As the list of sports sidelined by the novel coronavirus pandemic begins to get shorter, the question remains when, where or if the two remaining grand slams postponed by the global shutdown will actually take place in 2020, or if any *official* tennis will be played before 2021.
No matter how things play out, the history of tennis has been changed forever.
When the day of the grand return arrives, how will tennis be different? What immediate changes instituted to allow play to begin again will remain thereafter to possibly become a lasting "new normal" both behind the scenes and on the court? And what unanticipated occurrences -- both good and bad, or maybe both -- may come about on the sport's post COVID-19 landscape as a result?
Because of tennis' unique challenges as a truly worldwide, weekly sport featuring players arriving via air travel from a great number of different nations it will likely be one of the last to *fully* return to anything that might resemble what used to be considered a regular schedule at any time over the next year (or more?). Any sort of return to action, though, will require a vast change in many of the protocols and well-known practices associated with the sport.
But it's not a definitive "no-go" that, as other sports trickle back and deal with many (but not all) of the same issues tennis faces, we still might see some first serves in 2020. Maybe even a grand slam, or possibly two. It's likely fans won't be included in the equation, at least not at the start or in any large numbers.
Even in '21 that might be the necessary sacrifice -- both financially and in terms of atmosphere -- in order for tennis to rise back onto its knees before ultimately returning to its feet.
Temperature checks and testing for the virus will surely become another fact of life for players who are already subject to out-of-competition and post-match drug testing, and the same will likely be the case for other individuals associated with the sport, from (possibly) the players' "teams" (however large), as well as chair umpires, trainers and doctors. If their roles aren't eliminated from the gameday equation entirely, the same could be asked of linespeople (electronic linecalling could be used more exclusively, though the idea of players "calling their own lines" seems one destined for would-be catastrophe) and ball kids (though they'd be more easily removed from the court, at least until the health fears pass, and surely no longer allowed to have close contact with players if they *do* stick around... so, thankfully, no more sweat-spit-and-snot soaked towels should *ever* be in their future), as surely players can retrieve their own items during changeovers, as well as send balls to the other side of the court between games for a while.
If and when fans return, temperature checks (and masks) may have to be required for admittance.
A two-week cushion between arrival times on the site and the start of play might be a short-term necessity in order to assure the health of all involved, while the notion of a serving player using an exclusive set of tennis balls could be an instituted rule that sticks around (for one, it seems more equitable... and if one ball set included a stripe it'd make it easy for viewers to visually recognize which player will then have to serve a point after a particularly grueling rally). Same goes for tossing sweaty clothes into the crowd, and even the post-match handshakes and/or embraces when a simple racket-tap would suffice, except in "special circumstances."
The USTA Hawaii's site, as noted on Zoo Tennis, listed a set of recommendations for play that could carry over to the world tours, including players picking up their own tennis balls with their foot and racket, no touching of one's face during play, the washing of hands over the course of matches, consistent cleaning/wiping of rackets and players remaining six feet apart if necessary. Of course, that last bit of social distancing might further endanger doubles in the short run, and considering the struggle and fight for relevancy with the discipline anyway, could put its entire future in at least *some* jeopardy.
Recent MLB proposals for a return made a note that post-game showers could be prohibited, so such a thing could become possible for tennis, as well. Sessions with trainers and masseuses, which players often credit with allowing their bodies to operate at an optimum level in order to play entire tournaments, will be subjected to more strict schedules and sanitary restrictions, if not maybe even banned outright on tournament property. Even the structure of cramped lockerrooms will likely have to be rethought.
At least at a two-week major, players might even be asked to avoid travelling around the city while they're still regularly returning to tournament grounds for scheduled matches. *That* could lead to some interesting social media "policing" situations, huh?
Of course, the specter of an in-tournament positive COVID-19 test is another hurdle to clear. Would it mean the cancellation of the remainder of the tournament, a delay to allow for additional testing, and/or the forfeit of matches that could alter the course of not only events and seasons, but maybe even careers. This will surely be a process that will be key to moving forward, even beyond 2020.
As that reality is accepted, before that point in time, perhaps the notion of concentrated, tour-sponsored (and points/prize money earning) "regional schedules" could replace the usual vastly spread-out (except for brief stretches) tour calendar in the interim. It would call for far less air travel, for sure, and if the "new" schedule was well thought-out and planned it might allow for shorter distances and more time between tournaments that would let players personally journey to sites via automobile if they chose to do so. Who knows, it might even mean a place like the U.S. (and Canada, in the wake of Bianca Andreescu's success) ends up hosting a few more events beyond the two big ones in March and during the lead-up to the U.S. Open.
