Many fans believe they can say and do whatever they like as paying spectators at sporting events.
But where’s the threshold as to what’s acceptable? The spectator can’t be compelled to forever display courteous conduct. It can be cathartic – therapeutic even – to heckle a player considered villainous. But where’s the limit?
Two examples from the Australian Open stick out. First, segments of the centre-court crowd erupting upon Novak Djokovic’s injury-forced retirement part-way through his semi-final against Alexander Zverev.
Second, Zverev himself being hectored by far fewer spectators two days later after his loss to Jannik Sinner.
Alexander Zverev had a tough night during and after his loss to Jannik Sinner in the Australian Open men’s final.Credit: Getty Images
For mine, for Djokovic to be sent on his way with Melbourne’s own variation on the Bronx Cheer is unjustifiable and shameless. It’s a leap too far to say Djokovic must be loved by the Australian tennis public, but he shouldn’t be derided.
It doesn’t and can’t be allowed to matter that ticketed spectators didn’t get the full match they reasonably expected after paying hundreds of dollars or more for entry. Neither Rafael Nadal nor Roger Federer would ever have been subjected to such hostility if they retired hurt. In the 1990 final, Ivan Lendl defeated Stefan Edberg after the latter retired injured late in the third set with a torn stomach muscle. You reckon the elegant Swede copped the same nonsense?
And there isn’t any other justifiable basis for the boos to rain down on a player who has won 10 Australian Open titles.
But for Zverev’s treatment, the circumstances are more complicated. During the trophy presentation a fan yelled at Zverev that the whole of Australia “believes Olga and Brenda”. That’s very different to the treatment dished out to Djokovic.
That protester was frogmarched from Rod Laver Arena by security. The “Olga and Brenda” are two former romantic partners of Zverev. Each has, in recent years, made accusations about Zverev and his conduct during their relationships with him. German police laid criminal charges against Zverev concerning the allegations involving him and his former partner and mother of his child, Brenda Patea.
The allegations are serious, and involve the accusation that Zverev pushed Patea against a wall, and choked her during an altercation. Zverev has consistently maintained he is innocent and the allegations against him are baseless.
The men’s professional ATP Tour investigated Zverev and made no adverse findings, citing insufficient evidence.
Alexander Zverev cuts a lonely figure after his loss to Jannik Sinner.Credit: Getty Images
The German criminal proceedings against Zverev were finalised in mid-2024, upon the player paying €200,000 ($335,000), none of which ended up in Patea’s pocket. Resolutions of this kind are not unusual in the German criminal justice system – former F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone settled a tax prosecution in Germany in 2014 by paying something close to €33 million. Ashtray change for Bernie, but a lot of money for almost anyone else.
The resolution in Zverev’s case doesn’t include any findings, admissions or insinuations of guilt on the part of Zverev. Nor, to be fair, does the resolution operate as an exoneration.
It’s likely to be alarming for tennis fans that the “ticket conditions of sale of entry” for the Australian Open 2025 run for eight pages of tiny text. Buried on page seven (and specifically clause 20) is the reservation of the right of organisers to remove any spectator from AO venues, if (a) they engage in conduct which offends, humiliates, threatens or disparages any player; or (b) causes a disruption or interruption to any match or other event, including a presentation ceremony.
I’m unconvinced the actions of the spectator in Zverev’s scenario could be said to humiliate etc. Moreover, I wouldn’t say it was hugely disruptive.
There expressly exists a contractual power to remove a spectator from the centre-court crowd because the spectator did interject in a quiet moment to bring attention to the allegations against Zverev. The pertinent question, though, is whether tournament organisers and their agents should have erred to exercise their discretion to eject a patron for having the temerity to shout that the whole of Australia “believes Olga and Brenda”.
The approach of tournament organisers to eject the patron shouldn’t be blindly accepted or left unscrutinised. It’s a strained and unreasonable interpretation of the conditions of entry to eject a patron for such conduct, and even if the scope of the rules permit it, it’s a shocking look to remove a spectator for the actual, audible “crime” that was plain for all to hear.
Loading
Many people state that people alleging incidences of domestic violence should be heard and believed. That principle – of listening to people who stick their head above the parapet to identify themselves as victims – is of significant importance.
Tennis Australia’s actions in seeking to silence the ejected spectator constitute the antithesis of that very same notion, regardless as to how uncomfortable Zverev might’ve been in that moment. Zverev has enough standing and resources to defend himself if he considers that he has grounds to.
