation anyway; but I definitely would have gone to the US Open to support him.

AM: Is there anything else that you feel like it would be important for readers (in Serbia) to know about why you and your husband came—or your experience since you’ve been here?

C: I will only say that I still really want to go to Belgrade—and I plan to go the next time Novak plays in Belgrade. I probably won’t go to Banja Luka, now that we spent all this money on Australia; but I will go next year.

From what I have seen of his [domestic] fans—and I have now interacted with a lot of Serbian fans and a lot of Aussie-Serbian fans—I understand how they made Novak. I feel like there’s a lot of love there and a lot of pride in him; and I would love to be in his home city and be surrounded by that and experience Belgrade and Novak Djoković [together] in a trip. I would love to connect with him, his home, and his people. And, again, I have no idea why. All I know is that I am so thankful for him and his tennis—and, so, I’m very thankful for Serbia for making him.

After he won the title and finished the English portion of his press conference, Djoković spoke at length to the Serbian media. I took the opportunity to tell him about Claire. (Watch our exchange, which was a bit more of a back and forth than I’ve presented in translation below, and you’ll be able to interpret Novak’s facial expressions for yourself.)

AM: I met a woman here, a member of “Nole Fam,” who came to Australia all the way from Maine, on the far east coast of the US. Before this week, she’d never seen a live professional tennis match and hadn’t traveled outside the country in nearly 40 years. She didn’t even have a valid passport. She came to see you. What does hearing things like this mean to you?”

NĐ: I didn’t know that—it’s the first time I’m hearing this story. So, thanks for calling it to my attention; and I’ll look into it because this kind of story truly fulfills me and I’m very grateful. The support I’ve had this year is really something sacrosanct, something beautiful. I mean, I’ve always had support in Australia from lots of people, especially the Serbian community. Of course, I’ve also seen people who came from China and [other parts of] Asia to support me—and I thank them a lot for that. But this year’s support, really, both in the stadium and outside it in the Square, was probably the best, biggest, strongest, loudest ever. I think they also recognized the importance of this moment and this year, considering last year’s events, and that somehow they wanted to be there for me, to give me wings—and that’s exactly what they did. So, from the heart, thank you.

Djoković v Australia: Timeline

Posted on 24 October 2022 by amitric

Below, you’ll find a timeline that provides both background information and key events of the Novak Djoković Australian visa debacle of 2022. In many cases, I’ve linked photos, news articles, court filings, government publications, and the like to help detail what happened. Whenever possible, I opted for a primary source rather than media reports or commentary. The twelve days in January that Djoković was en route to or in Australia generated countless articles, columns, editorials, tv segments, blog posts, YouTube videos, podcast episodes, and tweets—on top of producing pages and pages of legal documents. Suffice it to say, I’ve found the latter files most useful in compiling a factual record.

Note: I consider Novak’s travel in the 2-3 months prior to his trip to Australia part of the relevant background information, particularly as covid testing protocols remained in place both at tournaments and at international borders in late 2021. Australia was the first country to which the professional tennis tour had traveled since its resumption from hiatus in August 2020 where covid vaccination was required for entry. No previous ATP, WTA, or ITF events had mandated players or their team members be vaccinated, though some had required attendees to show proof of vaccination before entering (e.g., the 2021 US Open). In fact, these public-health policies were generally set by host cities, states, or countries rather than the tournaments themselves. Further, as we witnessed during the 2021 Australian Open (where players, teams, & officials were able to enter the country despite the border being closed to non-residents) and the 2021 French Open (where a curfew was lifted to allow spectators to remain in the stands at Roland Garros for the duration of the semifinal between Djoković and Nadal), governments were willing to bend their rules &/or make exceptions to assist these sporting events in going forward.

