Why Alexander Bublik’s U.S. Open Outburst Is So Hurtful To The Disability Community

Kazakhstan tennis star Alexander Bublik courted on-court controversy at the U.S. Open on Monday when he uttered an ableist slur during his defeat to Austrian Dominic Thiem.

Thiem won the 2020 Championship but has been beset by injury over the past few years. During the second set of his 6-3, 6-2, 6-4 loss to Thiem, Bublik was heard to exclaim in Russian, “I am f…ing sick of giving careers back to invalid people.” The world no 27 seed’s comments are further contextualized by prior defeats he suffered this season to Gael Monfils and Stan Wawrinka – both of whom have recently been plagued by injury.

The word selected by Bublik, who is renowned for his fiery temperament, having smashed three rackets on-court in France earlier this season, can also be translated as “disabled” and the backlash against Bublik was not short in coming. Australian Nick Kyrgios took to Twitter (now rebranded as X) to slam his fellow tennis pro for using discriminatory language.

“This is low-key horrible,” wrote Kyrgios. Tennis journalist and commentator Jose Morgado also criticized Bublik on social media, accusing him of “a tremendous lack of respect.” Another social media contributor added, “Bublik says s**ty things practically every other match. This is disgusting even by his standards though.”

First and foremost, though it is never straightforward to fully evaluate intent from the outside, it is not wholly unreasonable to assume Bublik made this comment in the absence of malign intent. There is no real evidence that he is scornful of people who live with long-term disabilities and actively looks down on them. If anything, the comment is careless and a throw-away one made without due regard to those who may find it offensive.

This was speculated upon by his opponent after the match when Thiem, having been asked about Bublik’s outburst, said: “It’s a tough saying. Something you shouldn’t say in general, out of respect. Maybe he didn’t mean it that way.”

Sporting dispensation?

This feels like an apt enough summary but one excuse that shouldn’t be made, but is often heard when passions run high in the sporting arena, is that offensive behavior that would be deemed unacceptable in any other context occurred in the adrenalin-fuelled heat of battle and therefore has special dispensation.

This has echoes of the recent incident at the FIFA Women’s World Cup Final in soccer when Spanish Football Federation president Luis Rubiales was seen to kiss Spain’s winning captain Jenni Hermoso on the lips amidst ecstatic celebrations during the trophy presentation. Hermoso alleges that the kiss was unsolicited and non-consensual. However, Rubiales continues to insist that the kiss was consensual and that he had sought her permission beforehand.

The world of elite sports is one thing and the duty sportsmen and women, as well as leaders, have as role models is likely to be a debate punctuated by future controversies and incidents for years to come.

What is often less spoken about, particularly in the context of ableism, is the way negative and derogatory terms used to describe disabled people infiltrate their way into the grassroots – starting in the schoolyard.

Terms like “spastic,” “cripple” and “retard” are all too often bandied about, thankfully possibly not to the extent they once were, to describe an individual lacking in sporting prowess and ability. Occasionally. during the action after they make a poor play. In the din of battle, often such abhorrent language may only have been heard by the recipient and a handful of others. Sometimes, when it is heard, it is simply excused as demonstrative of the perpetrator’s passion and will to win. Yet again, this sports-related dispensation is wrongfully applied.

In terms of long-term societal impact, this is about far more than teaching mouthy children that the use of abusive ableist terms is unacceptable in any context. What might it also mean for children on the receiving end who are made to feel that disability and the lowest form of competence and humiliation are concepts that naturally go hand-in-hand?

While some will castigate Bublik, others will say that his comments have been blown out of proportion and that this is, once again, a case of political correctness gone mad. Everybody will have their opinion but it is a debate worth having and not brushing under the carpet. Sometimes, when a discriminatory rot has been allowed to fester for decades without widespread challenge, that spotlight of public scrutiny has to shine extra bright to get people to at least question the presence of a dangerous and damaging complacency.