2theadvocate.com: News - Visa status sidelines BR sisters 05/08/05--
Not the feel-good Mother's Day story I was hoping to come across, but certainly an interesting one. I don't think the family has any hope of winning this lawsuit, because there isn't a civil right to compete in a USTA tournament. The NBA wouldn't be contemplating instituting an age limit like the NFL's if they didn't feel the legal ground for establishing who can compete in their league was firmly tilted toward the organizing body.
All that said, I think American tennis would benefit from a change in this rule. The USTA argument, as presented here by Chris Widmaier, is like protectionists everywhere, and whether it's trade or tennis, I don't buy it. They say we need to protect our steel industry or our automobile industry, or whatever it is, from those "foreigners", because those countries have their own tariffs and quotas and blah, blah, blah. When the Big Three here in Michigan were afforded this protection, we got poorly designed and engineered gas guzzlers with little innovation or reliability. The competition from the Japanese automakers was unquestionably good for the consumer. In sports--the ultimate marketplace based on merit--more competition equals a better game. And, returning for a moment to the NBA, how do you think a ban or quota on foreign players in that league would go over now?
Tennis is more global than basketball, and yet, if you are not 18, your nationality matters in tennis. Yes, the two spots these Dutch girls earn will deprive two American girls who might otherwise not qualify. A draw is a very zero sum game. The same can be said of college athletic scholarships. What U.S. citizen is not going to Baylor this year, because the Bears have recruited three Germans for their tennis team? But the college game is better for having an international component, and junior tennis would ultimately benefit too.
Will this happen? No. And I have a reason for being so emphatic. A few selected foreign players were once invited to compete annually in the Nationals here in Kalamazoo, which is how Rod Laver (1956) and Raul Ramirez (1971) came to grace our list of champions. But when Ramesh Krishnan won the 16s title in 1977, a rule was passed limiting the competitors to U.S. citizens, and, to my mind, the tournament instantly lost the prestige that had put it on par with the Grand Slams and the Orange Bowl--tournaments that are open to anyone who qualifies, regardless of nationality.
The Dutch girls can play ITF events if they qualify (and are age 13),(and I doubt Chris Widmaier referred to the International Tennis Association; perhaps the reporter misheard the first two syllables of Federation), and high school tennis, at least in Louisiana. Hard to view them as victims, really. But the sport is the ultimate loser when nationality becomes criteria, and you need look no further than the wild cards awarded at Grand Slams to see that.
Not the feel-good Mother's Day story I was hoping to come across, but certainly an interesting one. I don't think the family has any hope of winning this lawsuit, because there isn't a civil right to compete in a USTA tournament. The NBA wouldn't be contemplating instituting an age limit like the NFL's if they didn't feel the legal ground for establishing who can compete in their league was firmly tilted toward the organizing body.
All that said, I think American tennis would benefit from a change in this rule. The USTA argument, as presented here by Chris Widmaier, is like protectionists everywhere, and whether it's trade or tennis, I don't buy it. They say we need to protect our steel industry or our automobile industry, or whatever it is, from those "foreigners", because those countries have their own tariffs and quotas and blah, blah, blah. When the Big Three here in Michigan were afforded this protection, we got poorly designed and engineered gas guzzlers with little innovation or reliability. The competition from the Japanese automakers was unquestionably good for the consumer. In sports--the ultimate marketplace based on merit--more competition equals a better game. And, returning for a moment to the NBA, how do you think a ban or quota on foreign players in that league would go over now?
Tennis is more global than basketball, and yet, if you are not 18, your nationality matters in tennis. Yes, the two spots these Dutch girls earn will deprive two American girls who might otherwise not qualify. A draw is a very zero sum game. The same can be said of college athletic scholarships. What U.S. citizen is not going to Baylor this year, because the Bears have recruited three Germans for their tennis team? But the college game is better for having an international component, and junior tennis would ultimately benefit too.
Will this happen? No. And I have a reason for being so emphatic. A few selected foreign players were once invited to compete annually in the Nationals here in Kalamazoo, which is how Rod Laver (1956) and Raul Ramirez (1971) came to grace our list of champions. But when Ramesh Krishnan won the 16s title in 1977, a rule was passed limiting the competitors to U.S. citizens, and, to my mind, the tournament instantly lost the prestige that had put it on par with the Grand Slams and the Orange Bowl--tournaments that are open to anyone who qualifies, regardless of nationality.
The Dutch girls can play ITF events if they qualify (and are age 13),(and I doubt Chris Widmaier referred to the International Tennis Association; perhaps the reporter misheard the first two syllables of Federation), and high school tennis, at least in Louisiana. Hard to view them as victims, really. But the sport is the ultimate loser when nationality becomes criteria, and you need look no further than the wild cards awarded at Grand Slams to see that.
Post Title
→2theadvocate.com: News - Dutch Family Files Lawsuit for Daughters to compete in USTA Juniors
Post URL
→https://dancing-with-the-stars-2011.blogspot.com/2005/05/2theadvocatecom-news-dutch-family-files.html
Visit dancing-with-the-stars-2011 for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