2021

8/30 According to the New York Times, roughly 50% of tennis players on both tours had been vaccinated by the start of the US Open
9/13-10/25~ Novak Djoković (NĐ) took a break from the tour after the US Open, spending roughly 6 weeks at home in Serbia and traveling in neighboring ex-YU countries
10/5 80% of Australia’s 16+ population had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (57% fully vaccinated)
10/18 NĐ interview with Blic (largely about the Australian Open)
10/28-29~ NĐ training with Daniil Medvedev at Mouratoglou Academy in Biot, FRA
10/30-11/7 NĐ in Paris, FRA competing at the Rolex Paris Masters tournament
11/1 Australia begins to re-open international borders (as well as removing caps on the number of citizens & residents able to return from overseas each week)
11/10 90% of Australia’s 16+ population had received at least one dose of vaccine (82% fully vaccinated)
11/10-12/2 Letters between Tennis Australia (TA) CEO and Australian Open Tournament Director Craig Tiley &/or TA Chief Medical Officer Dr. Carolyn Broderick and various federal and Victorian health officials seeking clarity about vaccine-related entry requirements and medical exemptions for AO participants, as well as requesting federal authorities “review vaccination certificates/exemptions ahead of the 72-hour window… We would like to give players some comfort over a process to be followed to ensure any issues can be dealt with well in advance of their journey to Australia.” Of particular concern to TA were players with prior covid infections (both the unvaccinated and those who had received one dose of a vaccine before or since contracting covid): “The treatment of players who fall within one of these categories goes to the heart of the viability of the Australian Open,” Tiley wrote on 11/10.
11/15-11/21 NĐ plays ATP Finals in Turin, ITA
11/18 NĐ granted Australian “Temporary Activity” (subclass 408) visa
11/19 Craig Tiley confirms all players must be vaccinated to compete in the 2022 Australian Open; according to tour leaders, over 70% of top 300 WTA singles players and over 80% of top 100 ATP players had been vaccinated by season’s end
11/22-12/03 NĐ with Team Serbia at Davis Cup: late-November group stage in Innsbruck, AUT; early-December knockout stage in Madrid, ESP
11/26 Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) updates “expanded guidance on acute major medical conditions that warrant a temporary medical exemption relevant for COVID-19 vaccines”
12/04 NĐ returns to Belgrade, SRB
12/6 TA sends updated information to players about medical exemption criteria and application process
12/7 78% of Victorians of all ages have been fully vaccinated
12/10 TA deadline for players to submit application and supporting documentation for medical exemption review
12/14 ATAGI releases advice on the definition of fully vaccinated “for the purposes of people returning from overseas travel”; NĐ attends Red Star vs Barcelona basketball game at Aleksandar Nikolić (a.k.a. “Pionir”) Hall with Vašek Pospisil
12/15 94% of Australia’s 16+ population had received at least one dose of vaccine (90% fully vaccinated)
12/16 FC Barcelona announces positive covid test of player Nigel Hayes-Davis (with whom NĐ had taken photos at the game)*; NĐ takes rapid antigen test (negative) and submits PCR test (circa 1pm); NĐ attends event at Post Office museum; NĐ attends “Path of a Champion” Foundation event at Novak Tennis Center 6pm; positive PCR test result registered with the Institute for Public Health of Serbia (circa 8pm); *Though I assume neither that the Hayes-Davis announcement is what motivated NĐ to take a covid test on 12/16 nor that their brief interaction resulted in one or the other contracting covid, reports of covid cases among those in attendance at Pionir Hall was, according to NĐ, the key factor in his getting tested at this point in the off-season.
12/17 NĐ takes second rapid antigen test (negative); NĐ attends the Belgrade Tennis Association’s award ceremony for kids at Novak Tennis Center; NĐ learns of positive PCR test result (according to his 1/12/22 statement)
12/18 NĐ attends interview & photo-shoot with L’Equipe for their 2021 men’s Champion of World Champions award at Novak Tennis Center
12/22 NĐ negative PCR test (sample taken circa 2pm)
12/23 NĐ positive SARS-COV-2 RBD IgG test (i.e., an antibody test confirming a “recent or prior infection”)
12/28 TA’s independent expert panel approves NĐ medical exemption & passes application on to the Victorian government Department of Health panel; NĐ travels from Serbia to Spain
12/30 Dr. Carolyn Broderick writes letter confirming two panels approved NĐ’s application for medical exemption to vaccination; CZE player Renata Voráčová arrives in AUS
12/31 NĐ visits Soto Tennis Academy in Sotogrande, ESP