On many levels, what happens next and in the near future should not only allow tennis to slowly find its way back, but also set down some sort of template -- by a process of trial and error -- for how to handle such pandemic situations should the tours (and world) be faced with a similar crisis in the near future. For, as we've learned about so many things (sometimes the hard way, especially of late), there is no better solution to such complicated problems than to have been well versed on the issue and eminently prepared *before* the world comes down on everyone's collective head.
I'm just sayin'.
Many smaller tournaments (and bigger ones, i.e. New Haven) on the WTA tour have been financially troubled (and many moved or shuttered entirely) in recent years. As with many regular businesses, might the resumption of the tennis tour -- even under "normal" conditions -- take place on a vastly different landscape? How many tournaments will no longer exist after missing out on generating any revenue for just one year (or maybe even two)? Likely *at least* a few, for situations such as Wimbledon's (in a stroke of brilliance, or dumb luck, the AELTC had an insurance policy in the event of a pandemic causing the cancellation of the tournament) are few and far between, if not *entirely* unique.
With the sort of global air travel that allows the world tennis tours to exist likely to continue to be a dicey (at best) situation that precludes large numbers of players from jetting from one continent to another at will for quite a long while, it seems unlikely that what has been the sport's "normal" season structure will be returning anytime soon. At least not until some sort of coronavirus treatment or vaccine is developed.
In recent weeks, we've seen an unofficial return to the courts in a series of small, fan-less exhibitions, while a women's team event is scheduled for Charleston (with some big names, including Andreescu, who hasn't played since the WTA Finals) this month, and World Team Tennis plans to hold its summertime event at the Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia (famously the site of the once-secret underground bunker where U.S. government officials were set to relocate during a possible nuclear war) with a limited number of fans in attendance.
If the U.S. Open and Roland Garros aren't played in 2020, and the not-YET-cancelled tour events (this summer, and in Asia in the early fall) never take place could such competitions be an example of an avenue by which tennis might resume and proceed in 2021 until further notice?
In recent weeks, Stacey Allaster, a former WTA tour CEO, detailed possible scenarios for the U.S. Open being held later this summer. They included the chartering of flights to bring players and limited entourages (the WTA has appeared to limit the total to just one, as it's been suggested that the Open and other tournaments could provide physiotherapists and masseuses) from Europe, South America and the Middle East to New York, as well as the prerequisite of a negative COVID-19 test before such travel. Centralized housing, daily temperature checks, no lockerroom access on practice days (and only just before a match) would become part of the competitors' new routine in the event. No spectators, fewer on-court officials (with some electronic linecalling making up the difference), and only adults being used as ballpersons were also ideas in the mix.
“All of this is still fluid,” Allaster said in what was her role as the USTA's chief executive for professional tennis.
It has since been reported that Allaster will be named the new U.S. Open tournament director.
Additionally, the AP story stated that the USTA wants to add lockerrooms in order to deal with the social distancing guidelines that would be in place during the event. The lockerrooms would be included at the indoor courts that housed hundreds of temporary hospital beds at the height of New York’s initial COVID-19 outbreak, and improve air filtration in existing spaces. Any player coming to the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center on days in which they *don't* have a scheduled match would simply arrive, practice and then return to their hotel.
“The fundamental goal here is to mitigate risk,” Allaster said. The in-event precautions, she noted, would included a combination of daily health questionnaires and temperature checks, as well as some nasal or saliva or antibody testing.
“A player coming with an entourage of five, six, seven, eight is not something that’s in the plan,” Allaster told the AP.
Lew Sherr, the USTA’s chief revenue officer, told the AP that a fan-less event -- meaning no ticket or hospitality revenue, and less sponsorship revenue, as well -- would still be worthwhile because TV and digital rights fees and some sponsorship dollars are "significant enough" to go forward with the event.
But will everyone *want* to?
Naturally, such restrictions are bound to "cramp the style" of the regimented lifestyles of many of the (in many cases, entitled, multi-millionaire) athletes at the top of the tours. Especially on the ATP side, there has been much opposition to many of the plans to return. With the U.S. Open expected to make some sort of announcement of a plan in the next week, the ATP tour is apparently still not on board under the current guidelines, while the WTA has so far been noticeably silent.
