Playing in the hot Australian summer, Djokovic says tennis is more of a business than a sport.
Former world number one Novak Djokovic came back from six months off the tennis circuit due to an elbow injury to play the Australian Open at the start of the new season. The first of four grand slam tournaments between January and September takes place in Melbourne at the height of Australia’s summer. In recent years, it has become sport’s most dramatic illustration of the effects of global warming. Year after year, daytime temperatures climb to increasingly unbearable levels for the players, many of whom are forced to retire before completing their best-of-five set match.
Early in the tournament, after several hours struggling in extreme heat to defeat Gael Monfils, Djokovic expressed his growing concern. Here is how he describes the state of tennis today: “Our sport has become an industry. It’s more business than a sport. At times I don’t like that. Of course we’re all blessed to have great financial compensation, great lives. I’m very grateful for that. At the same time, what is most important for us is our health and what happens after our careers, after you’re 30, 35.”
This raises a serious question: Does it make sense to call an individual sport in which two players strike a ball on opposite sides of a net an industry? Perhaps the word “industry” has changed its meaning.
Here is today’s 3D definition:
Every human activity from which a profit can be earned. Formerly, industry only applied to those human activities that required high levels of investment and organization to produce and distribute goods.
Sport is one of the mainstays of the attention economy. When traditionally shared social values end up in tatters as a result of ever increasing consumerist individualism, people turn to competitive sport as an alternative to religion, patriotism and politics — on which no one can agree — to anchor their loyalties and even their identity. The movers and shakers of the attention economy have seized the occasion and progressively exploited the trend to the point at which the athletes themselves have become products and the most successful ones brands in their own right. The uncontested stars of their sport attract far more revenue from their chosen corporate sponsors than from the increasingly well-endowed prize money they earn from competing.
Djokovic doesn’t fail to express his gratitude for the windfall this represents for his own well-being. But in moments like these, when it becomes obvious that the power of commercial interests dwarfs the power and skill of finely tuned athletes and endangers their livelihood, the Serbian champion allows himself to express some minor misgivings about the cynicism of a system more focused on a sponsor’s bottom line than the court’s rectangular white lines and the players’ longevity.
There is a double movement in the modern history of sports and tennis in particular. Amateur sports were long considered the ideal. To qualify for the Olympic Games and to participate in a tennis grand slam (Paris, Wimbledon, New York, Melbourne) one had to be an amateur. Pros were not allowed to compete. As a result, for most of the 20th century amateur athletes were often held in higher esteem than professionals. Exactly 50 years ago, in 1968, the four prestigious grand slam tennis tournaments became “Opens,” allowing professional tennis players to compete for the first time.
The sport, in other words, has become the window dressing of an industry. The athletes, to a large extent interchangeable — with the exception of stars such as Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic — have become their cash cow or the goose that lays the golden eggs. Djokovic, followed by Nadal, has allowed himself to wonder out loud how many more golden eggs their industrial masters will allow them to lay.
*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.