2022

1/1 NĐ’s agent submits Australian Travel Declaration (ATD); Home Affairs assesses & approves ATD, indicating that NĐ meets “the requirements for a quarantine-free arrival into Australia”; daily new confirmed covid cases in AUS exceeds 20,000 for the first time
1/2 Victorian State Government issues NĐ a Border Travel Permit for travel between Dubai, UAE and Melbourne, AUS
1/4 NĐ announces medical exemption on social media before flight from Spain to Dubai, where he transfers to an Emirates flight to Melbourne
1/5 PM TA holds press conference to explain the medical exemption process; Prime Minister Scott Morrison answers question about NĐ exemption; Home Minister Karen Andrews releases statement that “border rules apply to everyone”; and NĐ & team arrive at Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport circa 11:30pm & “were asked to exit the plane before anyone else and were escorted to passport control”
1/6 Australian Border Force (ABF) officer questions NĐ overnight at airport, then cancels visa on the grounds that “Previous infection with COVID-19 is not considered a medical contraindication for COVID-19 vaccination in Australia,” citing section 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act 1958 (i.e., “the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that: that. . . the presence of its holder in Australia is or may be, or would or might be, a risk to: (i) the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community”), as well as the Biosecurity (Entry Requirements—Human Coronavirus with Pandemic Potential) Determination 2021; NĐ transferred to immigration detention hotel; NĐ lawyers Hall & Wilcox apply for remedy from Federal Circuit and Family Court (FCFC) re: visa decision and request interim relief (i.e., restraining Home Affairs Minister or her agents from removing NĐ from AUS until the issue is resolved)
1/6-7 Renata Voráčová detained by ABF & visa cancelled; CRO coach Filip Serdarušić visa cancelled (both had entered AUS with the same medical exemption as NĐ)
1/8 government lawyers apply for hearing to be pushed back two days (refused by Judge); The Age reports that “an official voluntarily [left] the country because they did not meet Australian government visa requirements”; through her lawyers, Voráčová negotiates a “bridging visa” and applies for review of the ABF decision (although she leaves AUS as a lawful non-citizen before it’s conducted)
1/10 Hearing before Judge Kelly of FCFC: NĐ vs Minister for Home Affairs; visa cancellation quashed before all grounds for legal challenge were addressed, with the government conceding that “the delegate’s decision to proceed with the interview and make a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa. . . was unreasonable [under the] circumstances”; NĐ released from detention; ATP issues a statement on the case, noting that “complications in recent days related to player entry into Australia have however highlighted the need for clearer understanding, communication and application of the rules.”
1/12 NĐ posts statement with details about his mid-December activities; WTA releases statement on Voráčová visa “complications”; daily new confirmed covid cases in AUS exceeds 100,000 for the first time
1/13 Australian Open draw ceremony
1/14 After 5:30pm AEDT on Friday, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke announces decision to use personal powers to cancel NĐ visa, once again with reference to section 116(1)(e)(i) of the Migration Act; this time, however, the government’s argument is not about the validity of NĐ’s medical exemption (i.e., his paperwork) or the risk he, as an unvaccinated person, may pose directly to other people’s health, but instead about the influence NĐ, “as a role model in the sporting and broader community,” might have (i.e., “that his presence in Australia may foster anti-vaccination sentiment,” leading to various negative outcomes on health and good order); through his lawyers, NĐ applies for judicial review of the Minister’s decision and is again granted interim relief pending resolution; Judge Kelly orders transfer of the case to Federal Court; NĐ returned to detention hotel
1/15 NĐ interviewed by Immigration Minister’s staff; in case management hearing, Justice O’Callahan confirms transfer of judicial review to Federal Court and sets proceeding for 1/16
1/16 Hearing before 3-member Federal Court panel (Justices Allsop, Besanko, & O’Callaghan): NĐ vs Minister for Immigration; justices to determine whether, in cancelling NĐ’s visa, the Immigration Minister acted within his legal powers; panel upholds Hawke’s decision; ATP releases statement on the visa cancellation; NĐ deported & 3-year re-entry ban imposed
1/17 main draw of the Australian Open begins
1/20 Federal Court panel releases reasons for NĐ judgment, emphasizing in their introduction that “an application for judicial review is one in which the judicial branch of government reviews, by reference to legality or lawfulness, the decision or decisions of the Executive branch of government, here in the form of a decision of the Minister. The Court does not consider the merits or wisdom of the decision; nor does it remake the decision. The task of the Court is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision by reference to the complaints made about it.”
1/24 ATAGI updates clinical guidance for vaccines, recommending “all people. . . to defer COVID-19 vaccination for 3 months after a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection” and decreasing “the time allowable for deferral of vaccination [i.e., temporary exemption] after prior SARS-CoV-2 infection to 4 months”
2/8 Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA) “sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel” Renata Voráčová’s visa
2/21 Australian border opens to all vaccinated foreign travelers (quarantine only for inbound travelers from high-risk areas)
4/1 AATA Deputy President Jan Redfern, Head of the Migration & Refugee Division, releases written statement of decision and reasons in Voráčová case
4/15 Australian pre-flight covid test requirement for international arrivals dropped
5/21 Australian federal election
7/6 Australian vaccine requirement lifted for inbound travelers
11/17 Immigration Minister Andrew Giles releases a statement confirming his decision to revoke the January cancellation of NĐ’s visa

Although I have linked many legal documents above, there are even more. The complete court files (including hearing videos) are here:

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia: Novak Djokovic v Minister for Home Affairs

Federal Court of Australia: Novak Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Meet the Sabanov Brothers

Posted on 9 April 2022 by amitric

The Sabanov twins at the 2022 U.S. Men’s Clay Court Championship in Houston

In many ways, Ivan and Matej Sabanov come from a typical family in what was once Yugoslavia. Two of four boys, they were born near the Hungarian border in the ethnically-diverse Vojvodina region to a Croatian father and a Serbian mother. This sort of “mixed” marriage was so common back then, it didn’t warrant comment. Unfortunately, however, it was 1992: the violent conflicts related to the breakup of the country were raging. Even though their family was safe in northern Serbia, the economic conditions were very difficult.