Laments and/or reservations about playing without fans was one of the first to rear its head, as Roger Federer was notably against it, and Petra Kvitova said she'd rather not play a slam at all if no fans were in attendance. Rafa Nadal has never publicly agreed with the idea, but has seemingly been *more* skeptical about being able to safely put on a major in '20 (and has been decidedly pessimistic from the start); while women's #1 Ash Barty was most recently in a wait-and-see mode, as she's in the position of having to travel all the way from Australia to *any* sites on a re-started season calendar.
Personally, if legitimate health questions and/or concerns are an issue, I can see a player questioning their return (if they don't feel they *need* to), or if the potential reduced event revenue isn't thought to be worthy of all the effort that would be necessary for an event to go forward, then okay. But to make having fans in attendance a prerequisite is, frankly, absurd. If every other major sport that has or is planning a return has at least opened with an empty-stadium/arena template then to think that tennis must be any different is ridiculous. If you can't get yourself motivated to play for (at least) a major title without large crowds cheering in your ears then, fine, step aside and let others who *can* do so if they wish. The sport will play on once you're gone, so it doesn't need your bleating now when it's trying to get back into the swing of things. And that includes Simona Halep, too, if Darren Cahill's hint that it would be "incredibly difficult" for her to play such a U.S. Open means she'd skip out, as well.
I'm sure some players who haven't been able to earn a living in the sport in months would gladly take the vacant spot in the draw left by the "...but I don't want to" crowd.
Leading the charge on the "it cramps my style" angle has been men's #1 and Player Council member Novak Djokovic (who, incidentally, held an exhibition this week in Belgrade with a crowd in attendance *and* no social distancing). First, he raised an eyebrow about the possibility of having to submit to a compulsory COVID-19 vaccination to play in the future, then termed the potential U.S. Open list of protocols to be "extreme," citing players not being able to go into Manhattan (egads!) during the tournament, having to stay at a hotel at the airport (poor, baby), submit to 2-3 tests a week (oh my goodness) and only being able to bring along one additional person as being too much to have to deal with while trying to win nearly $4 million and pad a Hall of Fame resume over two weeks at Flushing Meadows.
Other players, though, have been far more amenable. Karolina Pliskova stuck a pin in Federer's notion by reminding everyone that, unlike the 20-time slam champ, most other players have experience playing in less-than-packed arenas or on outside courts, and that having to experience a *little* of how "the other half" lives shouldn't be a deal breaker. Danielle Collins, too, in a recent response to Djokovic stated that just because the wealthiest and sponsor-heavy players aren't concerned with finances, other players who haven't been able to earn money by playing tennis since February would surely welcome an opportunity to play if the environment is deemed to be a safe one.
As it is, if both the U.S. Open and Roland Garros are ultimately held, the chances of many of the top names making an "either/or" decision about which to play is likely. As things stand, the Open is set to end on September 13, with RG to begin in late September. Two different surfaces, on two different continents, with a likely quarantine before both events and probably a lockdown during competition. If someone were to pull it off, winning both events would be the most difficult two-fer in tennis history.
Federer's "well-timed" knee surgery announcement this week has already taken him out of the mix in '20, while Djokovic's whining and Nadal's fretting (and, come on, if he plays *any* event the rest of the year we *know* it'll be in Paris) would seem to mean the U.S. Open could go forward without any of the Big 3 on the men's side.
Hmmm, if the ATP balks, I wonder in the U.S. Open could just be a *women's* event this summer? The old U.S. National Championships, the Open forerunner, used to be held as separate events.
The WTA's proposed re-start schedule, with a first week of August kickoff, was leaked this past week. If nothing changes, it would include the tour's return to Wuhan, the origin site of the outbreak, in the fall.
WTA Proposed Calendar for the rest of 2020https://t.co/KEAWsa3Kdl pic.twitter.com/9aLR2e3b3c
— Tennis Pro Guru (@tennisproguru) June 10, 2020
The WTA is pushing ahead with plans to return to Wuhan, the original epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak, later this year as part of a new schedule. Likely that tournament commitment rules will be relaxed for players who do not wish to travel. https://t.co/OFxaGnCUAa
— Stuart Fraser (@stu_fraser) June 9, 2020
Of course, all this could also just turn out to be a proverbial exercise of repositioning deck chairs on the Titanic, as a return of the virus in huge numbers, which could lead to other sports stopping play yet again and abandoning additional competition for 2020 (or in the case of MLB, maybe never even getting started due to squabbles over compensation), means the possibility is *always* there that tennis will simply "pull the ripcord" and bail on *any* plans for the near future and look forward to 2021 (where all the same discussions could kick-in all over again.).
