What does #Brexit mean for tennis?

J

JRAJ1988

Guest
#3
I asked the same style of question on Odds and Ends, I'm guessing Brexit will effect Football, as say if Arsenal singed Buffon from Juventus which will never happen lol, he'd need a work permit to play in the UK I'm guessing.
 
#6
Well it means Scottish independence is almost certain. So Murray may play the the very end of his career as a Scot and not a Brit.

too late to make a difference but all that history he made for British tennis could have been gone.

The Wimbledon prize money is worth about 10% less due to the pound's plummet.
 
#11
Well it means Scottish independence is almost certain. So Murray may play the the very end of his career as a Scot and not a Brit.

too late to make a difference but all that history he made for British tennis could have been gone.

The Wimbledon prize money is worth about 10% less due to the pound's plummet.
The history will still be there, you can't retrospectively say that Murray represented Scotland when he won the Olympic Gold, US Open, Wimbledon and Davis Cup. Just like Lendl's triumphs are (for the vast majority of his career) counted as successes by a Czech player.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#12
He'll be winning it for Scotland though (who will unilaterally declare independence the day before the final).
He could apply for dual citizenship when Scotland becomes independent (which now seems inevitable) presuming there will be a similar arrangement as for dual British/Irish citizenship. Either way, I will still be supporting him!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#13
The history will still be there, you can't retrospectively say that Murray represented Scotland when he won the Olympic Gold, US Open, Wimbledon and Davis Cup. Just like Lendl's triumphs are (for the vast majority of his career) counted as successes by a Czech player.
Exactly. You can't retroactively alter history to make it fit with present day realities. Murray won Wimbledon as a British player and that will always be the case no matter whether he will remain British in the future or not.
 
#14
The history will still be there, you can't retrospectively say that Murray represented Scotland when he won the Olympic Gold, US Open, Wimbledon and Davis Cup. Just like Lendl's triumphs are (for the vast majority of his career) counted as successes by a Czech player.
yes that is why I said it won't make a difference to the history he created.
 
#16
The history will still be there, you can't retrospectively say that Murray represented Scotland when he won the Olympic Gold, US Open, Wimbledon and Davis Cup. Just like Lendl's triumphs are (for the vast majority of his career) counted as successes by a Czech player.
Thanks for stating that history can Not be changed.
 
#22
Things are looking good :), Britain is paying for the crimes and atrocities it has committed against India and looting trillions of dollars of wealth making it a poor nation to start all over.......I hope scotland calls for another referendum and we can watch the filthy british empire collapse
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#24
Things are looking good :), Britain is paying for the crimes and atrocities it has committed against India and looting trillions of dollars of wealth making it a poor nation to start all over.......I hope scotland calls for another referendum and we can watch the filthy british empire collapse
Don't forget, many of them were Scots! ;)
 
#28
When did India ever have "trillions of dollars of wealth"? :confused:
The colonies were generally full of resources and wealth but there's no way to realistically measure how much they were worth because the measures were completely different to what is known today. Obviously the documented wealth taken away from India is by itself considerable but I doubt it's worth trillions.
 
#36
You won't see me post insults about the Japanese for things that happened seventy years ago, so how this ironically bigoted pillock is still posting on these boards Scot-free (pun intended) is a mystery.
To be fair colonisation was a long and enduring process with no real fault of the colonies while the World War consisted of severe mistakes on both sides. A lot of people from the colonies are still sensitive about the whole issue not least because many were forced to fight in the war while their own people served as slaves under the 'Raj' and faced severe apartheid. It's not bigoted at all. The Japanese were tried for war crimes. Who put the English on trial? A little knowledge of history is all it takes.

Anyway, this IS political however. Not a place to discuss it for sure.
 
#37
Things are looking good :), Britain is paying for the crimes and atrocities it has committed against India and looting trillions of dollars of wealth making it a poor nation to start all over.......I hope scotland calls for another referendum and we can watch the filthy british empire collapse
Odd thing is I have three Indian work colleagues and they all voted to Leave. I suppose they think it will be easier for Indians to come here to work or at least a level playing field.
 