While they were kids, their mother relocated a two-hour drive away to Osijek, Croatia for work as a Latin and Greek high-school teacher. After the brothers completed primary school, they moved to live with her. By then, they were already accustomed to having long-distance relationships with family members, as their older brother and first coach, Aleksandar, had gone to Zagreb for university. (The Sabanovs are quite an erudite family: Aleksandar, in addition to being a certified coach, speaks five languages and holds a Masters degree in Religious Studies.) After finishing a sports gymnasium, the twins were all set to attend college in the United States. But, at the last minute, they decided to turn professional instead.

It’s been a slow road for the Sabanov brothers since then, one involving years playing ITF Futures (a.k.a. the World Tennis Tour) within driving distance of home before eventually graduating to the ATP’s Challenger Tour and airline travel. Along the way, the twins have slept in their car and strung racquets for colleagues to make ends meet. For winning a Futures doubles title (which they did nearly 25 times together and a handful of times with other partners between 2013-2019), they were generally rewarded around $500. Occasionally, they would travel far from home—for example, to Nigeria in 2017—in the hopes of winning more prize money (which they did: there, they earned $775 alongside a Futures trophy).

When they needed to push themselves, improving through competition against a higher caliber of opponents, the brothers would enter Challenger tournaments farther afield: after traveling throughout Europe in 2016, they made their first mid-tier final the next year in Bangalore, India. But then, without consistent success, they’d return home to the former Yugoslavia where they could stack up wins at Futures events without having to pay a lot for flights. It wasn’t until 2018, when they were steadily playing Challengers, that they began to break even. (A big factor: participants’ food and lodging are covered by tournaments at that level.) This is the sort of un-glamorous grind that fans don’t hear much about, as tennis media focus on the big names earning the big paychecks. In many ways, though, it’s more representative of most aspiring players’ experience of the pro tour: one with lots of effort and investment without any guarantee of a return.

At the time we spoke, the Sabanovs didn’t have clothing or equipment sponsors. One brother was playing with Filip Krajinović’s old racquets and the other with Laslo Djere’s sticks. While they joked that Djoković’s racquets are too heavy for them (the twins are about 4 inches shorter than the top-ranked men’s player), they’ve since been spotted wearing Novak’s older Lacoste kit. In January, Matej was selected to play alongside Nikola Ćaćić in the ATP Cup, while Ivan traveled down under (in place of Viktor Troicki) as Team Serbia’s coach. As they did for Wimbledon last year, the brothers partnered Filip Krajinović and Dušan Lajović in order to make the rankings cut for the doubles draw at the Australian Open. With their success in Houston this week, that kind of improvisation should be a thing of the past.

The quotations below are selections from a Q&A session after they won their first title at the 2021 Serbia Open. Alas, because I only have an audio recording, I couldn’t tell which twin answered which question. I’ve lightly edited their answers for clarity.

On their start in the sport: “So, we are actually a big family. It’s four brothers: the two of us, and then two more brothers. The oldest, Aleksandar, is our coach since the beginning. He started training us when we were five. Our grandfather built a tennis court in our garden, so that’s how we started playing tennis.”

On their family and national identity: “We were born in Serbia, we lived in Croatia, and now we are back in Serbia. Our father is Croatian and mother is Serbian, so we are mixed. We like to be that way.”

“Yeah, we don’t want to be specifically Croatian or Serbian. I think we are all the same, the same people; so, I don’t see the difference.”

On their early-career struggles: “Every start is very tough, especially the financial side. I remember one time, we ended the year with our ranking at 230, I think, and we decided to go to South America to play Challengers. [Note: this was in 2016, when they began the season tied at #242.] But we didn’t have money for the travel, so we went to the bank and asked to take [out a line of] credit. But of course we couldn’t, because we don’t work. So, the sister of our mother, she got money from the bank. And she gave it to us and we went to South America.”