— Cat's Movie Paradise?? (@cat_mparadise) June 8, 2020
Of course, while a few weeks ago Tennis Australia was holding onto the idea of having fans at the 2021 AO, but a spike in coronavirus cases could surely throw yet another slam's staging into question.
If such restrictions carry well into 2021, yet events are held with the tight protocols, will the (more veteran) players who begged out in the final months of '20 continue to do so into next year? Through Melbourne? Paris? London? If so, maybe they'll just eventually decide to retire and move on with their post-tennis lives.
For years, Tennis Channel and other networks have offered match calls and studio shows during regular tour events from a network "home base" location on the other side of the world. The slams, though, have usually seen ESPN (in the U.S.) send a group of talking heads (say, half a dozen former players turned commentators, as well as at least one "professional" host/presenter), sideline observers (2-3), feature reporters (1-2) and a studio crew to all four major sites. But with a financial trimming likely coming from ESPN's parent company (Disney) looking to recoup some of its lost profits during the pandemic, might the slams -- whenever they happen -- see a severe cutback in personnel?
And, really, why shouldn't there be?
ESPN's coverage, at least, has been worsened for *years* due to an overreliance on too much studio jabbering when live *actual tennis* is taking place, as the network has instead forced viewers to turn to (i.e. subscribe to) its streaming service if they want to, you know, watch matches during a major.
In television financial reality, there's really no legitimate justification for sending all those people halfway around the world three times a year (to NYC for the Open? Maybe.). Do we really need live on-set interviews of players -- which usually interrupt ongoing matches -- when a remote (and recorded for airing during an inevitable "slow stretch" between matches of note) version will do, "reporters" offering annoying takes from the stands, insulting questions in on-court post-match drive-bys with a victorious player, or time-filling around-the-grounds segments that have little creativity or sense?
Everything that's *necessary* can be done from home, at a far cheaper price.
Better news: Without a live on-site studio set-up, maybe the ESPN coverage of majors would, bear with me, focus a *little* more on covering the actual tournament competition (all the courts are already covered by the international feed cameras) rather than a neverending series of segments with hosts mispronouncing names, overlooking non-U.S. players or giving short shrift to any athlete (even those who reach the quarters or, yes, even the semis of slams) not immediately recognizable by the viewing masses by just their first name... and then feigning "shock" when the previously ignored player *wins* over the so-called "favorite."
Sometimes, less is (and means) more...literally. The result would likely be a leaner, and far better, broadcast.
Gelber recently noted, "After Dale Earnhardt's death in NASCAR, the organization moved towards making things safer. However, when they designed their 'Car of Tomorrow', many drivers and fans disliked it. They didn't take into consideration the feedback from other involved parties, which is contrasted in the way F-1 racing responded to the death or Ayrton Senna."
Hmmm, maybe what might have been an unexpected *good* result?
For tennis, the shutdown has provided at least an *opportunity* for the men's and women's tours to move closer toward working as a collective unit, as Roger Federer initially broached the idea of a potential merger of the two entities, dragging the idea out into the light, lighting a fuse on the conversation, and thereby quite possibly making it a more legitimate possibility than it's ever been.
Of course, Billie Jean King has been calling for such a thing for decades to little avail.
So any thought that any sort of easy path exists toward such a future is not only overly optimistic, but likely unrealistic. That it even had to be pointed out that the notion of the tours combining should not be a case of the ATP World Tour "acquiring" the WTA wasn't a good early sign, nor was that WTA chief Steve Simon demurred when the subject of "immediate" financial equality was mentioned, instead listing it only as a "long-term" goal. So then, umm, it *would* be an "acquisition" by the men's tour, until further notice? A lack of equality for an undetermined period of time -- and then only as a "goal," not a "demand" -- hardly sounds like a balanced merger.
Additionally, a brief, unforunate sideshow resulted when the individual tours sought to reach a consensus when it came to simply providing economic relief to lower ranked players during an unprecedented period when their usual avenue for paying their own way -- by winning prize money -- was taken away by the cancellation of every tennis tournament on the globe.
