Novak Djokovic loses shot at history, deported after court ruling

Tennis star's anti-vax stance has cost him a potential payday of $2.1 million

Novak Djokovic’s anti-vaccination stance has cost him a potential payday of $2.1 million and a shot at tennis history.

The Serbian will leave Australia after the nation’s Federal Court upheld a decision to revoke his entry permit over fears his presence would strengthen anti-vaccination sentiment. It wasn’t up to the court to decide on the merits of the decision, only whether it was illogical or legally unreasonable, Chief Justice James Allsop said Sunday. 

“I respect the Court’s ruling and I will cooperate with the relevant authorities in relation to my departure from the country,” Djokovic said in an emailed statement. “I will now be taking some time to rest and to recuperate.” 

Others weren’t quite so sanguine in their response. 

“They mistreated him for 10 days only to hand him a verdict that they had in mind from the very first day,” Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic told reporters in Belgrade after a phone call with the tennis star, the state news agency Tanjug reported.

Djokovic was misled by having been offered an exemption to compete without being vaccinated, “but then the harassment began, a witch hunt against one person and country,” Vucic said. “They wanted to show how the world order works.” 

It’s a blow to Djokovic’s hopes of winning a record 21st Grand Slam singles title and its sizeable prize money. The world’s top ranked player has won the Australian Open the past three years and notched almost half of his Grand Slam titles at the tournament.

The Association of Tennis Professionals said in a statement that Djokovic was one of the sport’s greatest champions and that his absence from the Australian Open was “a loss for the game”. 

“We know how turbulent the recent days have been for Novak and how much he wanted to defend his title in Melbourne. We wish him well and look forward to seeing him back on court soon. “ATP continues to strongly recommend vaccination to all players,” the ATP added. 

Djokovic is paying a high price for seeking to bypass an entry requirement in one of the world’s most vaccinated countries. Host-city Melbourne endured strict lockdowns during the pandemic, and the tennis star has faced public outrage since arriving with a medical exemption on January 5. At the same time, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is trying to show his strength in handling the Covid-19 pandemic and border rules ahead of a general election that must be called by May. 

An opinion poll published by Melbourne’s Age newspaper on Sunday showed almost three quarters of Australians believe Djokovic should have been sent home. Just 14% said he should be allowed to stay and play in the Australian Open, the poll of 1,607 people showed. 

Djokovic’s lawyers challenged Immigration Minister Alex Hawke’s use of special powers to revoke his visa on grounds of health and good order, and on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so. The decision reversed an earlier court ruling that quashed his first visa cancellation for procedural reasons. 

Hawke argued the Serbian star’s presence risked strengthening anti-vaccination sentiment among a minority of the population and thus creating a public order risk, according to court documents. Djokovic is unvaccinated and has shown an “apparent disregard” for basic rules such as isolating after a positive test, which may encourage or influence others to emulate his conduct, Hawke said.

Djokovic could face a three-year ban from entering Australia, but the prohibition may be waived if there under “compelling circumstances,” according to Australia’s Home Affairs department.

Lawyers for Djokovic said Hawke took an “unreasonable approach” to assessing whether his deportation was in the public interest, and cited no evidence that his presence may foster anti-vaccination sentiment. The only evidence of protests referring to Djokovic’s case were caused by the state canceling his visa the first time, barrister Nick Wood said.

“Rightly or wrongly he is perceived to endorse an anti-vaccination view and his presence here is perceived to contribute to that,” barrister Stephen Lloyd, acting for the government, told the court.