ESPN misfires with blank flags for tennis stars

By Adam Minter

Can sports ever be separated from politics? During the recently concluded US Open tennis tournament, ESPN gave it a shot by displaying a blank flag next to Russian and Belarusian competitors. The network took the step out of deference to tennis’ governing authorities, which require Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete as “neutrals” at international tournaments as a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The point, in part, is to prevent Russia and Belarus from using the success of their athletes to score propaganda points. It’s an admirable goal. But forcing only certain players to compete under neutral flags accomplishes little and might even be counterproductive. 

A blank flag next to an athlete’s name can’t conceal their nationality — even at ESPN. For example, during the men’s and women’s finals, the network’s app and website, which follow a different editorial standard than its broadcast channel, displayed a Russian flag next to Daniil Medvedev's name and a Belarusian one next to Aryna Sabalenka .

Other news services also included their nationality. And this is all just a small fraction of nearly two years’ worth of articles and social media posts mentioning (and arguing over) tensions around athletes, neutrality and potential propaganda.

Arguably, the jerry-rigged approach of blank flags only served to highlight which country the tennis stars were representing on a national stage (and certainly spurred plenty of in-match conversations among fans). Worse, it reveals a gross misunderstanding of how money drives the loyalties of professional athletes in 2023.

Decades ago, nationality was a crucial means of understanding what drove a player to succeed. That’s no longer the case. Today, the world’s top players are far more motivated by sponsors and prize money (as well as private tennis instructors and academies). For example, Medvedev enjoys lucrative deals with a range of companies, including Lacoste SA and BMW. And holding onto those earnings matters a great deal to him. Perhaps that’s why instead of residing in Moscow, he lives in low-tax Monaco (his family also has a long-time affinity for all things France). And he’s not the only one with a willingness to move — Sabalenka calls Miami home.

Increasingly, it’s an archaic practice to identify competitors on professional scoreboards by what is in many cases merely country of birth, not country of choice. It bears little relationship to who they mostly represent (brands) and why they often play (money from those brands).

It also injects politics and nationalism into an event that historically has had little relationship to nation-states. The trophy upon which the names of US Open champions are engraved does not include their nationality.

This is not to say that the international sports world doesn’t have a long history of dealing with geopolitical conflict such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Competitions have been political since the ancient Greeks first held the Olympic games. Today is no different: Governments continue to view Olympic success as a means of projecting power and prestige. In 1936, Germany’s Nazi government attempted to use the Berlin games as a platform to promote theories of Aryan racial superiority (it failed, thanks in part to Jesse Owens), while China has long used its gold medal successes as a proxy to argue for its superior training —  and, ultimately, governance —  model.

Meanwhile, fans everywhere naturally view head-to-head matchups between state-sponsored athletes as something more than just pure athletic competition.

For their part, at least publicly, the International Olympic Committee and other associations have long embraced the notion that sports should be divorced from politics.

But a few blank flags in a sea of other colors is not going to depoliticize tennis, of all sports, because it has a large number of Russian and Belarusian athletes. A fairer standard would be for tournaments to stop identifying athletes by nationality altogether. 

Some players might push back against such a move and still want to represent their country. I get it; national pride is a thing. But neutrality across the board would more properly turn the focus to their performance and — notably — their sponsors. It would also get ESPN a lot closer to accomplishing its non-political aspirations.

And if, as occasionally happens, a competitor speaks up for or against an issue that causes offense, accountability would be in the hands of image-conscious sponsors, not cable networks.