If helping those who exist on the lower rungs of the sport, in order to keep the *whole* healthy and show solidarity with what serves as the ground level foundation of both tours, can become a controversial issue that exposes both the fragility of the infrastructure of the sport and the careers of the athletes in need, not to mention the self-centered crassness (yes, it's a common trait for an athlete in an individual sport, but not an all-consuming requirement) of some players perched near the top of the rankings (who were *asked*, not forced to fork over at gunpoint, a contribution of $30K, a total that is 51% of the prize money awarded to a player in the 1st Round of last year's U.S. Open), then what are the chances of the ATP and WTA knocking down the long-established walls that have existed between them -- and still do, as the oft-quotable misogynistic attitudes of some men's players attest -- and coming together "for the good of tennis?"
Not good, I'd say.
A complicated agreement was ultimately reached regarding player relief for the Top 500 players (and doubles Top 175), but only after the poor optics of a multiple men's slam finalist openly denigrating the professionalism of lower ranked players and the WTA Players Council unanimously refusing to provide any assistance to players ranked outside the Top 500 (for which a decent case *can* be made) because those players (essentially) "knew the risks" and "we've all been through the struggle and didn't get a handout" (hardly a considerate position, to say the least, in a case of players already living on the edge being suddenly put through a financial wringer). Of course, unless those higher ranked Council member players who balked were involved in a *prior* pandemic that shut down every prize money-winning opportunity on the planet, well, then they *really haven't* "been through this."
The ITF announced its own plan to fill in the gaps for players ranked from #501-700, but that such hardened attitudes persisted in the case of such a unique circumstance doesn't exactly give one many "good vibes" when it comes to the tours themselves reaching any sort of agreement on consolidation, a move that would be far, far more difficult and complicated a task than a unique one-time act of financial assistance to their less fortunate peers.
In other words, I'll only believe it to be possible if and when it happens, which I don't expect it will.
Although, the lack of a business merger wouldn't necessarily preclude a compromise that could include the appointing of a "commissioner of tennis" who would be empowered to deal with/negociate for certain issues, right? It's an idea which has been floated for quite a while, and might prove to be a public relations "fix" that might paper over a few of the newly-exposed cracks.
But, even for that, I wouldn't hold my breath. Or, you know, drink Clorox on a hunch.
In a recent Washington Post Op-ed, Donald Dell supported the notion of a "central governing body" for tennis.
Dell is a co-founder the Association of Tennis Professionals in 1972, former U.S. Davis Cup captain, founder of the sports marketing firm ProServ, co-founder of Washington's Citi Open, and a 2009 inductee into International Tennis Hall of Fame.
In the piece, Dell noted that the sport is "bogged down by many governing bodies and other, often competing stakeholders -- the ATP, the WTA, the Grand Slams, the USTA, the Davis Cup, the Fed Cup, the Laver Cup and more -- that stage their own events to suit their own priorities. The result is a fractured sport ruled by an alphabet soup of groups protecting their own interests. There is no single, unified body promoting tennis globally."
The ATP has a six-person board of directors which often vote in 3-3 ties that put ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi in the difficult position of casting the deciding vote, Dell points out; while the WTA needs sponsors to develop larger events. Meanwhile, he says, the slams only interact four times a year with the two tours and compete with them for tour dates, money and TV deals.
"It is time for all groups to work together to improve the governance of tennis, or it will continue to be a splintered, confusing sport to fans worldwide."
"What pro tennis needs is one central body controlling its rules and administration globally. This new organization should be run by a central office of the commissioner comprising three people: the chair of the ATP, the chair of the WTA and an experienced, knowledgeable, objective person chosen by the Grand Slams."
"These three commissioners would control the global tennis calendar, including tournament dates, sanctions and prize money, as well as disciplinary matters of pro players. That would enable each group to continue operating in its own lane while having a strong voice in how the sport is run. Commissioners would serve five-year terms with an automatic five-year renewal and be subject to termination for cause by their respective group if they are found to have acted in an unreasonable or biased manner."
"This model would lead to more coherence and unity in establishing the sport's standards of play, directing its growth and promoting the game. Over time, it also would significantly reduce and possibility eliminate the conflict that now results from multiple governing bodies defending their turf. Having one all-powerful governing body would propel tennis forward in a unified manner, something the sport desperately needs."