“At the first tournament, we passed first round and then we lost. And then, we didn’t get in the second tournament—we were in Buenos Aires and we didn’t [make the rankings cutoff]; we were first [team] out. So, we spent a lot of money to pay for the hotel and food and everything. [From there], we went to Rio, where we also passed the first round and then lost in the second round. And then we didn’t have money to actually come back home—and it was like the end of the world for us. We thought we were going to die there. And, somehow, we made it back home and started [all over] again. We always work very hard. And, in the end, I think it paid off, as we see.”

“There’s one more story: we were traveling with a stringing machine to the tournaments in our car, and we were stringing the racquets for other players. Instead of 10 euros, we were charging 5 euros per racquet and then everyone was giving us the racquets—and that’s how we earned the money for the hotels and apartments. And then we started earning some money winning these Future events and then somehow we managed to earn something playing a lot of club matches in Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, everywhere. We were sleeping in the car and driving all night just to earn some money to keep playing tennis. And then it pays off—it’s beautiful.”

[By the way, though it took several years to do it, they paid their aunt back.]

On the lack of sponsor support: “We don’t have sponsors—we are just getting some Fila clothes from one manager in Germany.”

“He’s sending us his own clothes. I mean, we don’t have any contract signed; so, it’s just his goodwill.”

“It’s difficult to get the contracts in Serbia and Croatia.”

“But this won’t stop us to do our thing and to become good players; and this tournament [win] also won’t change us. We will still be the same [people] and will work hard for our dreams—this is just a small step forward.”

On a fortuitous 2020 meeting: “Last year, we met Novak Djoković in Vienna, and he invited us to come to his club here in Belgrade—to practice here. He gave us the amazing facilities and everything. So, we are very thankful to Novak—he did an amazing job. And we stayed the whole winter [2021] in Belgrade; we practiced really hard. Also, we hired our old friend, Ivan Bijelica, as a coach, and he’s now with us: he’s traveling with us and he’s coaching us next to our brother…. This week shows that we really did a good job with them all together, and we couldn’t be more happy.

On idols and mentors: “We always dreamed about becoming professionals and we watched the videos of champions like Novak and Roger and Rafa. We always downloaded the videos and watched all night long, so that was our future life—we wanted to do that.”

“The Bryan brothers were our idols since we were starting playing doubles…. And then, last year, we had a chance to practice and to spend some time with Mike Bryan, because his wife is from Slovakia and his manager organized everything. We went to Slovakia and spent six, seven days with Mike. He gave us a lot of really good advice and said that we have a good potential, that we need to keep working hard and then we will get the chance—and that’s what happened this week. We’re still in contact with Mike Bryan and he is giving us advice and encouraging us. So, we’re very, very thankful.”

“Also, there’s some other players like Mate Pavić and Ivan Dodig from Croatia—whenever we saw them on the tournaments, they were encouraging us. And that really means a lot to us, because it shows that we have potential and then, one day, we will be there and we will earn a living from playing tennis—and that’s what we’ve always wanted to do.”

On their differences (beyond the fact that Ivan plays with a one-handed backhand): “Yeah, we are different, our personalities are different, definitely. Ivan is maybe more energetic and he’s a quick temper. I am a little bit more calm, let’s say. Also [in terms of physical differences], I have two small moles on my face and Ivan doesn’t, so that’s how people recognize us.”

On court during their 2021 title run in Belgrade

On winning their first ATP title: “Yeah, besides the money and the points and everything, it shows that we have a really good level. [Even] before this tournament, we were winning against Grand Slam champions on the Challenger level—for example, we beat Kevin Krawietz and Andreas Mies in a Bosnia and Herzegovina Challenger [in September 2018]. We beat some more players who were winning ATP titles, so we knew that we have a good level—and that we have to be patient and wait our time. It means a lot. We will definitely keep working very hard and we want to improve more, we want to play Grand Slam tournaments and to play on the center courts of the biggest tournaments. That’s our goal and that’s what we were dreaming about our whole life, so we’re not gonna stop here.”

“I think it’s the motivation for me. I feel like I will be more motivated to practice and to do all the things to improve more after this tournament because I now I have proof that we can do this. The hard work is paying off.”

Podcast and Radio Appearances

Posted on 30 March 2022 by amitric

February 2023: “Novak Djokovic surpasses Steffi Graf for the record of number of weeks at No. 1” on NPR’s Morning Edition.

February 2022: It was a real treat for me to have the opportunity to talk about Goran Ivanišević, the state of Yugoslav tennis before the breakup of the country in the early 1990s, and what the big-serving Croat brings to Team Djoković with Jeff Sackmann of Tennis Abstract. Listen here.

January 2022: Thought I made several appearances on BBC Radio during Novak’s Australian saga, they seem not to have permalinks for programs over a month old. So, the only segment I can share from the complicated lead-up to the 2022 Australian Open is this one on Melbourne’s ABC radio: “Decision to cancel Novak Djokovic’s visa sparks anger in Serbia.” Listen here.

