It is a sporting-diplomatic-health imbroglio at the heart of which is found the world number one in tennis, Novak Djokovic, who has so far refused to make his vaccination status public. On January 4, the Serb announced he was flying to Melbourne with a medical exemption, in search of a 10e record title at the Australian Open (January 17-30) and 21e in Grand Slam, which would propel him alone to the top of world tennis.
After seeing his application for entry into Australia rejected, Wednesday, January 5, by the Australian authorities, for lack of having provided the necessary documents, Novak Djokovic filed a legal action against this decision on Thursday and obtained a stay. His case has been adjourned until the morning of Monday January 10, when a decision will be made on whether or not he will return to Serbia. Jean-Baptiste Guégan, specialist in the geopolitics of sport, deciphers the controversy.
Page Contents
How to explain that the “Djokogate” turned to a political and even diplomatic affair, the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic having denounced Australia’s attitude?
It is first and foremost a matter of domestic policy. We have on one side the federal government and on the other the government of the province of Victoria, where the Australian Open is being held. The latter had followed the organizers of the tournament and determined the reasons for medical exemptions granted to the players to be able to play the tournament without referring it to the federal government. However, the Australian Prime Minister, rather populist, clearly understood the political interest of the measure [l’annulation du visa du Serbe], in front of the rise of protests. You cannot impose 262 days of confinement on a population and allow a player, under the pretext of his notoriety, to enter the national territory.
Serbia gesticulates [le chef de l’Etat a dit avoir parlé à Djokovic au téléphone, lui assurant que « toute la Serbie était avec [lui] “] but she can’t do anything. Diplomatic relations between her and Australia are minimal. The risk for the Australian Prime Minister is limited. If it had been a Chinese player, the stakes would have been different, given the tensions between the two countries.
The Australian government has put pressure on Novak Djokovic to reveal the reason for his exemption: is it a mistake to have kept things vague despite medical confidentiality?
If Djokovic had not mentioned his exemption or if he had argued for an admissible reason, the subject would not have become controversial. There is a political recovery but at the start, Djokovic benefits from an exceptional system, he wants to place himself above the common law.
There is a feeling of omnipotence in him. He has always had a particular psychological relationship to the body, which is heterodox. Djokovic thought that his condition as a top athlete would open all doors for him. Except that by communicating very badly about the fact that he had benefited from a dispensation, he became the face of antivax, because we imagine that he is not vaccinated. What poses a problem is its positioning in relation to a public health policy developed by the Australian government, very strict since the start of the pandemic.
Shouldn’t the rules have been the same for everyone and no exceptions should have been granted?
At the very least, it is a communication problem on the part of the tournament management who is hiding behind medical confidentiality when it would have been enough to simply give the number of exemptions granted and the reasons without disclosing the names of the players. They did not measure the extent of the media scandal it could cause.
The Australian Open has loose rules because the tournament needs a headliner especially in the absence of Roger Federer, but this position is not rational. It also corresponds to the desire to fill the stands in a particular context. But beyond that, it once again illustrates the cacophony of tennis, everyone making their rules in their own corner.
If Djokovic is ultimately not expelled and can participate in the tournament, politically the Australian government will win. He will have shown firmness and turned public opinion in his favor. For Djokovic, this will be an opportunity to perhaps recognize that he was wrong, by believing himself above the rules. If he enters into a logic of victimization, he will have lost because all the States will close the door to him.
The United States prohibiting access to the territory to the unvaccinated, the rest of the season of Novak Djokovic could be compromised …
Top athletes who refuse vaccination exclude themselves. The United States has been clear, there will be no freebie. Above all, this situation will affect Djokovic’s performance. Psychologically, it can leave its mark. And behind, it will be necessary to see the reaction of the public.
There is also the question of sponsors. At some point, all Djokovic that he is, they will position themselves. It is complicated to use the image of a player who we know is criticized for heterodox positions, and in some countries, unsustainable. I wouldn’t be surprised to see contracts put on hold, or delayed or canceled activations from some of its partners.
Beyond that, what impact can this have on his career and his reputation, his divisive image already sticking to his skin?
His behavior off the pitch, and sometimes on the pitch, reflects on his reputation. He is an exceptional player who should be admired for his incredible talent. Compared to Federer and Nadal with the extremely smooth image, he stands out because he is divisive. But above all he suffers from it, he’s a bit of the “bad guy” that we like to hate. The problem is, we might just keep that from him.
He has a desire to show this omnipotence, especially in the absence of Federer. Is she conscious or not? Is it orchestrated by his com team or is it really him who takes a stand? There, one has the impression that he has set a trap for himself. The great sporting events exist by the players but remain superior to the players.
