Daily Times

Wimbledon has apparently made up its mind over its heated collision with the tennis world. As a strong-worded statement acknowledges the suffering of individual players, considering it a much-needed opportunity cost to set the record straight over its inclination in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, the rest of the fraternity cannot help but wonder whether it is using all the right buzzwords for all the wrong reasons.

Because they may have broadcast their resolve to not let the Russian regime accrue any “benefits” from the Championships, but those destined to sit out in the cold are not armed-to-teeth soldiers of the Spetsnaz who should be ferociously reprimanded for leaving grizzly marks all over Ukrainian towns.

The players pushed under the knife include Audrey Rublev, who drew the ire of his own government after writing “No war please” on a camera lens. Condemning war has literally nothing to do with punishing athletes who have nonesoever to do with the policies of their countries and whatever happened to not allowing discrimination based on nationality (as has been repeatedly mandated in Wimbledon’s key agreements) is a flustering question still up in the air.

To allow the giants to enmesh the lush lawns with the ugliness of politics and let the optics do all the talking is not only detrimental to the countries being targeted but to the grace and finesse of the entire game. That Russians have ruled the tennis courts for quite some time is an open secret and forcing the games to unroll without them would deprive the audience of some nerve-wracking serve and splendid shots.

By allowing the upheavals of reality to choke an avenue that could well arise as an arena of unity and diplomacy, Britons have invited a great deal of unwanted controversy because of their inability to raise the same flags against athletes from the US (or even their own, for that matter).

Did bloodshed in Afghanistan not matter as much or was the Syrian conflict a routine matter in an imperialist world? Forcing someone to choose between their passion and their safety (by a denunciation of their government’s actions) and now closing the doors on them altogether does not go hand-in-hand with the spirit of welcoming the best player. To making more bridges, not tearing the few we already have. *