How the Current Era of Tennis Explains Today’s Geopolitics

[This was published on my previous site. I’m republishing it in light of Novak Djokovic’s recent loss at the French Open semifinals against Italian sensation Jannik Sinner.

It seems that Djokovic is finally reckoning with the fact that it is simply too damn hard to go through both Sinner and Spanish heir to Nadal, Carlos Alcaraz, to secure his record-breaking 25th Grand Slam. Knowing Djokovic, he’s not someone who will hang around just to make deep runs at Slams. He either gets his 25th or he doesn’t have motivation anymore.

That motivation appears to be petering out, which means the long “big three” era may be formally closing this year or next. And so, as tennis goes multipolar, so goes the world.]

————

Roger, Rafa, and Novak—three names that are synonymous with utter dominance of the global tennis scene—have endured longer than anyone expected. Each is a superpower in his own right, and their collective rise and resilience have been the subject of endless commentary and fascination. Yet what has been entirely overlooked is how the tennis “big three” reflects the realities among the geopolitical “big three”: the United States, European Union, and China.

More than any other sport, the arc at the top of men’s tennis over the last two decades grafts well onto the geopolitical landscape that has been formed over the same period. Sports metaphors can be strained, but the current era of men’s tennis encapsulates the main features of our current “tripod” world in observable ways.

The dynamics among these three players and what they publicly represent capture the competitive tensions, alliances, appeal, and intentions that define the relations among the three global powers. And perhaps surprisingly, the evolution of the three players’ relationships may be a useful window into how these global powers might age into a workable accommodation without compromising their competitive zeal.

Top-Heavy Global Titans

When it comes to the numbers, it is no secret that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are a cut above the rest. Since 2003, the three men combined have won 84% of grand slams, occupied the top-three rankings in 8 of those 17 years, and continued to chase historic records (Federer: 20 grand slams; Nadal: 19 grand slams; Djokovic: 17 grand slams). Below the top three, with the exception of Swiss star Stan Wawrinka, no other current top 20 ATP players has claimed a single grand slam during the reign of the big three.  

As in tennis, today’s geopolitical pecking order is also top heavy, though perhaps not quite as lopsided as in tennis. The United States, European Union, and China account for roughly 62% of global GDP, while the rest of the G20 (excluding EU countries) equals to just 27% of global output. And similar to the tennis grand slam rankings, the EU is just behind the US in terms of aggregate GDP, while China has rapidly caught up at about 66% of US GDP (roughly where Japan was in the mid-1990s).

What’s more, each of the tennis titans is distinctly different, both in their playing styles, their strengths and weaknesses, and the fandom they have cultivated around the world. In geopolitical lingo, those translate into strategy, capabilities, and soft power.

Federer is the most dominant all-around player, with a comprehensive set of weapons from the serve to the forehand to the improved backhand and net play. Nadal’s forehand is also legendary, but his strength, will, and mental fortitude make him one of the most intimidating opponents on the tennis court. Djokovic’s return, his impregnable defense, speed, and stamina have elevated him into the pantheon of the greats. He’s not a man who’s afraid of the long game; in fact, he relishes and gains power from it.

As the elder statesman of tennis, Federer has of course shown some rust over the last few years, as is natural with an athlete pushing 40. Judged by the numbers, however, the Swiss maestro still sits at the top, as Nadal and Djokovic inch closer to breaking his record.

But whether his ranking is a “mere” #3, Federer has arguably never been more adored and as valuable as a global brand. That’s because Federer has long developed a strategy beyond the court that has redefined the business of tennis over the last 10-15 years. Thanks to him, tennis has become a globalized sport, and the “RF” brand is no longer Swiss but a global commodity. Federer amounts to a multinational corporation in tennis, which has allowed him to tap into a global market on his way to becoming tennis’ first billionaire. 

That model has paved the way for both Nadal and Djokovic to emulate, competing over market share and capturing their slices of fandom. Yet Federer’s command of English—the global lingua franca—and his easy persona, in contrast to Nadal’s European accent and Djokovic’s more mercurial and Balkanized personality, make the Swiss’ global appeal seemingly as effortless as his play on the court.

Elusive Acceptance

By now, it is perhaps no mystery that Federer stands in for America in this trope of a geopolitical tripod. Federer may carry a Swiss passport, but he exerts a deep global influence that still only applies to the United States.

Like the aging democracy, the aging tennis champion is undoubtedly experiencing a decline relative to his two competitors. Yet he still remains the standard by which the others are measured. This is in part because he paved the way for a new model for the once exclusive, country-club sport to become democratized and diversified. He is tennis’ first true global superpower, much like how the United States ascended to superpower-dom after it fashioned a model of global governance post-World War II.