#39
Well it means Scottish independence is almost certain. So Murray may play the the very end of his career as a Scot and not a Brit.

too late to make a difference but all that history he made for British tennis could have been gone.

The Wimbledon prize money is worth about 10% less due to the pound's plummet.
I may be wrong but I believe all prize money is paid in U.S dollars.
 
#42
Odd thing is I have three Indian work colleagues and they all voted to Leave. I suppose they think it will be easier for Indians to come here to work or at least a level playing field.
Are you sure? From what I heard most of the Indians and Indians companies don't wanted to leave EU , some of the companies has a base in England for EU trade and now they have to start it from beginning and have to find new base.
 
#43
To be fair colonisation was a long and enduring process with no real fault of the colonies while the World War consisted of severe mistakes on both sides. A lot of people from the colonies are still sensitive about the whole issue not least because many were forced to fight in the war while their own people served as slaves under the 'Raj' and faced severe apartheid. It's not bigoted at all. The Japanese were tried for war crimes. Who put the English on trial? A little knowledge of history is all it takes.

Anyway, this IS political however. Not a place to discuss it for sure.
You make it sound as if colonisation, slave labour, and apartheid is unique to the British colonisation of India. "The Indians under the Brits had it worse than SE and E Asia under the Japanese because the Japanese were tried for their war crimes and the Brits did not" is a huge oversimplification to the point of absurdity, the same way that it would be stupid to say that E Asia had it worse because the Brits didn't exactly experiment on Indians as the Japanese did on Chinese and Korean men, women, and children in Unit 731.

As you said, a little history is all it takes. As far as I can sympathise with bitterness over war crimes--my grandmother narrowly escaped gang rape in a Japanese barracks in her teens, and spent the rest of the colonial era having her national identity systematically erased literally at the end of katana. I ironically owe the Japanese my existence, which in itself is a confusing thing to recognise.

But guess what--would the actions of long dead people seventy years ago justify me in saying that the Japanese deserved to be hit by the tsunami a few years back? No, because just because they're Japanese doesn't mean they deserve punishment, in the same way the English or today don't deserve to suffer financial ruin because of their war crimes in India 70 years ago. This is punishment for sheer stupidity, naïvety, and xenophobia on the part of many of those who voted for Brexit. This as a punishment for colonisation of India is a non sequitur at this point, as the only relationship between the two are the nationalities. So yes, it is bigotry, and he's completely out of order--he can take that resentment where it is needed, not here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#44
You make it sound as if colonisation, slave labour, and apartheid is unique to the British colonisation of India. "The Indians under the Brits had it worse than SE and E Asia under the Japanese because the Japanese were tried for their war crimes and the Brits did not" is a huge oversimplification to the point of absurdity, the same way that it would be stupid to say that E Asia had it worse because the Brits didn't exactly experiment on Indians as the Japanese did on Chinese and Korean men, women, and children in Unit 731.

As you said, a little history is all it takes. As far as I can sympathise with bitterness over war crimes--my grandmother narrowly escaped gang rape in a Japanese barracks in her teens, and spent the rest of the colonial era having her national identity systematically erased literally at the end of katana. I ironically owe the Japanese my existence, which in itself is a confusing thing to recognise.

But guess what--would the actions of long dead people seventy years ago justify me in saying that the Japanese deserved to be hit by the tsunami a few years back? No, because just because they're Japanese doesn't mean they deserve punishment, in the same way the English or today don't deserve to suffer financial ruin because of their war crimes in India 70 years ago. This is punishment for sheer stupidity, naïvety, and xenophobia on the part of many of those who voted for Brexit. This as a punishment for colonisation of India is a non sequitur at this point, as the only relationship between the two are the nationalities. So yes, it is bigotry, and he's completely out of order--he can take that resentment where it is needed, not here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You missed my point completely.

1) I didn't say the colonies had it worse than x or y subjects of subjugation.

2) Yes, there is a difference between the Brits and the Japanese in that the Tokyo trials brought some semblance of accountability and reparations to the victims. And that makes a difference historically because Britain never made any form of reparations to its colonies after nearly two centuries of subjugation. Probably more. And I won't go into the human rights violations here because it'll pretty much take all day long. Besides, what happened in Hiroshima further reshaped the narrative in the war. Britain on the other hand, came out looking heroic in the aftermath, when nothing could be further away from the truth. Additionally, the colonial history in England is often retold in a way that justifies the whole thing. That is what has added to the resentment among the former colonies that spills over inappropriately at times.

