Roger Federer and a World of Extremes
Roger Federer is one of the best things to happen for tennis media outlets and the people who work within the tennis journalism or tennis content industries.
That is a problem... but it's not in any way Federer's fault.
After a Wimbledon which was controlled by Federer on the court, an unavoidable talking point in the global tennis community is how much deference Federer is given off the court -- by tournament organizers, by individual reporters and writers, and by television networks. The people who cover -- or organize -- tennis events for a living give Federer so much primacy that fans of other star players are understandably, legitimately, upset when their favorites aren't given the same treatment.
To a certain extent, this is innocent and inconsequential. Tennis is still tennis on No. 1 Court at Wimbledon. It's not an alien version of what is played on Centre Court. Players win matches. Stadia do not.
A line gets crossed, however, when the somewhat (though not entirely) more benign matter of court assignments bleeds into a failure to play Novak Djokovic's fourth-round match on the same day as Federer's despite (in point of plain fact) ample time to complete the match. So what if fans could not attend a Djokovic-Mannarino match? Millions worldwide still could have watched on TV. Given that Wimbledon can play until 11 p.m. local time if needed, Djokovic and Mannarino had -- conservatively -- three and a half hours if the All England Club had put that match under a roof just before 7:30 on Monday, July 10.
Showing deference to Federer isn't the main reality to get upset about... it's the LACK of similar courtesy extended to other players which rightly rankles. An athlete and money-generator of Federer's reach and stature has earned accommodations, but Jelena Ostapenko -- the new French Open champion -- wasn't given Centre Court until the quarterfinals. WTA players are regularly outnumbered on Centre Court's three-match daily schedule during the first four rounds of Wimbledon: two matches to one, therefore four players to two.
It's not wrong to have Federer on the court he loves, but it is wrong to allow imbalances for other male and female players -- some in response to in-the-moment crises, some in response to planned schedules. From a media angle, it's not wrong to give Federer attention in itself, but it IS wrong for ESPN to spend a good chunk of its pre-match show before the WOMEN'S FINAL (Saturday morning, July 15) talking about Federer. Everything has its time and place.
This reality underscores a very familiar truth about athletes and sports teams in the internet and social media age: Many fans hate (or at least claim to hate) certain athletes or teams because of excessively favorable treatment, not necessarily because of anything the athlete or team says or does. Media hypersaturation and public displays of deference by various leaders, commentators, or power brokers in sports superstructures cause large numbers of television viewers (or more broadly, news consumers) to rebel against the athlete or team, not just against the clearly excessive media coverage... or Wimbledon's overly preferential treatment.
Among some fans, this constant absorption of preferential treatment toward certain athletes creates an insistence that the athlete at the center of the drama -- the one who is receiving preferential treatment -- has a responsibility to speak against it. Given that tennis players live in a tightly controlled world with countless obligations -- to tournament directors, people who work for the WTA and ATP Tours, television networks and their personnel, and more -- it is plainly stupid and counterproductive for players to speak against their own treatment. If they can speak in ways which encourage fair treatment of OTHERS, that works, but expecting Roger Federer to say, "No, don't put me on Centre Court. No, Wimbledon, don't accommodate my needs. Miami fans, no, don't be so vocal and passionate in supporting me against Nick Kyrgios," is simply not realistic.
The inclination is rooted in a desire to achieve and bring about fairer outcomes, which is noble, but athletes are not paid -- and should not be expected -- to be the drivers of change when they have a good thing on their hands. It's up to the wronged parties and concerned neutral figures with influence to hold relevant conversations with tournament organizers and media outlets and promote a better way.
This is the inconvenient reality of Roger Federer: An eight-time Wimbledon champion and 19-time major champion OUGHT to receive copious amounts of publicity and praise. How could that ever NOT be the case? Thinking about treatment of Federer can't start with Federer himself -- it must start on the other side of the spectrum: Why is (non-Federer) Player X not given the same wide berth or generous accommodations when s/he wins a major? Why is (non-Federer) Player Y not given as many show-court assignments or featured as prominently on ESPN coverage or in a blogger's in-tournament writings?
(Full disclosure: At my Patreon site, the ATP player I wrote the most about during the past two weeks was Marin Cilic. I try to write about the important story rather than seek clickbait -- I don't always succeed in that endeavor, but I certainly did not succumb to that temptation at Wimbledon in 2017.)
Federer is a man of extreme talent and extreme accomplishment, living in a time of overwhelming polarization in global and national politics (any nation). Here in the United States, I certainly see a country fragmenting into extremes across the political spectrum. Hillary versus Bernie remains a contentious split among a lot of Americans who consider themselves left of center. (Yes, yes, European readers -- I know you think Democrats are centrist or right of center.... that's a different discussion. The polarization is the point.) Republicans are divided between Never-Trumpers and those willing to give Trump a chance.
