Default in Dubai

There is so much to this story, I almost don't know where to begin. First, I suppose, are the basic elements. Shahar Peer, a professional tennis player from Israel, has been barred from competing in this week's Barclays Dubai Tennis Championships in the United Arab Emirates. The reason? She is from Israel.

As you may know, the Israeli military spent much of late 2008 and early 2009 assaulting Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's most violent and perplexing issues. Thus, the presence of an Israeli, even just a tennis player, in an Arab country is politically sensitive. Nevertheless, the decision to prohibit Peer from playing is a clear injustice. Tournament director Salah Talak stated:

"We do not wish to politicize sports, but we have to be sensitive to recent events in the region and not alienate or put at risk the players and the many tennis fans of different nationalities that we have here in the UAE."

So, in light of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq, all those Americans are also prohibited from the tournament, right? Oh, well, of course not. More to the point, how does it not alienate players and fans when a competitor is barred from entry? Has Peer endorsed the military venture? Does she express contempt for Arabs? I am not aware of any such problems. In fact, as I wrote about in 2007, Peer has previously played doubles with India's Sania Mirza, who is Muslim. This should at least give her some benefit of the doubt, no?

Here in the United States, the Tennis Channel has swiftly announced that it will no longer broadcast the tournament. Network Chairman Ken Solomon said, "This is an easy decision to come by, based on what is right and wrong." Indeed, and I'm pleased he moved quickly. I'm also pleased that the channel's website has numerous articles about this issue, unlike the tournament's official site, which appears to be ignoring it entirely. It also appears that the Women's Tennis Association will punish the tournament, possibly removing it from next year's calendar. This, I would argue is a must.

Cancelling the tournament, however, might be more complicated. Already, everyone appears eager to call out the familiar refrain about sports and politics not mixing. For example:

Ken Solomon: "Sports are about merit, absent of background, class, race, creed, color or religion. They are simply about talent."

Shahar Peer: "I am very disappointed that I have been prevented from playing in the Dubai tournament. I think a red line has been crossed here that could harm the purity of the sport and other sports. I have always believed that politics and sports should not be mixed."

Salah Talak: "We do not wish to politicize sports..."

I'll spare you my usual rant about how sports are political already, blah, blah, blah. Instead, let me focus on how this tournament is already political. For years, tennis officials have marketed the Dubai Tennis Championships by spotlighting the city as a testament to capital accumulation. What does that mean? It means that Dubai has a lot of money, and local officials are more than eager to showcase their wealth to the rest of the world. It is a center for international commerce and tourism. It is also, to slide into academic speak for a moment, a spectacle of postmodern consumption, a testament to contemporary free-market capitalism and all of its excesses. Really, the famous tennis court at the top of a Dubai hotel should say it all.

But watch this video for a glimpse of what I'm talking about. Dubai appears, in this limited and artificial production at least, to be a paradise of shopping, dining, golfing, and more. But at what cost and at whose expense? Is it mere coincidence that the U.A.E. has been a partner with the U.S. in the "war on terror?" Or that the tiny nation is the world's 5th largest exporter of oil? There is a complicated relationship here, one that is often ignored in favor of celebrating the apparent wealth to be found in Dubai. Without getting into too much detail here, it should nevertheless be obvious why an international sporting event in the U.A.E. is already a political matter.

None of this is to say that Peer, or any other tennis player, should be able to account for the complexities of global capitalism. Nor should it distract us from the fundamental issue in this story: that the Dubai Tennis Championships officials have acted badly and should be sanctioned. There should be no second serve for this fault.