How Novak Djokovic Became an International Political Pawn

Whether or not Djokovic would play at the Australian Open 2022 provided much of the kindling for the background crackle of tennis news during the cold and quiet off-season.

Since the announcement from Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley last November that all players would require full vaccination to be able to play the tournament, the speculation surrounding the nine-time champion’s involvement has been relentless.

This is, in no small way, Djokovic’s own doing. The World No. 1 has publicly voiced scepticism about vaccines, and cast strong doubt over whether he would take one if offered. In April 2020, soon after the world first found itself in the grip of the pandemic, Djokovic said he was “opposed to vaccination”. When pressed on this in following weeks, he clarified his stance by adding that he wanted to have "an option to choose what's best for my body", and that he "wouldn't want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine" to travel or compete in tournaments.

All the noise over the past month and more regarding Djokovic’s participation at the Australian Open stems from these comments.

It didn’t help that when conjecture from various quarters of the tennis world and beyond started to grow, the Serbian star and his team operated a strict and deliberate radio silence policy. Had Novak offered an open statement on his full intentions sooner, much of the melee that unfolded might have been diminished.   

what happened?

But first, the facts.

An important one is the existence of a caveat in the Australian Open vaccine mandate that states a legitimate medical exemption could permit players to take part without vaccination.

This exemption rule does two things – firstly, it provides a needed route for genuinely exempt players to be able to take part in one of the most important tournaments in the sport. (Although one might wonder how many medical exemptions a group of professional athletes could need). The second thing it does is potentially provide a loophole for those who do not wish to be vaccinated because of personal choice, but still want to play in the tournament. Whether or not such a loophole could exist is down to the integrity and efficacy of the assessment process.

The conditions for a medical exemption were jointly set by Tennis Australia and Victoria state. Tennis Australia said players seeking an exemption went through a two-stage process, with their application first considered by a panel of independent experts on behalf of Tennis Australia, and then a separate assessment from the Victorian government. They also said that both these assessments were entirely anonymous, and were made to be as stringent and difficult as possible to pass without a genuine valid reason for vaccine exemption. 

This largely mirrors the Australian Government’s own medical exemption rules. In fact, it is identical apart from the fact that, crucially, Covid-19 infection is not classed as a reason for exemption under federal law, whereas it is under Victorian state law.

As the radio silence from Novak and his team continued into the new year, speculation that he was attempting to receive a medical exemption grew. With it, the first signs of Australian discontent bubbling under the surface began to emerge. Then, on the morning of Tuesday 4th January, Djokovic revealed via Instagram that he had successfully received medical exemption from vaccination, and was on his way to defend his Australian Open trophy.

Public fury erupted.

While there were pockets of support for the three-time defending champion, at this point the overwhelming public response was one of anger, and the sense that it is one rule for the rich and famous, and another rule for the rest – a recurrently voiced grievance for many Australians throughout the pandemic.

There was a genuine feeling that the integrity of the medical exemption rule was in question. For many, there was something inescapably conspicuous about the fact that the Australian Open’s most high-profile and economically valuable player, who has publicly voiced his opposition to vaccines, also managed to obtain the very specific type of vaccine medical exemption needed to play.  

And yet, Tennis Australia and Victoria state are both steadfast in their assertions that this was entirely anonymous, rigorous and fair. It would be an extraordinary position for anyone to take to argue that the medical exemption process was somehow compromised, or its integrity undermined. Unless evidence emerges pointing to the contrary, Australians and tennis fans must accept the word of Tennis Australia and Victoria state that this was entirely legitimate, despite how galling it may be.

Why, then, did the Tennis World No. 1 and nine-time Australian Open champion spend five days in an immigration detention hotel, one notoriously criticised by refugees for its poor conditions?

The answer, rather depressingly, is largely political.

internal australian politics

A key stipulation of the medical exemption rules set  by Victoria state and Tennis Australia was that they needed to be approved and signed off by the Australian Government - which they were.

By signing off on those medical exemption rules, Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia, was giving the green light for anyone who was deemed to have qualified for an exemption under these rules to legally enter the country.

However - and here is where it gets murky - the Australian Government legally withhold the right to reassess and overturn any individual state’s entry laws at the Australian border. In essence, the last word on all entries into the country always lies with Canberra – regardless of any previously agreed entry laws between state and federal bodies. This is exactly what happened when the federal government revoked Djokovic’s state-issued visa at the Australian border. 

There is a glaring question here. Why would Morrison sign off on a medical exemption rule for Victoria state, only to block an individual’s entry under these same exemption rules, citing a contravention of federal laws?

On Wednesday 5th January, the day after Djokovic had announced he had been provided with a medical exemption, Morrison publicly stated that the decision to grant Djokovic a vaccine exemption certificate was a matter for the state government of Victoria. At this point, he was more than happy to keep federal intervention out of the matter. 

