The Arena of Margaret Court and Sporting Idols

Dimitri Vidin
Nov 7 · 4 min read

Maybe Being Good at One Thing Doesn’t Automatically Make You Good at Others

Look. This has already been done. So much so half of this is direct quotes from a much more robust article stating the obvious truths we’ve already had the time to go over.

I’d just hope if you’re reading this, you’re after the facts of what’s going on and not going belligerently emotional on either end of the spectrum.

The short of it: Tennis legend is also bigoted (*entitled to her opinion) against LGBT and ethnic groups- namely a pro-apartheid and couldn’t care less if her countrywoman, Evonne Goolagong Cawley were affected by it so long as Margaret herself could still access South African tournaments.

So. She is questioning Tennis Australia about why she isn’t getting as much attention as Rod Laver.

Well.

“ambassador

/amˈbasədə/

noun

a representative or promoter of a specified activity.”

Or:

“idol

/ˈʌɪd(ə)l/

noun

a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered.”

“In 1970, Court kicked things off by praising South Africa’s apartheid policy (“South Africans have this thing better organised than any other country, particularly America,” she said. “I love South Africa. I’ll go back there any time.”), for which she received very little lasting scrutiny.

Her 1990 comments about Martina Navratilova (“a great player but I’d like someone at the top who the younger players can look up to. It’s very sad for children to be exposed to homosexuality. Martina is a nice person. Her life has just gone astray”), and her suggestion that lesbians were ruining tennis, drew international attention, but never went close to defining her image in Australia.”(1)

So do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Well, even Billie Jean King herself can recognise an athletic ability vs a character trait:

“It was also King who stepped in to defend Court during the 2012 imbroglio, again amid calls to rename the arena. “Get rid of her for that?” King said. “Because you don’t agree with her? Are you kidding? Please. She deserves it. She’s a great player.””(1)

She pioneered a lot for the women’s game.
She was physical.
Athletic.
It was a new form of tennis she led for the women.

But why was that okay and the buck stopped with her in that regard?

A woman playing a sport and lifting weights.
How could she so easily forget her gender’s only relatively recent (historically) voting rights?
And then turn such a blind eye, such a harsh tone to other minority groups? Despite a woman preaching being traditionally against her Christian religion?

A perhaps lesser known piece of information, in 2017,

“ ….smack bang in the middle of the website for Court’s Victory Life Centre, above even Court’s photo and biography, is a link to donate. In her latest book, Court claims a member of her congregation once handed her a cheque for $237,000. In another anecdote, a visiting American pastor promises a $50,000 donation in order to solicit smaller $1,000 donations from members of the congregation, enough in that instance for the deposit on a new property. No one knows the precise size of the market for Court’s wares, but it certainly exists.”

She has maintained her monuments and arenas, rightfully so for her unrivalled sporting accomplishments. But why doesn’t she get the same attention as Rocket Rod?

Well. Free speech works both ways.

Celebrities, athletes, scientists, artists… We can celebrate their work, and quite often the reasons they’ve succeeded have come from exceptional hard work and life experience that can apply and cross over easily into other areas.

That doesn’t make their word gospel truth, though.

For many, they are out of touch with the majority, the minority, the 99%, the working class, the city folk, life in general. You may have seen it all but did you live it all?

Did you see it through their eyes or yours?

I wonder if the people so quick to back Margaret are the same voices that dismiss Kyrgios on the drop of a dime for his ‘bad image for the game’.

I wouldn’t say I’m either of their biggest fans but Kyrgios is arguably the most talented player the game has seen in many respects.

Margaret, again, unparalleled on-court success.

You get prestige and accolades through the sport itself, sure.

But to be an ambassador is a selected thing.

Deliberately selected because a person embodies the attributes those who bestowed it upon them believed they had. So they choose a person to carry on what they choose as their message, brand, legacy, culture.

Tennis, for the most part, doesn’t discriminate.

At its core, anyone can play and compete. It would seem that is the culture they are trying to promote.

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jun/03/margaret-court-astounding-champion-who-found-god-and-lost-the-respect-of-a-nation
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade