On Wednesday, the All England Lawn Tennis Club (better known as the venue for The Championships at Wimbledon) joined with the British Lawn Tennis Association in banning all Russian and Belarusian players from competing at its event — at least, according to the L.T.A.’s statement, “whilst the current situation continues in accordance with the UK Government guidance in place”. While acknowledging that “individual Russian and Belarusian players may not agree with the actions of their Governments and this is a situation beyond their control”, the statement also said “The continuing participation of Russian and Belarusian nationals at events risks providing a boost to these regimes when there is an unprecedented international effort to isolate them and sanction their actions”. It’s the first time Wimbledon has banned players from specific countries since the end of World War II, when athletes from Germany and Japan were barred from competing.
The move was met with significant criticism, including from the Women’s Tennis Association and the Association of Tennis Professionals. As Reuters reported, “Both tennis governing bodies had banned Russia and Belarus from international team competitions” following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but both groups said the move to ban individual players amounted to “discrimination”. Before the Wimbledon ban was announced, the New Yorker contributor Gerald Marzorati noted that the Russian tennis pro Andrey Rublev made a public statement against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As ESPN reports, there are nine players from Russia and Belarus in the current top 30 world tennis rankings, both men and women.
But some hailed the decision. The Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins wrote on Thursday that the message the Wimbledon ban sent was “necessary”, adding, “Even the most innocent Russians will be price-payers for the rapacious actions of Vladimir Putin’s regime”.
In their statement, the All England Club and Wimbledon said, “Given the profile of The Championships” — one of tennis’s four major Grand Slam events — “in the United Kingdom and around the world, it is our responsibility to play our part in the widespread efforts of Government, industry, sporting and creative institutions to limit Russia’s global influence through the strongest means possible”.
But is it? And if so, why?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been devastating, with thousands of civilians enduring bombardment and the prospect of starvation. According to many reports, Ukrainian civilians have been subjected to crimes including torture and rape. Ukrainian officials have said that the death toll in the city of Mariupol may have reached 20,000. Yes, political and economic stability have been jarred by the outbreak of war in Europe, but the principal toll of the fighting has been the human cost. It seems pretty clear to me, then, that any type of sanctions on the Russian or Belarusian governments or individuals should be implemented with the aim of making the Russian government stop bombing Ukrainian cities and killing Ukrainian civilians. The point isn’t, or shouldn’t be, the more nebulous goal to “limit Russia’s global influence”. The point should be to stop the carnage by ending the war, and bans and sanctions should be directed as precisely as possible toward that end. The problem with Russia’s war in Ukraine is not Russian citizens, even famous professional tennis players. The problem also isn’t a restaurant, such as Russia House, in Washington, D.C., which reportedly was subjected to vandalism in the days after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. The problem with Russia’s war in Ukraine is, well, Russia’s war in Ukraine.
The idea behind sanctioning Russia’s economic engines was to limit Russia’s financial firepower and make continuing the war less feasible in the long term. The idea behind sanctioning Russian oligarchs living in London and elsewhere was, as the congressional foreign policy adviser Paul Massaro framed it last month, to “do the most damage to” President Putin’s “rogue state”.
But limiting Russian influence by banning Russian and Belarusian tennis players from Wimbledon is unlikely to bring about a swifter end to the war in Ukraine or concretely damage Putin’s regime. Where’s the evidence that Russia’s president will be swayed to rethink his military aggression if these athletes aren’t allowed to compete at Wimbledon? What makes the governing bodies of Wimbledon and the L.T.A. think Putin will be devastated that Daniil Medvedev and Victoria Azarenka will not be heating up the courts at The Championships? Sports Illustrated reported that one player doubted Putin even cared about tennis.
By taking this action, Wimbledon hasn’t banned a team competing under the Russian or Belarusian flag. Tennis players are independent contractors. At major tournaments like Wimbledon, they aren’t competing for their countries. Even if fans back home cheer for them, they are competing for themselves.
So, what is the ban doing? It’s doing something. It’s performing the act of action. And perhaps that’s the point. The do-something impulse is among our strongest, even when, in many cases, there’s very little you, I or Wimbledon really can do to make the Russian government stop its campaign of violence against Ukrainians. Inaction can feel weak, but action, even when it’s ineffective, often feels strong.
But feeling strong isn’t the same thing as doing the right thing, or even doing something that makes sense. Russian tennis players didn’t invade Ukraine. And punishing Russian tennis players won’t stop the war in Ukraine. But apparently the ban makes the governing bodies running Wimbledon and the L.T.A. feel as if they have done something. And seemingly, that’s good enough for them.
Jane Coaston is the host of Opinion’s podcast “The Argument”. Previously, she reported on conservative politics, the G.O.P. and the rise of the right. She also co-hosted the podcast “The Weeds”.