3) There's a distinction between bigotry and resentment. And honestly, as you yourself admit, the financial turmoil at present is a result of prevailing xenophobia which means the Brits haven't changed much since 70 years ago. Indeed Africa was held a colony long after India became independent. Where was the mass opposition in England to this? How do you justify the unjust enrichment via colonialism and now neocolonialism?

But anyway, this is highly OT and I don't want the two of us getting banned over this. I don't wish financial turmoil or natural disasters or any instability on any state in an era of highly inter-linked trade and commerce.
 
Last edited:
#45
Why single out the Brits, though? Conquest was the way of the world. The Spanish conquered 1/3 of the world. The French colonized on every continent. The Russians subjugated most of central Asia, all of Siberia, Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, etc. The Chinese subjugated millions, as did the Aztecs, Incas, Turks, Moors, etc., etc. Even the pre-colonized sub-continent of India... India is not and never has been a homogeneous state. Through the various historical kingdoms of India, you had minorities living under the boot of the ruling classes. Factor into that the Indian caste system...

Essentially, if you point a finger at Britain, you are doing so because they were better at it than anyone else. It's understandable that some around the world may harbor negative feelings toward the Brits, but we should probably resist pointing a finger from the modern age.
 
Last edited:
#46
Why single out the Brits, though? Conquest was the way of the world. The Spanish conquered 1/3 of the world. The French colonized on every continent. The Russians subjugated most of central Asia, all of Siberia, Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, etc. The Chinese subjugated millions, as did the Aztecs, Incas, Turks, Moors, etc., etc. Even the pre-colonialized sub-continent of India... India is not and never has been a homogeneous state. Through the various historical kingdoms of India, you had minorities living under the boot of the ruling classes. Factor into that the Indian caste system...

Essentially, if you point a finger at Britain, you are doing so because they were better at it than anyone else. It's understandable that some around the world may harbor negative feelings toward the Brits, but we should probably resist pointing a finger from the modern age.
Yes of course, there was a widespread belief that states had a right to go to war and a right of conquest. The difference was, India had never seen servitude such as the kind the British introduced. India before the advent of the Brits was an empire with many pockets of ruling classes. The wealth of the nation stayed in the nation. The Portuguese and French colonies in India were less dominant and also less abusive so there is correspondingly less resentment towards them.
I agree with you about the caste system which continues to plague the country till date. That however, doesn't offset the Crown's atrocities and the systematic, long-drawn plundering. Not least because Indians themselves were the forerunners of recognising and trying to eliminate the evils of the caste system.
 
#47
Yes of course, there was a widespread belief that states had a right to go to war and a right of conquest. The difference was, India had never seen servitude such as the kind the British introduced. India before the advent of the Brits was an empire with many pockets of ruling classes. The wealth of the nation stayed in the nation. The Portuguese and French colonies in India were less dominant and also less abusive so there is correspondingly less resentment towards them.
I agree with you about the caste system which continues to plague the country till date. That however, doesn't offset the Crown's atrocities and the systematic, long-drawn plundering. Not least because Indians themselves were the forerunners of recognising and trying to eliminate the evils of the caste system.
True.. Wishing Tsunami on Japan and getting a kick when British Financial Empire is taking a hit are two very different things.

The poster was well within his rights to express his resentment at over the two century long abuse India suffered at the hands of Britain.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#50
Probably the Scots are going to vote for independence at the next referendum, in their quest to join EU later. That means no slam for British men's tennis since Fred Perry. Again. LOL


Nope it means no such thing. You can't re-write history to fit into future realities. When he won Wimbledon, Murray was a British player and that record can never be altered. Ivan Lendl won most of his Slams as a Czechoslovak player. That can't alter just because Czechs and Slovaks are now different countries. If Scotland does become independent, Murray might opt for dual nationality anyway which means he will stay British and Scottish. But that will be a choice for him of course.
 
Top