Less than 24 hours of feverish public backlash later, and Mr. Morrison had completely U-turned. "Rules are rules," the prime minister said, explaining that if Novak could not provide adequate confirmation at the border of the reason for his vaccine exemption, then he “will be on the next plane home”.

Extraordinarily, this statement was made despite the fact that there were allegedly two other tennis players, whose identities are unknown, who had reportedly received vaccine exemption for the same reason as Djokovic, but had already been let through border control. The only difference in Djokovic’s case was that the Australian public knew about it.

And so it was that Djokovic was detained at the border, and his visa revoked. He and his lawyers swiftly sought an injunction against his deportation.

It is important to point out here that it was the injunction Novak sought that led to his detention. He was refused entry to the country, but never forcibly detained. Djokovic was free to leave Australia at any time, but chose to stay and fight deportation. It was always an option for him to fight the case from outside the country.

One particularly exasperating element of all this was the lack of transparency regarding the grounds for Novak’s medical exemption. Only after the injunction was filed, several days after Djokovic’s detention, did a recent Covid-19 infection emerge as the reason for his vaccine exemption. Again, had this information been disclosed earlier, much acrimony may have been avoided.

The sorry sequence of events that followed, however, can be largely put down to a disagreement, or lack of communication, between state and federal authorities. The cited reason for revoking Djokovic’s visa was that Covid-19 infection is only valid under Victoria state laws, and is not a listed federal means of exemption.

state versus federal

But there were also underlying tensions between state and federal authorities at play here.

The reason for this was because Victoria and Canberra each wanted a different outcome, for their own motives. The Victorian government wanted the world’s best tennis player to compete in one of the state’s most significant events. The federal Government, in the face of public outrage at Djokovic being allowed to fly in and play unvaccinated, wanted to show the Australian people that they are firmly in charge of their borders, and that no one was receiving special treatment when it comes to entry rules.  

 It is hard to ignore the fact that Scott Morrison is facing an election in just four months’ time, and likely wants to appear tough on what will no doubt be a hot topic for Australian voters – border control in the age of Covid. It is not stretching credibility to suggest that had there been significantly less public outrage over Djokovic’s entry, the player may have been let into the country without a hitch. After all, two other players in the same position as Novak already had been.

Unfortunately for Djokovic, however, he had walked into the middle of a hurricane that goes far beyond the world of tennis, and the shockwaves were felt far beyond the city of Melbourne.

serbian response

As part of the response from Djokovic’s homeland, Novak’s father claimed his son was being “persecuted”. 

“They’re keeping him in captivity”, said Srdjan Djokovic. “They’re stomping all over him to stomp all over Serbia and the Serbian people. Morrison and his like have dared attack Novak to bring Serbia to its knees.”

Meanwhile, Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić  summoned Australia’s ambassador in Belgrade and demanded that they immediately release Djokovic to compete.

The emotion behind the Serbian response is completely understandable. But it just seems puzzling for this saga to be linked so quickly with the completely unfounded, and nonsensical, opinion that Djokovic’s detainment is a deliberate attack on Serbia as a country. Then again, nothing rallies national support quite like the notion of a country under assault.

Rather bizarrely, former UK politician Nigel Farage also decided to wade into the stormy waters by offering his vocal support for Novak’s case, despite having campaigned most of his career for tighter UK border restrictions. Farage was even seen visiting the Djokovic family in Belgrade. You’d be hard-pushed to find a better example than this of events being hijacked for irrelevant political gain.

what now for novak?

The implications of the past week’s events are sprawling, and they continue to carve political threads around the world that are far removed from the original issue.

The upshot of all this is that the fate of the defending champion’s participation in Melbourne now lies in the hands of a single politician. The Australian immigration minister with whom this power lies is no doubt deep in discussions with his boss about the best course of action - given that an election looms large, of course.

Novak - despite successfully defending his legal case against the initial revoking of his visa - now finds himself at the mercy of events he cannot control, dictated by those whose motives are not driven by what is the right outcome to all of this, but rather by which outcome serves them best.

Djokovic, so rarely defeated on the tennis court (and as yet undefeated in the legal court), may have become a victim of his own hubris here. The undisputed King of Melbourne Park perhaps felt, understandably, a sense of entitlement when it came to participating at the Australian Open. Few in the tennis world would ever argue he should not have that right.

But he gravely underestimated the wider political tensions in Australia. Tensions that run deeper and wield more power than even his decade-long dominance at Australia’s biggest tennis tournament.

Love him, loathe him, or largely indifferent, the unfortunate truth of the matter is that Novak Djokovic is currently just a chess piece stuck in the middle of a much bigger political game.