Peng Shuai at the Australian Open in Melbourne in 2020 (Image: AP/Kyodo)

It’s been more than a week since the Women’s Tennis Association suspended all tournaments in China over the disappearance of tennis star Peng Shuai. Yet there are still no clear signs she is safe and free.

Western powers including Australia have turned up the heat, announcing diplomatic boycotts of the Beijing Winter Olympics. But there is still little sign of Peng, who had publicly accused a top Chinese official of sexual assault.

Not since the West’s boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games has sport and politics so openly collided.

Sporting competitions have long been held in countries with questionable human rights records, but Peng’s case is different. It’s hit a nerve that led the WTA to go further than any sports association has before.

Unprecedented stance. Why now?

The most obvious answer it is an unusual situation where a human rights issue directly involves a notable athlete.

Individual stories are often what it takes to galvanise action on a human rights issue, says Dr Roland Burke, senior history lecturer at Latrobe University.

“Individual cases can activate in a way that more abstract appreciation of human rights abuses often fail to do,” he said. “There is also, in some sense, more capacity for potentially helping an individual via external campaigns; changing a systemic feature is exceptionally difficult, but potentially helping a small group or an individual often can work.” 

But now the WTA has suspended competitions, will China make further concessions?

Yun Jiang, a researcher at the ANU’s Australian Centre on China in the World, said: “The suspensions will likely have little effect on Peng Shuai herself.

“Because she has accused a very prominent former politician, and a very connected and senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, outside external pressure won’t necessarily make a difference for her.

“In terms of how you define success of the suspension, what the WTA has been saying publicly — as well as the comments from others — put a spotlight on the issue, and ensures that her case is not forgotten.”

Even if the WTA’s intervention is unlikely to achieve its goals, it’s a bold effort by the organisation to protect the interests of its players — especially when compared with the diplomatic boycott of the Olympics, which comes across as a half-hearted condemnation of China’s human rights record. It will have no noticeable impact on the Games.

Taking a stand

By suspending tournaments in China, the WTA has demonstrated a willingness to exert soft power in a way few governments are willing to do.

China is a huge market for tennis, and events there are some of the most lucrative for organisers and players. In 2019 Ash Barty took home US$4.42 million after winning the WTA finals in Shenzhen, the biggest cheque in tennis history. Shenzhen’s contract to host that tournament through to 2030 has been suspended. 

In its dealings with China over the past weeks, the WTA has truly put its money where its mouth is in the name of protecting its players. Although it has been reluctant to discuss its motivations in the media, it is safe to assume that defending its players from harm is at the heart of its decision-making.

Its resolve set it distinctly apart from the IOC. After inserting itself as mediator of the dispute in an attempt to abate tension ahead of the Olympics, the IOC was eventually forced to admit it could not provide “certainty” of Peng’s safety.

Should sports bodies do better?

The distinctly personal nature of Peng’s situation may have affected the ferocity of the WTA response, but it is notable that other tennis bodies — including the ATP which represents the men’s game — said it would not suspend events in China.

And it’s not just China’s alleged human rights record that’s raising eyebrows in the sporting world. The FIFA World Cup is set to go ahead in Qatar amid allegations stadiums and facilities are being built using slave labour.

What seems resistant to change is that sport will always follow the money. As long as competitors and officials are considered safe, this will include hosting events in countries with problematic human rights records.