It is also no surprise that Federer’s preferred ally off the court is Nadal—in this case paralleling the enduring transatlantic alliance between the United States and Europe for the last 75 odd years. Despite being the most intense of foes on the court—a riveting rivalry that has spanned 40 head-to-head matches—Roger and Rafa have clearly become allies off the court.

Just as America and Europe compete across various dimensions and air disagreements, when it comes down to the issues that really matter, there is usually a tacit understanding of being on the same team.

In the tennis world, these dynamics are manifest in politics on the Players Council—functionally akin to the G20—a board of 10 members that represents the interests of all professional players on tour. After a period of absence and recent controversies, Roger and Rafa decided to rejoin the council together to add counter weight to what some deem as radical proposals to change the game of tennis and its operations.

Leading that charge is, you guessed it, Djokovic, the current president of the council. He has reportedly said of the Players Council that “I think it’s a system and a structure that keeps on failing us.”

So, a superpower that could well overtake the previous reigning power in overall titles throwing his weight around in international organizations because he is dissatisfied with elements of the current system. Sound familiar?

What’s more, even if the Serbian sensation surpasses both Nadal and Federer quantitatively on grand slams (GDP), it is far from assured that his qualitative appeal (soft power) will match that of Federer anytime soon. That’s because through much of his career, Djokovic has exhibited a single-minded focus: catch up to and surpass Federer—an intent he hasn’t kept much of a secret.

For Novak—who has remarked that perhaps he was “Chinese in a past life” and has a legion of loyal Chinese fans—it was more important to be respected than be generally liked. And respect he has earned. No one can deny his extraordinary abilities, the contribution he has brought to the game, and his rightful place alongside the other two greats. He has achieved that rarefied status of respect and power. Time is on his side, too, being the youngest of the big three, he has a very good shot at capturing history. 

Chasing respect and power—as well as outcompeting the United States on the metrics that matter like GDP and technological capabilities—has mainly driven China’s actions over the last two decades. Beijing’s overriding prerogative has never been about “global domination”—that is impossible within a tripod world—but about validation and legitimation that it deserves to be at the table because of its achievements. Its style and behavior for getting to that goal might be different, perhaps even a bit “Serbian,” but it nonetheless wants broad recognition and acceptance of its success.

And much like Novak, China’s current chip on the shoulder is that despite what it believes to be its enormous success to date, it has been denied equal acceptance as a legitimate leg of the tripod world. In particular, it continues to be spurned by the United States and Europe, an alliance that Beijing views as constraining its ability to achieve its own goals and hamper its desire to alter elements of the current system.

Chasing the “GOAT” equilibrium 

Yet despite these competitive tensions and alliance politics, the big three in tennis have managed to prevent explicit hostilities and found ways to collaborate. The more obvious feuding that marked their careers early on seems to have given way to acceptance of the current reality that the tennis world depends on each’s individual strength and appeal.

Some of this may be a consequence of having aged into a more peaceful condominium, as each recognizes their unique and rare positions of being perhaps the greatest players in the history of tennis. Along the way, their rivalries have also made each a better and more complete player, adjusting and adapting to beat the other on the court. Federer switched his racket and improved his backhand; Nadal increased the speed of his serve; and Djokovic dramatically raised his stamina. 

Beyond that, rather than spurning each other, they have decided to participate in each other’s ventures as collaborators. The most prominent example is Federer’s creation of the Laver Cup tournament—essentially a new institution that allows the “G8 of tennis” to compete in teams. Although Nadal partnered with Federer in the cup’s debut, Djokovic was invited in the second year. It was a recognition of Djokovic’s market power and reputation among fans but also a sign of respect that he should be integrated into the new institution.

None of this stifles the respective private desires of holding the “GOAT” mantle, but that is precisely what competition at the elite level has always been about, in tennis or in geopolitics.

Even if Djokovic captures the grand slam crown eventually, that does not mean the GOAT title will be automatically conferred. The debate will rage on, and the Roger/Rafa alliance will still endure as a check to ensure that the world of tennis carries on their legacies as much as Novak’s. Whatever the eventual pecking order, competition among the three will not diminish, it is too engrossing and dynamic of a plot to abandon.

That plot applies as much to the big three geopolitical characters. Perhaps they, too, will realize that greatness is ultimately transient and can vitiate with age if not well maintained. Rather than pursuing a destructive downward spiral of achieving GOAT at all cost, operating in a more stable equilibrium collectively can preserve their greatness and extend the longevity of all.  

In the current tripod world, that may be the best, and most realistic, outcome to hope for.