Wimbledon got underway at the All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club yesterday. It is generally regarded as the most prestigious of the four major Tennis championships (aka Grand Slams). Truth be told, I have never understood why.
I understand regarding it as the oldest – given that it was founded in 1877. But even that seems hardly worthy of acclaim. After all, the U.S. Open was founded just four years later in 1881, the French Open in 1891, and the Australian Open in 1905.
What’s more, it only became the highest paying Grand Slam last year, when it took the extraordinary step of increasing prize money by ten percent. Never mind that the winner of both men’s and women’s singles will earn $3m at the U.S. Open this year, compared with $2.4m at Wimbledon.
I’m not sure what to make of the fact that it is the only Grand Slam that is “still” played on grass. But it’s not as if Wimbledon offers the best in terms of player facilities and fan experience. In fact, in these respects, the Australian Open is generally regarded as the most prestigious.
The above explains why I think Wimbledon’s prestige is based on nothing more than the reflected presumptions of British royalty and its genteel/aristocratic appurtenances.
I have long maintained that royalty makes a mockery of the universal principle that all people are created equal. Moreover, that any democracy that institutionalizes royalty in the twenty-first century is almost as cancerous (and oxymoronic) as any that institutionalized slavery in the nineteenth.
(“The Problem Is Not Kate’s Weight; It’s William’s Title,” The iPINIONS Journal, February 16, 2011)
Of course, with nouveau-riche Russian oligarchs making a mockery of aristocratic airs these days, Wimbledon’s genteel all-white dress code is the only royal appurtenance that remains uniquely British.
Wimbledon has long required players to wear outfits that are ‘predominantly in white’ or ‘almost entirely in white.’
But this year, a 10-part decree was introduced in the competitors’ guide stating that ‘white does not include off-white or cream’ and allowing only ‘a single trim of color no wider than one centimeter.’ The almost-all-white rule now explicitly covers caps, headbands, bandannas, wristbands, shoes and even ‘any undergarments that either are or can be visible during play (including due to perspiration).’
(New York Times, July 4, 2014)
But just imagine a tradition so committed to such all-white presumptions that it would not permit even a high-profile player like Roger Federer to wear tennis shoes with orange soles. (And we all know orange is the new black, right?)
Wimbledon have called a foot fault on their most illustrious member Roger Federer and demanded that he changes his grass court tennis shoes for his second round match this afternoon.
The seven-time champion has fallen foul of the All England Club’s clothing police by wearing orange-soled shoes that contravene strict rules about players being clad from head to toe in gear that has to be almost totally white.
(Daily Mail, June 25, 2013)
This brings me to the Confederate flag.
I trust it goes without saying too much that the gentility Wimbledon’s all-white dress code represents is not nearly as anathema as the racism the Confederate flag does; not least because the discrimination in this case is based on the color of one’s clothes not on the color of one’s skin.
The problem is that Wimbledon’s “all-white” dress code smacks of the “white-only” social codes that once prevailed throughout the American South … under the banner of the Confederate flag. Not to mention that Wimbledon’s all-white tradition included allowing white-only players until as recently as 1951.
Incidentally, I wish I could say how many Blacks, if any, are full members of the All England Tennis Lawn & Croquet Club. But I gather that information is top secret. What I can say is that membership rules make it almost impossible for anyone who does not have established ties to the British elite to qualify. Therefore, I could probably count its Black members on the fingers of one hand, and still have a few to spare.
I am all too mindful, though, that Augusta National, arguably the home of the most prestigious of golf’s four major championships (The Masters), did not admit its first Black member until 1990….
In any event, I fear no contradiction in asserting that, just as the Confederate flag is not and cannot be an indispensable symbol of pride in Southern heritage, the all-white dress code is not and cannot be an indispensable requirement for “elegance and formality” at Wimbledon.
Except that, with all due respect to Federer and Andre Agassi, both of whom tried to no avail to rid tennis of this anachronistic tradition, I think it will take a high-profile Black player like Serena Williams to be the Rosa Parks of this cause….
But, just as Obama waited until he had nothing to lose politically to pursue a controversial policy like normalizing relations with Cuba, Serena can be forgiven for waiting until she has nothing to lose professionally to take a stand against the All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club.
In her case, that could be in two years, after she has broken Steffi Graf’s record of 22 Grand Slams and is just playing out the sunset of her career. Apropos of which, she racked up her 19th and 20th earlier this year at the Australian Open and French Open, respectively, and is poised to win her 21st at this tournament. Therefore, it seems a good bet she’ll get it done within that two-year period.
Related commentaries:
The problem…