The dual harm behind the lifting of coach Rybakina's ban

In January 2025, the WTA suspended Rybakina's coach, Stefano Vukov, for "violating the code of conduct," accusing him of verbal insults (such as calling the player "stupid" and saying "go back to Russia to dig potatoes"), mental pressure, excessive training that caused Rybakina to fall ill, and harassment after his dismissal (such as stalking at hotels and bombarding with text messages). This decision was based on an independent investigation, but Rybakina publicly opposed it, emphasizing that she had "never suffered abuse" and questioning the fairness of the WTA.

However, eight months later, the WTA suddenly announced the lifting of Vukov's ban, allowing him to return to the court. This "high-profile conviction followed by a silent lifting" not only exposed the lack of procedural justice within the WTA but also thrust Rybakina into the media storm, where she was labeled with tags like "love-struck" and "Stockholm syndrome" for supporting her coach, while the WTA's inconsistency went unaccounted for.

During Vukov's suspension, Rybakina repeatedly expressed her support for her coach, even refusing to cooperate with the WTA's investigation on the grounds of "team decision." This attitude sparked polarized evaluations: supporters believed she had the right to choose a trusted coach, while opponents accused her of "condoning abuse." However, there are more complex issues behind the controversy:

1. The paternalistic intervention of the WTA: If Vukov's actions were indeed true, the suspension should protect the player; however, if the evidence from the investigation was insufficient, imposing penalties would infringe on the player's autonomy. Rybakina's protest pointed precisely to the latter: did the WTA excessively intervene in the personal relationship between the player and the coach?

2. Gendered violence in public opinion: Controversial actions by male coaches are often blamed on female players being "not clear-headed." Rybakina being mocked for being ill and experiencing PUA reflects a systemic devaluation of women's autonomy in judgment.

The most fatal aspect of this incident is not the outcome of the suspension but the ambiguity of the WTA's decision-making process: The standards for investigation remain a mystery: Why could the initial evidence that deemed Vukov's actions as violations be easily overturned? Was the independence of the independent investigation influenced by external pressures? The rights of players have been overlooked: Why were Rybakina's demands ignored in the initial stages as a direct stakeholder? Did the WTA place "political correctness" above the genuine needs of the players? The shared responsibility for online violence: The WTA's high-profile suspension triggered an assault on Rybakina, yet after the lifting of the ban, they failed to clarify the situation for her, indirectly condoning malicious speculation against the player.

After Vukov's ban was lifted, he quickly returned to Rybakina's team, co-coaching alongside current coach Sanguinetti. While it seemed the storm had settled, the hidden dangers remained:

The boundaries of coaching supervision are unclear; the WTA should establish a more transparent complaint and appeal mechanism to avoid "moral judgment" of personal relationships.

Channels for players to voice their concerns have not been addressed. When players' opinions conflict with official ones, their right to explain should be respected, rather than leaving them to bear the backlash alone. If Vukov indeed acted inappropriately, the condition for lifting the ban should be his completion of behavior correction courses, rather than merely due to pressure from a star player.

This incident superficially appears to be the lifting of a coaching ban, but it actually reveals the power dynamics, gender issues, and public relations struggles in professional sports. If the WTA wishes to regain credibility, it must answer: when "protecting players" becomes a slogan, who decides what they truly need? Rybakina's experience serves as a reminder: in the pursuit of political correctness, do not let real individuals become the cost.(Source: Tennis House, Author: Mei)