Translated By Giorgia Michela Pizzo
When peculiar sporting events are organized, outside the traditional parameters of individual disciplines and flaunting prizes that are shamelessly beyond the logic of the market, it is inevitable that these events will stir discussion, raise controversy and generate factions between those in favour and those against. The Six Kings Slam under way in Riyadh is certainly a controversial event, as it guarantees its six participants a minimum of $1.5 million (about 1.4 million euros), with a first prize amounting to $6 million (more than 5.5 million euros), the largest check in history ever paid to the winner of a tennis competition. The top-notch field of participants certainly helped raise the level of notoriety of the event: the two remaining “Big 3” (Djokovic and Nadal), the two protagonists of the new men’s tennis rivalry (Alcaraz and Sinner), plus two top 10 or near top 10s (Rune was top 10 at the beginning of the year when the idea was hatched, Medvedev still is). It is hard to remain indifferent to such amounts of money, especially when they come from a country actively engaged in so-called “sportswashing,” that is, investing substantial amounts of money in sports activities to enhance its international image.
First it was golf, then soccer, Formula 1, boxing, the awarding of the 2029 Asian Winter Games to a resort still under construction (Trojena, within the NEOM megaproject). Saudi Arabia consistently ranks among the last countries in the world in the matters of respect for personal freedom and human rights: homosexuality is still considered a crime, the status of women only in recent years has made some strenuous progress, and freedom of expression is severely restricted. For these reasons, there are those who argue that it would be wise not to be tempted by the sirens of “megadollars” and refuse to go to play in Saudi Arabia until that country has shown that it is willing to address these problems.
The Sun City match between Borg and McEnroe
In the history of tennis, there has already been a similar case, on a considerably smaller scale, when in 1980 a South African businessman, Sol Kerzner, offered John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg the chance to play an exhibition match in what is now Sun City, a so-called “South African Las Vegas,” in exchange for about $1 million prize money each. In 1980 that amount could easily represent an entire season’s prize money for a top-ranked player and could be as much as 100 times the standard cachet for such an exhibition. The match was scheduled for December 6 (at the peak of the summer season in South Africa) in a specially built 14,000-seat stadium. At that time Sun City was located within the phantom nation of Bophuthatswana, one of the two set up by the South African segregationist government with less stringent regulations for the black population with the ultimate intent of forcing all black individuals into that territory (and that of the similar nation of Transkei) and then depriving them of citizenship and remaining rights. This allowed them to avoid international sanctions against South Africa and to be able to hire international stars. To boost Sun City’s international profile, Mr. Kerzner, who managed Sun City’s hotel-casinos, had been trying to organize a number of events of great international resonance: Frank Sinatra was hired for a nine-day “mini-residency” for which, according to the New York Times, he grossed $1.6 million (equal to $6 million nowadays) after he had been awarded the organization of the WBA World Heavyweight Championship in Pretoria in 1979 between Coetzee and Tate for the title left vacant by Muhammad Ali’s retirement.
Eventually the match was not held because of McEnroe’s refusal to be exploited by the South African government. “I don’t think it would have changed the world one way or the other but I’m proud I didn’t do it,” McEnroe stated in an interview years later, “I thought to myself, ‘Yeah this is an unbelievable amount of money at the time but there’s a reason why they’re offering me an unbelievable amount. So, I wasn’t gonna be the pawn in that whole thing, and I felt it was the wrong thing to do.” Borg, indeed, had said he was willing to step out on the court, not wanting to get involved with political issues, but McEnroe’s refusal blew off the gig.
Tennis and Saudi Arabia
The current situation concerning the relationship between tennis and the troublesome kingdom of Saudi Arabia is certainly much more complicated than that single episode in the South African exhibition almost half a century ago. The Public Investment Fund (PIF), Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund with an estimated $925 billion in available wealth (roughly the same as Switzerland’s annual GDP), is already the title sponsor of the ATP rankings, the NextGen Finals. WTA Finals will be played in Saudi Arabia this year and in the coming years. Another aim is to organize a men’s Masters 1000 or even an alternative tour. Tennis fans have expressed, here on Ubitennis and elsewhere, mixed feelings about this exhibition with so much money at stake and with such an important parterre de rois. These are very personal positions, all of which are certainly to be respected, many of which can be wholly or partly shared or in part, and which have fuelled the discussion over the past period. We will only discuss the points for and against the exhibition here in order to trigger a polite exchange of views among our readers, based on the assumption that there are no entities that can prevent the event from being held if it complies with the regulations in force. In this case, the Six Kings Slam conforms to the regulations because it is not held on three consecutive days, and therefore can also be held during a period when there are official ATP tournaments.
