Arina Sabalenka began the tournament with a decisive victory on Philippe Chatrier’s center court. Martha Kostyuk, by a 6-3, 6-2 margin, became part of a broader moment in tennis that echoed the tense relationship between players from Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus during a period of heightened political strain. The two competitors did not exchange a handshake at the start or at the end of the match, a silent statement that drew attention from spectators and critics alike.
For roughly an hour, Kostyuk competed in near silence, avoiding direct eye contact with Sabalenka as a personal act of political protest against the war that began in February 2022. The gesture underscored how national and regional conflicts have intruded into the sport, affecting on-court rituals that have long been considered neutral territory. The atmosphere borne of the conflict extended beyond the players, coloring the match with political resonance rather than just athletic competition.
Earlier in the tournament, Ukrainian players have made similar choices in response to Russian counterparts. In Strasbourg, a final featured Elina Svitolina facing a Russian opponent, while in another marquee event Indian Wells, Lesia Tsurenko withdrew in the third round against Sabalenka, citing personal reasons connected to the broader situation. Tsurenko later disclosed that she stepped away after experiencing a panic attack, a reminder of the mental strain that accompanies athletes in times of conflict.
Kalininа and Kudermetova also navigated the charged atmosphere in recent weeks. Kalinina chose not to acknowledge a Russian competitor, and Kudermetova had an instance in Rome that highlighted how players are uniquely affected by the surrounding tensions. A public incident occurred when a bomb attack damaged a nearby facility connected to a family academy, underscoring the real consequences that extend beyond the court and into players’ lives and communities.
Whistles from the stands
During the match, some fans voiced their disapproval by whistling in response to Kostyuk’s decision not to greet Sabalenka. In post-match remarks, Kostyuk reaffirmed that her stance would stand, explaining that she did not see a future where the gesture would feel appropriate while the war continued. She emphasized the importance of avoiding gestures that could be misread as support for one side over another and called for a broader reflection on how sport can respond to conflict without being co-opted by it.
In the exchanges that followed, Sabalenka offered a pointed reflection on the role of athletes in global events. She indicated that she understood the moment was charged and acknowledged feeling nervous before the match. Sabalenka noted that the final whistle of the audience did not necessarily target her but reflected a larger conversation about the ongoing conflict and the responsibilities that come with being a public figure during such times. The exchange underscored the tension between competitive focus and the political weight carried by players who also serve as symbols beyond the sport.
Ultimately, the match itself stood as a test of composure and skill. Sabalenka used the angular power of her game to secure the straight-sets victory, while Kostyuk demonstrated resilience and a principled stance in a difficult, highly scrutinized environment. The contest offered a rare glimpse into how contemporary tennis sits at the intersection of sport and sociopolitical reality, inviting spectators to consider where athletic performance ends and global issues begin.