May 2021: “All About Djoković.” One of these things is not like the other: Niki Pilić, Boris Becker, Goran Ivanišević, and I were guests for an hour-long BBC 5 Live Sport discussion of the ATP #1.

July 2020: Carl Bialik invited me on to Thirty Love, his short-form podcast, to discuss Novak Djoković and the Adria Tour. Much of our conversation relates to my tennis journalism hobby-horse: shortcomings of the Anglophone-dominated international media in covering players whose native language isn’t English. Listen here.

Djoković v Australia

Posted on 10 February 2022 by amitric

[placeholder]

Prologue: 2022

Posted on 21 January 2022 by amitric

Note: this is an excerpt from a work in progress.

I. Spain: November, 2019

“Would you like to try some?” he asked, offering up a brown paper package he’d just retrieved from a stuffed gym bag. I must have looked dubious, as he added, “It’s good, actually.” But I was hesitant not because I feared how his gluten-free snack would taste but because I was unsure of the propriety of a writer’s sharing food with her subject.

In that moment, though, I wasn’t operating as a journalist. And Novak Djoković was less a world-famous athlete than one of a small group of Serbs hanging around after a press conference, commiserating over a painful loss. Despite our differences in status, it felt like we were in this together.

I cupped my hands and watched as he poured a mix of oats and carob chunks into them. He was right: it wasn’t bad. We both munched as we resumed our conversation—by that point, we’d shifted from tennis and sports journalism to the most apt Serbian translation for “drama queen” to recent films about Nikola Tesla.

We’d started talking some 15 minutes earlier, after Djoković stretched out on the dais near one of his Davis Cup teammates, with whom I was chatting. In front of the podium, the other Serbian players were taking turns doing their final domestic tv interviews of the week. In an unusual move, Djoković was waiting for everyone to finish up so they could leave the media center as a team. Even the players too young to have been there from the beginning knew what this day had become: it was the end of an era.

Photo taken from a distance by Argentine photographer JP

Whether the era in question began in 2001, when Jelena Janković and Janko Tipsarević foreshadowed the success to come by winning the juniors singles titles at the Australian Open, or in 2004, when Nenad Zimonjić lifted the mixed doubles trophy in Melbourne, beating defending champions Martina Navratilova and Leander Paes with his Russian partner, or even in 2007, when Ana Ivanović and Novak Djoković made their first major finals (at the French Open and US Open, respectively) and ended the year ranked among the top 4 players in the world—it hardly matters. In fact, one could argue that the era started in 1995, when rump Yugoslavia returned to international tennis competition, in both the men’s Davis Cup and women’s Federation Cup, after several years in the wilderness due to UN sanctions. Zimonjić, the only Serb whose career had spanned this entire quarter century, was now 43 and playing on artificial hips.

In November 2019, the Serbian men approached the Spanish capital for the national team tournament with two goals: to finish the decade as they’d started it, by winning the Davis Cup, and to give their outspoken, bespectacled teammate Janko Tipsarević a proper sendoff into retirement. (A group vacation in the Maldives was to follow.) Tipsarević had already competed at his final ATP event a month prior, making the quarterfinals at the Stockholm Open. He was selected for the national team despite having played only intermittently—not just during his last season but over the previous five years—due to a series of injuries which had derailed his career after two seasons ranked in the top ten. In Madrid, he and Viktor Troicki, who had performed the hero’s role in their 2010 Davis Cup victory, played two doubles matches in the round-robin group stage, winning one and losing the other to one of the very best doubles teams in the world: Pierre-Hugues Herbert and Nicolas Mahut of France, who had gone undefeated at the ATP’s year-end championship the previous week. In the quarterfinal tie against Russia, with the teams poised at one match apiece, the Serbs had opted to substitute Djoković in to partner Troicki in the deciding doubles contest. The childhood friends, who had won their first titles together as juniors, suffered a devastating loss in a third-set tiebreaker, having failed to capitalize on several match points.

The six-member team entered the interview room in silence and sat behind their microphones and tented name-cards with bowed heads, at least a few sporting red eyes and Djoković hiding his face under the bill of a baseball cap. The players’ answers were emotional from the start, with Djoković admitting the loss “hurts us really badly” and Troicki adding, “I probably feel the worst ever [after a loss]. I never experienced such a moment in my career, in my life. And I let my team down, and I apologize to them.” It likely wasn’t until Zimonjić, in the captain’s chair, choked up that the majority of the assembled press understood what was at stake for the Serbs in this Davis Cup campaign.

