Wimbledon — the glitz, the glam, the hypocrisy

Express Tribune

25-07-2025

The writer takes interest in humanism and futurology. He has an MS from Houston and DDS from Nashville, Tennessee. He can be reached at [e-mail]
Listen to article
Breakfast at Wimbledon' is a long-cherished tradition in sports. Here in America, as in London and across the globe, we can't wait to pour cream over strawberries or enjoy scones with hot tea or English muffins or even have Bangers and Mash. As the Commodores would say, "It's easy like Sunday morning." But for the die-hard tennis fans in Pakistan, it's "Dinner at Wimbledon."
This year was no different. We lounged in front of our big screen TV sets. We picked our favourites. It was Carlos Alcaraz defending his title against Jannik Sinner. These two youngsters, the new kids on the block, have raised the level of competition to new heights. In an epic battle, Jannik Sinner outplayed Carlos Alcaraz defeating him in four sets, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4, avenging his defeat in the French Open final earlier this year.
A slew of Hollywood celebrities attended the final match. Keira Knightly, Matthew McConaughey and Nicole Kidman, as well as London's Mayor Sadiq Khan were seated in the Royal Box. Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, presented the trophies to the winner and the runner-up.
But beyond the glitz and the glam, hidden from our view and undetected from all the camera angles, lies the shameless hypocrisy of the All-England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club that organises this tournament. In 2022, the club banned players from Russia and Belarus from participating in Wimbledon in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The ban was lifted in 2023, but in subsequent tournaments, players from Russia and Belarus have been forced to play in Wimbledon as "neutrals" as if they don't belong to any country. This includes the Russian players Daniil Medvedev and Andrey Rublev as well as the world number one female tennis player, Aryna Sabalenka, who hails from Belarus.
The All-England Club justified its apparently discriminatory decision "to prevent the Russian regime from using the tournament for propaganda purposes". Supporters of the decision argued that "it was a necessary step to condemn Russia's actions and show solidarity with Ukraine." Critics of the double standard argued that "it is discriminatory to punish individual athletes for the actions of their governments."
What about the tennis players from the USA and Great Britain? After all, the United States, along with its ally, Great Britain, invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 - and that too under false pretenses. Both countries have a chilling history of military interventions in foreign lands and territories. The British Empire is known to have established colonies from North America to South Africa, and beyond.
In 1877, Queen Victoria imposed herself as the Empress of India. The British Empire not only stole billions (if not trillions as reported) from India, they subjected the local population to heinous and barbaric crimes. In the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919, for example, Gen Dyer who was commanding the British Indian Army ordered opening fire on a peaceful gathering of unarmed Indians who had gathered to protest against the colonial rule. Over one thousand innocent people died that day.
In short, athletes from the USA and Great Britain are not to be discriminated at Wimbledon as those from Russia and Belarus. That's that.