"To accomplish this dream would require real leadership and statesmanship by the most powerful people in the game. Today, that seems impossible. But sometimes forces stronger than ourselves, such as a global pandemic, can inspire and accelerate change. In this time of slowing down, let's all pause and consider what's best for our great sport. If you can dream it, you can do it. So let's get started."
Tennis needs a central governing body that unites the men’s and women’s tours by Donald Dell https://t.co/tCfiNk8djR
— Tennis Panorama News (@TennisNewsTPN) May 23, 2020
Meanwhile, the shutdown has predictably left many questioning the future of doubles (and Marion Bartoli to come under fire for suggesting that DB specialists take a pay cut). The USTA recently eliminated a large chunk of its player development staff, though Player Development General Manager Martin Blackman told Zoo Tennis that it was part of a previously planned restructuring process. And not unexpectedly, many college tennis programs (like many other small -- i.e. non-money making -- campus sports) are living on the edge without the revenue generated in '20 by the NCAA basketball tournaments, and with the college football season's viability still somewhat in doubt. While the sport is surely safe at major universities with traditional powerhouse programs like Stanford and Florida, East Carolina recently dropped both men's and women's tennis, while Appalachian State cut the men.
While many of the financial questions imposed upon the sport by issues associated with the coronavirus pandemic are understandable, the more personal conflicts that have and still could develop need not be. But they'll surely bring a new set of issues along with them.
Tennis had the chance to emerge from this shutdown *stronger* as a whole, but will likely (at least at the beginning) emerge not only in a more precarious financial situation, but also be rife with new enmity developed due to not only the disagreements about a potential merger, but the lingering aftereffects of the comments made during the player relief effort and, now, maybe even the resumption of play if the opinions and lack of participation of many of the sport's bigger names ends up preventing the vast majority of other players a chance to earn money in the short and long term.
Add in the recent and current racial injustice protests and push for greater equality in the U.S. and worldwide, and one should expect -- and we've already seen a touch of it in social media with retired, or nearly so, players like Lisa Raymond -- acrimony to surface due to conflicting personal opinions/experiences, ill-placed or tone deaf comments.
Meanwhile, though Coco Gauff has been applauded in the U.S. for her very public stances in recent weeks, Naomi Osaka has been vilified back home in Japan for doing the same.
Traditionally, tennis has never done *anything* easily, quickly or without varying levels of conflict and ill will, so why would that change now?
And, for that matter, why should the sport be any different from society as a whole?
UTR Pro Match (Fla.): Alison Riske (in F), D.Collins/A.Tomljanovic (SF rained out), A.Anisimova (3rd/4th)
President's Cup (CZE): Petra Kvitova
UTF Invitational (UKR): Marta Kostyuk
LiveScore Cup (CZE): Karolina Pliskova
We all have been through a difficult time full of fear and uncertainty. This trophy means a lot to me, because it symbolizes that the world is finally coming back to the right direction. Thank you for all your support!
— Karolina Pliskova (@KaPliskova) June 6, 2020
?? photo by #pavellebeda pic.twitter.com/GS6g7nSkEf
If Jelena Jankovic has returned just for this one exhibition mixed doubles, it was worth it for the hair alone. Iconic. Legendary. https://t.co/G5755cnUkm
— René Denfeld (@Renestance) June 12, 2020
Jankovic undecided on future after comeback at Djokovic event https://t.co/JPqyD7Bzwz pic.twitter.com/w8kvg1RoOf
— Reuters Sports (@ReutersSports) June 12, 2020
Jelena Jankovic:
— C Kristjánsdóttir ●🐊 (@CristinaNcl) June 12, 2020
"To be honest, I missed being in front of the audience, to feel that energy and adrenaline... On the other hand, it's not easy to play, I need a lot of sacrifice and effort to be at that level, to play professional tennis."https://t.co/K6k1VIBqEo pic.twitter.com/cnmwUoOSAh
Watching the all the human closeness and hugging at Adria Tour, you'd almost forget why the Adria Tour exists in the first place.
— Ben Rothenberg (@BenRothenberg) June 12, 2020
Hope it goes well, but golly does seeing crowds like this make me nervous in June 2020. https://t.co/o3deFPGkKJ
Exhibition tennis in Belgrade: Djokovic/Jankovic v Zimonjic/Danilovic pic.twitter.com/US9Yz4YxQj
— Del🇪🇺 (@Stroppa_Del) June 12, 2020
Congratulations to Stacey Allaster, former CEO of the ?@WTA?, who has been named the ?@usopen’s? first female tournament director. #WhenWomenLead https://t.co/xCkDKYrCCE
— Billie Jean King (@BillieJeanKing) June 11, 2020
The Tipsport Elite Trophy, Czech’s take on the Laver Cup, starts next week with Kaja & Petra leading star-studded teams.