“Sorry,” he began haltingly. “It’s not [about] winning or losing, just for you to understand.” Through tears, he explained: “It’s that the four players sitting here. . . I would say they are the golden generation of our tennis. And I see it as an end because it’s Janko’s last match. . . . You dream, maybe, to go all the way—to celebrate, you know, with a victory. But sometimes it doesn’t happen, what you wanted to happen.”

Grab the tissues, this is an emotional one to watch 😢

Hear from @nenadzim after Serbia's loss, describing his team as "The Golden Generation"

Thank you, Team Serbia 🇷🇸#DavisCupMadridFinals pic.twitter.com/jlHhxqTFht
— Davis Cup by Rakuten Madrid Finals (@DavisCupFinals) November 22, 2019

Even though, two years later, Djoković remains on the top of the game, Zimonjić was right: the loss in Madrid marked the end of something significant. Ana Ivanović, the youngest of the “golden” group, had preceded all of them into retirement, opting to stop playing at age 29, after injury cut short her 2016 season. Though Jelena Janković hasn’t officially hung up her racquets, she also hasn’t competed professionally since undergoing back surgery after the 2017 US Open. Viktor Troicki, who rebounded from that worst-ever feeling by helping Serbia win the inaugural ATP Cup trophy at the start of 2020, spent the last year transitioning from active player to Davis Cup captain.

II. Serbia: July, 2010

Though I didn’t know it at the time, this was a summer that would change my life.

I spent a chunk of it, including my birthday, in the village of my father’s birth, 100km west of Belgrade. There was nothing unusual about this, as I’d been visiting my grandmother’s farm since infancy; nor was it a rare occurrence for me to celebrate at least part of my birthday inside, watching tv. When my grandmother first got a black and white television in the early ‘80s, my siblings and I would rush from the back yard where we spent most of our day into the living room to catch the cartoons that came on before the nightly news—most often, Looney Tunes reels dubbed into what was then called “Serbo-Croatian.” But as I got older, I watched more sports coverage, especially of my favorite event, Wimbledon, which (like my birthday) takes place in early July.

In 2010, I got a double-dose of tennis. Though Novak Djoković had lost in the semifinals at the All England Club, the Davis Cup quarterfinals were scheduled for the weekend following Wimbledon’s conclusion—and Serbia was playing in them for the first time as an independent nation. This was a huge occasion, in part because it had taken the Serbian team 15 years to climb from the lowest tier of regional zone competition to the “World Group”: the 16 best tennis nations. For the previous three seasons, they’d been knocking at the door of the tennis elite but unable to gain full entry, repeatedly losing in the first round and having to win September playoffs to get another chance the next year. Perhaps a bigger deal in the Balkans: Serbia was facing neighbors, former compatriots, and relatively recent co-belligerents in Croatia for a spot in the semifinals. As this was the first international meeting between the two men’s teams, members of which had all been born in Yugoslavia before the wars, there was some concern about what kind of welcome the Serbs would get from their hosts in Split. But apart from some hecklers in the crowd, it was uneventful off court. On court, the Serbs triumphed by a 4-1 margin, with all their wins coming in straight sets.

This victory—as well as those that followed, culminating in a championship tie played in front on twenty-thousand spectators packed into Belgrade Arena—marked a turning point not only for several members of the Davis Cup team but also for me.

Initiated into playing tennis by both parents and into being a tennis fan by my father, I’d been casually involved with the sport since childhood. Trips to the neighborhood court brought all manner of lessons, not merely in groundstroke technique but in sportsmanship as well. To this day, I can’t step on a tennis court without hearing my dad’s voice—at one moment, admonishing me for not returning balls directly to my opponent when it was his or her turn to serve; at another, expressing pleasant surprise at how well I hit a backhand. In the late ‘70s and ‘80s, the later rounds of majors were broadcast on network tv and I was allowed to stare at the screen for longer than usual. One of the first philosophical disagreements I recall having with my father concerned the on-court antics of John McEnroe: while we both admired Bjorn Borg and disliked Jimmy Conners, we were divided over the American who had earned his nickname “SuperBrat.” The introductory music NBC chose for their “Breakfast at Wimbledon” program still transports me back to our shared time in front of the tv—not quite as powerful or as sentimental as Proust’s madeleine, perhaps, but something like it. Though I rooted for Martina Navratilova and enjoyed seeing other WTA players in action, my early fandom reached its peak when Boris Becker—like me, a teenager—smashed his serve and threw his body around the grass courts at Wimbledon in the mid-‘80s.

