As they say - are like arseholes - everyone has one.
With the recent press about Margaret Court’s opinions, I was wondering if it differs from the Israel Folau issue. And then I started having a think about opinions.
Personally I don’t care what our sporting identities think - I think they should be able to have an opinion just like everyone else.
Ironically, I will form my own opinion of their opinions and have my own opinion on whether their opinion clouds my respect for them as a player. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won’t - but that is up to me - just like it is up to them to have their own opinion on a matter.
After all - it is their opinion and should not reflect on the organisation that governs the sport they play. The organisation should be there to govern the game not the opinions of the players.
We wouldn’t have a forum if it wasn’t for opinions.
If an opinion is too extreme than so be it. After all, if a person is so extreme on their opinion - they are the ones expending the energy getting so worked up about it. Let them fizzle in their own stew.
I can’t remember much about the Israel Folau issue but in my opinion - Margaret Court’s legacy has nothing to do with the fact that she doesn’t like same sex marriage.
Tennis Australia is as much a brand as it is a sporting body.
Just as she is entitled to her views, Tennis Australia is entitled to maintain their public and corporate image. If that means shunning Margaret Court, well, that is their right to do so. They do not have to be neutral in all of this.
I don’t think she really thought her position through.
Court: ‘If you don’t invite me and pay for my travel, then I won’t come!’
TA: ‘Well…that’s a win. Surely it can’t be that easy?’
TBH I am not sure why they would bother having a celebration of her acheivements if they are not going to invite her, sort of seems silly. Just don’t celebrate anything.
I don’t agree with Margaret Court in any way, shape or form, but I find it a tad hypocritical from Tennis Australia that they were ok with Billy Jean King and her relentless pro gay agenda at a time when being gay was largely socially unacceptable, and in most of the world actually illegal, but don’t seem to have the same acceptance of a polarising viewpoint now.
Female gay was not a crime here or in many western democracies. The crime was men actually engaging in homosexual acts. And it’s not OK to advocate for law reform?
She’s probably from an era where tennis/ sport/ entertainment wasnt so corporatised, but if you want to hold and express controversial point of view and you are in a position of visability within your community, you have rocks in your head if you think you won’t suffer any repercussions.
Arguing whether they should/ shouldn’t is almost a moot point in this day and age.
As i said earlier though, why are TA even bothering to celebrate her acheivements if they have no intention of having her there? I don’t get it. If they think she is too controversial then don’t celebrate her as all that does is highlight her and highlight her opinions. Not inviting her then allows the media to go ask her questions and gets her back in the news.
Celebrating her tennis achievements would be in order. But how to contain those feral journalists asking her views on other matters?
Some time ago, Tracey Holmes did a TV interview with Court and Laver - the respect and affection was there in talking about their tennis careers, did not go off topic.
In Victoria there is a big fat rulebook about naming streets and public parks etc. First rule is they have to be dead, probably so everything is known and you are not naming a street after a future axe murderer.