— Jimmie48 Photography ?? (@JJlovesTennis) June 6, 2020
With the exception of Marie Bouzkova, all the big names are paying a four-tournament series in June & July.https://t.co/LsZG7mVNqk pic.twitter.com/keJ4L7jjDr
Amazing news as @Petra_Kvitova joins Elina Svitolina, Julia Görges, Andrea Petkovic & Kiki Bertens at next month’s @bett1aces event in Berlin.
— Jimmie48 Photography ?? (@JJlovesTennis) June 10, 2020
One more spot left to fill.. pic.twitter.com/1nDPAGpXcI
If the US open goes ahead like the WTA and ATP want (with qualies so with points awarded) this is what players outside 200 are looking at to “fight for their ranking” in the first couple of weeks (doubt they’ll add 5 more events each week before then) nothing above 25k pic.twitter.com/wINNQMUmbw
— Tara Moore (@TaraMoore92) June 9, 2020
Out tennis player Tara Moore says the WTA is keeping the majority of its players in the dark about its plans to resume play https://t.co/Gm4bOepHBc
— Outsports (@outsports) June 12, 2020
But of the dozens of safety procedures enacted for professional golf’s return, none has vexed the players more so far than the coronavirus testing they have been required to undergo upon arriving in Texas. https://t.co/zcZoRMIcvf
— NYT Sports (@NYTSports) June 11, 2020
Two years ago today. Will never forget it! Thank you @darren_cahill for your support and for the fact that you always believed in me ??@rolandgarros pic.twitter.com/uSgQqwbLWV
— Simona Halep (@Simona_Halep) June 6, 2020
The great @Venuseswilliams turns 40 next week but tells @AlizeLim and @Tennis_Majors she has no plans to retire https://t.co/BXbH5HpP20
— Tennis Majors (@Tennis_Majors) June 10, 2020
I hate when random people say athletes shouldn’t get involved with politics and just entertain. Firstly, this is a human rights issue. Secondly, what gives you more right to speak than me? By that logic if you work at IKEA you are only allowed to talk about the “GRÖNLID” 🤷🏽♀️?
— NaomiOsaka大坂なおみ (@naomiosaka) June 4, 2020
Live view of my agent whenever I open Twitter. pic.twitter.com/QUqo0piRsC
— NaomiOsaka大坂なおみ (@naomiosaka) June 8, 2020
NANIIIIII?! https://t.co/0sbRGiCF40 pic.twitter.com/mk6BPx0Tyz
— NaomiOsaka大坂なおみ (@naomiosaka) June 6, 2020
https://t.co/wjDKUStuBO pic.twitter.com/w5WV4YTYFY
— NaomiOsaka大坂なおみ (@naomiosaka) June 7, 2020
I know I’ve been attacking a lot of racist Japanese tweets the last few days but Japan is actually a really amazing place. I really don’t want to give the misconception that the entire country is racist, they just have a few bad apples like everyone else. Love you guys ❤️
— NaomiOsaka大坂なおみ (@naomiosaka) June 10, 2020
Confirming I can no longer do that ?? What a find though????Share more plz https://t.co/hBXIudtHwT
— Maria Sharapova (@MariaSharapova) June 9, 2020
A simple LOL would have sufficed. https://t.co/0sYEhbzxSa
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) June 10, 2020
The OAN conspiracy theory the president is livetweeting here was reported by an ex-Sputnik (Russian state media) reporter, who last month claimed coronavirus was a cover by George Soros, Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci, the Clintons and China for "population control." https://t.co/k2qmNRZq26
— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) June 9, 2020
The world is watching. Cartoonists around the world react to the turmoil in America.https://t.co/gfdvkfymvu pic.twitter.com/hyZ6xL6yxF
— Matt Wuerker (@wuerker) June 10, 2020
FUN FACT: Trump has threatened to veto a pay raise for our troops if the Pentagon renames military bases named after Confederate generals.