In 1986, the year “Boom Boom” Becker won Wimbledon for a second time, another player in the men’s draw caught my eye. Though it’s the case that he was the stereotypical “tall, dark, and handsome” type of romance novels, I was attracted less by his features or physique than by his name—one bound to tie the tongues of Anglophone commentators. Because he shared my father’s first name, Slobodan (a name which would become infamous within a few years for reasons having nothing to do with tennis), I knew that meant he also shared his homeland. Growing up as an “ethnic” American, I was accustomed to people using Yugoslavia as a punchline: the long name, obscure location, and ambiguous geopolitical position, never mind the compact car, were the source of much teasing in the waning days of the Cold War. (One coach affectionately called me “half-breed,” something unimaginable today.) But Yugoslav passion for and prowess in sports were no joke. For one thing, Sarajevo had hosted the winter Olympics in 1984, while I was in high school. For another, the country had been collecting medals in team sports for decades: football, handball, volleyball, water polo, and (above all for an American) basketball. So, I had already experienced both collective exhilaration and cultural pride as a spectator of European championships and Summer Olympics. But since “Bobo” Živojinović was the first Yugoslav tennis player of whom I was aware, seeing him advance to the singles semifinal at Wimbledon—and, later that summer, win the men’s doubles trophy at the US Open—ignited a new feeling in me.

My favorite sport being played by people with names like mine, speaking the language I’d learned by communicating with my grandmother? That was something special. The rise and dominance of Monica Seles a few years later—she first won the French Open as a 16-year-old in 1990—was even more significant. Before she was stabbed by an unstable fan of one of her rivals, Seles had won eight grand slam titles playing under the Yugoslav flag.

Of course, all of this happened before the violent breakup of Yugoslavia—and before my ethnic identity became a source of shame rather than pride. As a child, I heard countless stories about both the traumatic events and heroic exploits of the two World Wars in which Serbs had fought alongside the Allies. In the center of our village, there was a monument bearing the names of both my grandfather and great-grandfather; their portraits, in uniform, hung in our living room. During our summer trips, I felt just as comfortable on Croatia’s Adriatic coast as in rural Serbia. At home in the DC suburbs, my parents hosted an annual “slava” celebrating our patron, Saint Nicholas, at which ex-pats from all over Yugoslavia outnumbered the Americans. Serbo-Croatian, spoken abroad, was like a secret language that only a select few could understand. And even though I’d had to correct the pronunciation of my name the first time the teacher called roll in every class for my entire school life, having such strong ties to another culture and what felt like a permanent home in a different country—as opposed to the various apartments, duplexes, and houses where we’d lived in California, Ohio, and Maryland—had always grounded me.

When the Serbian team became Davis Cup champions in December 2010, I felt something unfamiliar: pride in the part of myself that I’d tried to keep at a distance for nearly two decades. In retrospect, it seems unsurprising that when Novak Djoković began the 2011 season not just by winning the Australian Open but by going unbeaten for weeks, then months, totaling 41 matches and 7 titles in a row, I was hooked. No longer dependent on network or even cable tv, I watched every one of his matches during the first part of the season on my desktop monitor thanks to digital streams. At least weekly, I would call my father with updates or send him links to online coverage of the winning streak. Then, just a few days before my birthday, Djoković won Wimbledon, beating Rafael Nadal for the fifth time that year, and took over the top spot. Within the month, I had put my job search on hold and written my first piece about tennis. Within two months, I had booked a flight to Belgrade and talked my way into media credentials for the Davis Cup semifinal against Argentina.

In an interview during that September week in Serbia, Djoković recalled his twelfth birthday in 1999, during which NATO bombs dropped on his hometown, observing: “The war made me a better person because I learned to appreciate things and to take nothing for granted. The war also made me a better tennis player because I swore to myself that I’d prove to the world that there are good Serbs, too.” It didn’t require twenty major titles and countless other records for Djoković to prove that there are good Serbian tennis players. Indeed, that had likely been established as a fact long before he made the promise to himself. But the burden of representing a twenty-first century Serbia to the world is one that he and, to a lesser degree, the other members of the golden generation still carry. It’s why tennis, for them, is more than a game.

All About Djoković

Posted on 27 May 2021 by amitric

Belgrade Open 2021 Novak Djokovic (SRB) v Federico Coria (ARG) photo: Marko Djokovic/ Starsportphoto ©

In the lead up to the busiest part of the tennis season, I had the pleasure of joining BBC radio host Steve Crossman and tennis correspondent Russell Fuller on a 5 Live Sports special program discussing what makes the ATP #1 tick.

You can listen here and read excerpts from Fuller’s interviews with former players and Djoković coaches Niki Pilić, Boris Becker, and Goran Ivanišević here.