Arguments against exhibition
Despite the presence of the finest players that men’s tennis can showcase, the stands are not as crammed as they regularly are at official tournaments in Europe and North America. Evidently the tennis product does not spur as much interest in Saudi Arabia, so why go there and play another event in the middle of the season?
The prize money is a slap in the face for misery. True, it is a matter of fact that in a market economy it is the law of supply and demand that sets the price, but why does Saudi Arabia offer so much more than other countries when it seems obvious that tennis is not that popular? It seems obvious that there is a double purpose, that of “greenwashing,” and by participating in this event the players are making themselves accomplices in this attempt to divert attention from the problems there are in Saudi Arabia. Tennis players are professionals, so they play for money: but do they really need these dollars that seem to want to “buy” their support for the social situation in Saudi Arabia?
Arguments for exhibition
First of all, it should be pointed out that this is an exhibition, which does not have the value of official tournaments and has had great worldwide resonance only because of the big names participating.
Exhibitions allow players to make money outside of prize money and sponsorships, with a much smaller expenditure of energy than official competitions, and in some cases (such as this one) bring top-level tennis players to places where they usually do not have the opportunity to perform. The Tour is extremely repetitive, and now that top players cherry-pick the events they take part in, they are only “visible” by fans in a limited number of places in the world. Being able to see them elsewhere also gives more fans a chance to watch them live, albeit in a “less competitive” setting, which often, however, can offer more opportunities for contact. In fact, during major tournaments tennis players are almost always completely immersed in the competition; in an exhibition environment, where the tension for the result is much less and the off-court hours are spent in a much more relaxed way, interaction with fans will likely be more frequent. The civil rights situation in Saudi Arabia is not what one would wish, certainly, but would it have changed if this performance had not taken place? Probably not, so it can be argued that boycotting this event would just be an end in itself.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia is not the only problematic country from a human rights point of view where tennis is played: the ATP and WTA tours have just unfurled for over a month in China, where there are certainly problems from this point of view. The other Gulf countries that have welcomed pro tennis for years now can also be accused of “hardly liberal” practices: just think of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, where moreover many tennis players have even set their residency. There are those who may raise voce against the death penalty which is still in force in more than half the states in the U.S, not to mention gun ownership laws. What do you do, boycott the U.S. as well? And, as has already been pointed out several times, this exhibition would not be the only point of contact between tennis and Saudi Arabia: even if it were to be boycotted by all tennis players and cancelled, the country’s involvement in tennis would still remain very weighty. So does it make sense to get outraged about this event which hands out $14.3 million to six tennis players when in a few weeks there will be another one allocating $15 million to eight women tennis players, if the problem is where that money is coming from?
Who is right?
Arguments that could brought up both for and against this performance but that have nothing to do with Saudi Arabia have been deliberately omitted. A six-figure prize pool (though perhaps lower than the one currently up for grabs in Riyadh) would be controversial wherever played, though clearly “dirty money from poor human rights” creates more problems. The fact that “there is already plenty of tennis” and there is no need for a mid-October event is independent of the location itself, so there is no point in discussing it.
As mentioned above, it is not possible to say who is right or who is wrong; it is a position that depends very much on personal sensibility. The one who summed up the issue well is probably Casper Ruud, who, in an interview during Stockholm Open, spoke about the Saudi Arabia issue. “I didn’t get an offer from the Six Kings Slam, but I have had offers in the past, and I have chosen not to go. It is obviously a controversial country in terms of many things, but there are other countries that are controversial as well that we go to and play in.”
“Obviously they have a lot of money, and I know what I am going to say will probably be described as sportswashing, but it seems to me that their new leader Mohammed bin Salman wants to do something and especially a lot of things in sport. He wants to, maybe, change the country and maybe make it a bit more westernized. Athletes going there could lead to a change, who knows? I know that I might look very naive saying this, because people will just say that’s sportswashing covering what is actually going on. But if they never started anywhere, I am not sure there would ever be a change.”
“Let’s see. I am sure it will be more and more in the future, and there are also a lot of rumours on the ATP tour if there is going to be an extra tournament in Saudi Arabia.”
“I have chosen not to go so far, but it seems to me that it is inevitable, that they will somehow be big in tennis in the future and they already have the Next Gen Finals, so let’s see what the future brings.”
Certainly Casper Ruud has come up with a very balanced assessment. Yet, some doubts remain, such as the crimes the Saudi prince ruling the country is accused of (primarily the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi), which might cast some shadows on his intentions to modernize the country. Nonetheless, this is a very well-informed take on a factual reality that undoubtedly does credit to Ruud: there is a definite need for such reasoned opinions, so far less for the moralizing screeds of those who pontificate from the heights of their white horses.