— Jon Cooper ???? (@joncoopertweets) June 11, 2020
“You will not change him. You cannot constrain him... He is who he is. Truth matters little to him. What is right matters even less, and decency matters not at all.” - @RepAdamSchiff
— Janet Johnson (@JJohnsonLaw) June 9, 2020
Pro-Trump Network OAN Pulls Poll That Had Unfavorable Numbers For Presidenthttps://t.co/qXUrZTiOEh
— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) June 12, 2020
Few things worse than being stereotyped as an animal or thug, being disrespected in society and misrepresented in the media -- realizing that the system is stacked against you. Few can understand what that's like. https://t.co/swX0hmgN94
— Robert A George (@RobGeorge) June 9, 2020
The irony is truly flawless pic.twitter.com/SXqzvpomGH
— Eddie Palermo (@e_palermo3) June 10, 2020
The fence outside the White House has been converted to a crowd-sourced memorial wall — almost like an art gallery — to black men and women who lost their lives at the hands of police.
— Hannah Natanson (@hannah_natanson) June 7, 2020
Hundreds are strolling, looking, adding names and paintings and posters. pic.twitter.com/mXlZpfMAeX
At the White House’s new fence. #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/kiJT2fgOY6
— Bruce Friedrich (@BruceGFriedrich) June 8, 2020
Breonna’s Law just passed in Louisville severely restricting police from conducting no-knock warrants. City Council voted unanimously 26-0.
— David Muir (@DavidMuir) June 11, 2020
Daniel Radcliffe Responds to J.K. Rowling’s Anti-Trans Tweets: ‘Transgender Women Are Women’ https://t.co/B8r3fWz9tx
— Variety (@Variety) June 9, 2020
I'm feeling nervous about sharing this one - it's the most publicly I've written about my gender ID - but I hope you'll read my reflection on why JK Rowling's "sex is real" tweets were hurtful and damaging to non-cis fans of her world @nprbooks https://t.co/VmJRp7emae
— Mallory Yu (@mallory_yu) June 10, 2020
“Racism separates, but it never liberates. Hatred generates fear, and fear once given a foothold; binds, consumes and imprisons. Nothing is gained from prejudice. No one benefits from racism.” -Thurgood Marshall pic.twitter.com/SzH3S28Inv
— Dmitry Ulyanov ? (@DUlyanov10) June 11, 2020
I hope anti-racism stays mainstream
— Dena Takruri (@Dena) June 5, 2020
“We’ve got to be careful what we say because one or two wrong words, they’ll twist that thing around and the narratives change. I don’t think people are saying we don’t need police at all, but ‘defund the police’ – I think there [could] be better terminology.” ~ #SpikeLee https://t.co/wK14sBtSCW
— Ben Chang hopes for healing for our country. (@whoisbenchang) June 12, 2020
Happy birthday to basketball legend @alleniverson, who ALSO might be one of the best high school football players of all time.pic.twitter.com/iI6KyhzTmD
— CBS Sports (@CBSSports) June 7, 2020
If everyone agreed to wear a mask outside of their house for three weeks, scientists are saying we could lower the corona virus to a very low level, enough we could safely reopen everything. Why are we not doing this?
— Angela Moore Resists ☣️ 🌊 (@dumbmen2017) June 12, 2020
Every year in France, there's a ceremony that rarely makes headlines.
— Rex Chapman???? (@RexChapman) June 8, 2020
Ordinary people & families collect sand from Omaha Beach — where Americans lost 2,400 lives on D-Day.
Then, they use it to fill in the letters on their tombstones of the fallen.???????? pic.twitter.com/Am7B8jEASu
If voting didn’t matter, voter suppression wouldn’t persist.
— Be A King (@BerniceKing) June 9, 2020
And KEEP THIS SAME ENERGY WHEN YOU VOTE. The worst thing that could happen is this all happening for nothing.
— chrissy teigen (@chrissyteigen) May 31, 2020
With Stan Lee trending, I think it’s an appropriate time to share this opinion piece Stan wrote up in 1968, which only seems more relevant now. pic.twitter.com/gRvJVX4JMx
— White Widow Super ?? (@WillLickboi) June 9, 2020
Post-quarantine embrace:
— Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) June 11, 2020
These two 9-year-old best friends since kindergarten in Louisville, Kentucky reunite after 3 months in quarantine.
Love. Get some.🌎❤️ pic.twitter.com/UAVcP6UjyU
— Betsy Klein (@betsy_klein) May 30, 2020