Within this searing political cauldron, any single criticism of one candidate/figure/viewpoint is constantly viewed as a vicious attack. No statement of criticism, it seems, can be accepted for what it is -- just about everything is taken personally in politics, with no room for debate.
It is -- and has become -- very similar in sports, and Federer embodies that... not because of anything he did, but because of the times in which he lives.
In the 1980s, we would have known a fraction of what we do about the journeys of each of the top players -- what they do between matches and tournaments, what they think about various topics under the sun. Today, the internet and social media expose so much about players and what they say. Everything exists under a microscope. So much content is generated by blogs and websites that fans of every player routinely have SOMETHING to pick from the pile as indicative of a bias against their player. (As I wrote last week, Djokovic fans are right to note anti-Nole bias on Wimbledon's part, unintentional though that bias may be.)
Federer's achievements as a father should not be compared to what mothers -- Serena, Azarenka, and others -- do on court. The fact that Federer had a cold at Wimbledon should not be compared to any truly debilitating injury or illness. (Merely noting the cold, however, still elicits a torrent of reactions -- that's how sensitive people are about media deification of Federer.) Roger didn't walk on water this Wimbledon or turn water into wine.
Yes, the hyperbole from the media is tiresome... but it's entirely expected. Why? The current media landscape -- I am referring to everything in journalism, not just sports -- incentivizes extreme statements.
As an author of a few books -- none of which are selling well -- I can speak from firsthand experience: Few people want to read a book which is full of cautious, middle-ground, caveat-laden, nuance-filled statements. People want the fawning, gushing worship, or the incendiary attack-dog criticism. Mild and highly-calibrated statements which carefully juggle competing tensions? That's boring, complicated and not emotionally satisfying. Who wants to read THAT?
Federer -- as a subject of media attention and as a prize figure for tournament organizers -- is no more or less than this: a product of his time. Federer is an all-or-nothing presence in tennis. He either cannot do any wrong or he is always at the center of any instance of media overkill and hyperbole.
The inconvenient part: It's not his fault, and he shouldn't (and can't) be the one expected to fix this problem. The adults in media boardrooms and production trucks, and in tournament offices where schedules are made, need to be the leaders.
Roger Federer, in a world of extremes, will remain an inconvenient and divisive figure -- not of his doing or his choosing, mind you -- until tournaments and media outlets extend courtesies to other players, not just him.
That is a problem... but it's not in any way Federer's fault.
After a Wimbledon which was controlled by Federer on the court, an unavoidable talking point in the global tennis community is how much deference Federer is given off the court -- by tournament organizers, by individual reporters and writers, and by television networks. The people who cover -- or organize -- tennis events for a living give Federer so much primacy that fans of other star players are understandably, legitimately, upset when their favorites aren't given the same treatment.
To a certain extent, this is innocent and inconsequential. Tennis is still tennis on No. 1 Court at Wimbledon. It's not an alien version of what is played on Centre Court. Players win matches. Stadia do not.
A line gets crossed, however, when the somewhat (though not entirely) more benign matter of court assignments bleeds into a failure to play Novak Djokovic's fourth-round match on the same day as Federer's despite (in point of plain fact) ample time to complete the match. So what if fans could not attend a Djokovic-Mannarino match? Millions worldwide still could have watched on TV. Given that Wimbledon can play until 11 p.m. local time if needed, Djokovic and Mannarino had -- conservatively -- three and a half hours if the All England Club had put that match under a roof just before 7:30 on Monday, July 10.
Showing deference to Federer isn't the main reality to get upset about... it's the LACK of similar courtesy extended to other players which rightly rankles. An athlete and money-generator of Federer's reach and stature has earned accommodations, but Jelena Ostapenko -- the new French Open champion -- wasn't given Centre Court until the quarterfinals. WTA players are regularly outnumbered on Centre Court's three-match daily schedule during the first four rounds of Wimbledon: two matches to one, therefore four players to two.
It's not wrong to have Federer on the court he loves, but it is wrong to allow imbalances for other male and female players -- some in response to in-the-moment crises, some in response to planned schedules. From a media angle, it's not wrong to give Federer attention in itself, but it IS wrong for ESPN to spend a good chunk of its pre-match show before the WOMEN'S FINAL (Saturday morning, July 15) talking about Federer. Everything has its time and place.
This reality underscores a very familiar truth about athletes and sports teams in the internet and social media age: Many fans hate (or at least claim to hate) certain athletes or teams because of excessively favorable treatment, not necessarily because of anything the athlete or team says or does. Media hypersaturation and public displays of deference by various leaders, commentators, or power brokers in sports superstructures cause large numbers of television viewers (or more broadly, news consumers) to rebel against the athlete or team, not just against the clearly excessive media coverage... or Wimbledon's overly preferential treatment.
