What a crock of BS.
Don't be too quick to throw everyone in the same bath.
Not every player is self-centered, entitled, foul mouthed, delusional or a sore loser.
She's in a position of privilege and should set the example for others, not the least to other African Americans; instead, with her fake woke incessant virtue signaling like standing for women, mothers, fairness, tolerance instead of racism, she's become the poster woman for the KU KLUX Clan recruitment office.
By incessantly claiming to defend some values, she's gone full circle and betrayed them.
That's on her, and her only.
It's much more complicated than that.
First of all, I think it's perfectly legitimate - and even refreshing - for someone to genuinely be who they actually are; show those emotions, frustrations, petty hatreds, entitlement, gamesmanship, many of those things that make us human, and that are only the other side of being magnanimous, kind, humble, sportsmanlike, etc. Some people will like it, others won't. Players will always oscillate from one extreme to the other, so you will always have your McEnroes, Connors and Kyrgios, but also your Edbergs, Corretjas and Clijsters (the latter tend to be rare), but most people will fall somewhere in between those extremes. What I criticise is when, through success or dominance in the sport and sponsorship deals, a whole industry develops around you and what is now your "brand", that makes it impossible for you to remain in that position unless 1) you're somewhat "softened"(in case you're a bit of a hothead) or made to defend the American dream fairytale, and/or 2) allowed to do what you like and say what you want, and show all the ugliness you can muster, with the insurance policy that the machine that supports you in your position of privilege will always reinterpret your missteps as victimhood/courage/healthy competitiveness (this was quite clear in the Carlos Alves case). So in a way, power in competitive sports renders you powerless: in becoming a tennis superstar, Serena didn't cease to be a woman/black (these two dimensions, by themselves, don't really threaten economic power in any meaningful way), but she did cease to be poor/destitute to become a millionaire. So of course racial/feminist tokenism became her official discourse, rich people became her entourage, and the potentially revolutionary power she initially had was ultimately buried deep under tons of cash and privilege. What else could her future have been as a successful black tennis player in a neoliberal society?
The very idea that these top athletes have to serve as "examples to others", when they're otherwise pretty average people trying to get ahead in life like anyone else (and often without the free time or the scholarship to see the "big picture"), that they should be role models in any way to anyone, is tied up with this system of privilege that says only a few can get to the very top, where a huge amount of the world's riches and resources are concentrated. If in sports people received more or less equal salaries and winning was compensated with a symbolic artefact like a laurel wreath that everyone would fight for in a search for glory/immortality (I'm obviously thinking of a different way to structure sports and society as a whole; I'm not necessarily saying it's the right or desirable way to do it), nobody would need their personality, their choices in life, the things they say or think, to be carefully tweaked and manufactured in such a way that it sells shirts or gives people (unfounded) hope that society is getting "better" (who is it getting better for exactly?).
People make their own choices in life (it's called ethics), and "examples" can be drawn from many different people (not just "heroes" or those who achieve what we call "success" in our highly pyramidal societies), we're not - or should not be - only passive receptacles and vessels of causes (struggle A or struggle B or struggle C) or naive reactionary victims of hateful discourse (which is why I completely disagree with the idea that "wokeness" magically creates the KKK, as if people are innocent at heart and don't make clear choices towards hatred and bigotry when life becomes more difficult, often in moments of economic crisis). Ethical choices rather than moral codes, that's my motto.