Among some fans, this constant absorption of preferential treatment toward certain athletes creates an insistence that the athlete at the center of the drama -- the one who is receiving preferential treatment -- has a responsibility to speak against it. Given that tennis players live in a tightly controlled world with countless obligations -- to tournament directors, people who work for the WTA and ATP Tours, television networks and their personnel, and more -- it is plainly stupid and counterproductive for players to speak against their own treatment. If they can speak in ways which encourage fair treatment of OTHERS, that works, but expecting Roger Federer to say, "No, don't put me on Centre Court. No, Wimbledon, don't accommodate my needs. Miami fans, no, don't be so vocal and passionate in supporting me against Nick Kyrgios," is simply not realistic.
The inclination is rooted in a desire to achieve and bring about fairer outcomes, which is noble, but athletes are not paid -- and should not be expected -- to be the drivers of change when they have a good thing on their hands. It's up to the wronged parties and concerned neutral figures with influence to hold relevant conversations with tournament organizers and media outlets and promote a better way.
This is the inconvenient reality of Roger Federer: An eight-time Wimbledon champion and 19-time major champion OUGHT to receive copious amounts of publicity and praise. How could that ever NOT be the case? Thinking about treatment of Federer can't start with Federer himself -- it must start on the other side of the spectrum: Why is (non-Federer) Player X not given the same wide berth or generous accommodations when s/he wins a major? Why is (non-Federer) Player Y not given as many show-court assignments or featured as prominently on ESPN coverage or in a blogger's in-tournament writings?
(Full disclosure: At my Patreon site, the ATP player I wrote the most about during the past two weeks was Marin Cilic. I try to write about the important story rather than seek clickbait -- I don't always succeed in that endeavor, but I certainly did not succumb to that temptation at Wimbledon in 2017.)
Federer is a man of extreme talent and extreme accomplishment, living in a time of overwhelming polarization in global and national politics (any nation). Here in the United States, I certainly see a country fragmenting into extremes across the political spectrum. Hillary versus Bernie remains a contentious split among a lot of Americans who consider themselves left of center. (Yes, yes, European readers -- I know you think Democrats are centrist or right of center.... that's a different discussion. The polarization is the point.) Republicans are divided between Never-Trumpers and those willing to give Trump a chance.
Within this searing political cauldron, any single criticism of one candidate/figure/viewpoint is constantly viewed as a vicious attack. No statement of criticism, it seems, can be accepted for what it is -- just about everything is taken personally in politics, with no room for debate.
It is -- and has become -- very similar in sports, and Federer embodies that... not because of anything he did, but because of the times in which he lives.
In the 1980s, we would have known a fraction of what we do about the journeys of each of the top players -- what they do between matches and tournaments, what they think about various topics under the sun. Today, the internet and social media expose so much about players and what they say. Everything exists under a microscope. So much content is generated by blogs and websites that fans of every player routinely have SOMETHING to pick from the pile as indicative of a bias against their player. (As I wrote last week, Djokovic fans are right to note anti-Nole bias on Wimbledon's part, unintentional though that bias may be.)
Federer's achievements as a father should not be compared to what mothers -- Serena, Azarenka, and others -- do on court. The fact that Federer had a cold at Wimbledon should not be compared to any truly debilitating injury or illness. (Merely noting the cold, however, still elicits a torrent of reactions -- that's how sensitive people are about media deification of Federer.) Roger didn't walk on water this Wimbledon or turn water into wine.
Yes, the hyperbole from the media is tiresome... but it's entirely expected. Why? The current media landscape -- I am referring to everything in journalism, not just sports -- incentivizes extreme statements.
As an author of a few books -- none of which are selling well -- I can speak from firsthand experience: Few people want to read a book which is full of cautious, middle-ground, caveat-laden, nuance-filled statements. People want the fawning, gushing worship, or the incendiary attack-dog criticism. Mild and highly-calibrated statements which carefully juggle competing tensions? That's boring, complicated and not emotionally satisfying. Who wants to read THAT?
Federer -- as a subject of media attention and as a prize figure for tournament organizers -- is no more or less than this: a product of his time. Federer is an all-or-nothing presence in tennis. He either cannot do any wrong or he is always at the center of any instance of media overkill and hyperbole.
The inconvenient part: It's not his fault, and he shouldn't (and can't) be the one expected to fix this problem. The adults in media boardrooms and production trucks, and in tournament offices where schedules are made, need to be the leaders.
Roger Federer, in a world of extremes, will remain an inconvenient and divisive figure -- not of his doing or his choosing, mind you -- until tournaments and media outlets extend courtesies to other players, not just him.
Comments
Post a Comment