Tennis Mailbag: How Elena Rybakina’s Coach Created a Conundrum for WTA

As it is written, Wednesday is mailbag day.

This week, we have some spillover from the 2026 Australian Open, as well as a look forward.

• Here’s my 50 parting thoughts column wrapping up the 2026 Australian Open.

• Here’s the latest Served episode, putting a final bow on the first major of 2026.

• The other day on social media, I linked this post from Glenn Greenwald on the WTA, and the suspension of Elena Rybakina’s coach, Stefano Vukov. I found his point worthwhile and reasoned, but disagreed. A few of you asked me why I disagreed and my response kicks off this mailbag.

• Keep former player Scott Davis in your thoughts.

• In non-tennis news: A top U.S. comedian factory is in … Amsterdam?

Onward …

The case involving Elena Rybakina’s coach

• Let’s start with Rybakina, her coach and the WTA, and why Glenn Greenwald and I have a (friendly) disagreement on the outcome.

One of the subtexts of Rybakina’s 2026 Australian Open victory: A year ago, her coach, Stefano Vukov, was suspended by the WTA for violating the Tour’s code of conduct. A year ago, he was not allowed on the grounds; this year, he holds the trophy. The Athletic handled this story quite well. Here’s a primer.

Here are some scattered points:

A) This is a delicate, nuanced situation. The lines between a player’s autonomy/agency and the WTA’s duty of care are nebulous. So is the essential nature of the WTA. Is it more a league and a body that makes its own rules? Or simply a construct that gives a group of independent contractors a way to compete against each other? In the absence of a union and collective bargaining, how far can it go in policing conduct? There are arguments to be made on all sides.

B) In this case specifically, there’s a good-faith discussion we can—and hope to—have here, just as Greenwald and I did over DM. Lawyers with whom I’ve conferred say this is a close call. The WTA took its time investigating. The fact that Vukov was suspended but then reinstated on appeal suggests the complexity of the case.

C) For years, there were informal complaints from observers about Vukov and his treatment of Rybakina. I recall one major singles match, several years ago, that involved Rybakina and a well-known opponent. Afterward, Rybakina’s opponent said to a small group of us, “Did you hear that [stuff] he was saying to her? That was crazy!” I know of at least two occasions where WTA personnel sat behind Vukov in the stands, monitoring his behavior. In 2023, Pam Shriver publicly implored Rybakina to find a new coach who treated her with more respect. The 2022 Wimbledon champion, Rybakina, appeared to be regressing, especially in ’24. She pulled out of tournaments for a variety of reasons and spoke about insomnia. None of this proves anything, but it’s important to note that concern had been bubbling for years.

D) In the summer of 2024, a Rybakina family member made a formal complaint to the WTA and its safeguarding division. Vukov was provisionally suspended while an investigation began. As part of the suspension—and this is critical—there was a no-contact order. This should have come as no surprise, as it is laid out in the WTA safeguarding and code of conduct that coaches sign.

E) The WTA had—and has—a legal duty to investigate complaints. Doing otherwise would be an act of negligence and expose it to liability. One might argue there is a moral duty. One might even argue that the WTA also has a fiduciary duty. It’s not good for business when the culture accommodates bad actors, when there are negative stories about a culture rife with abusive coaches and parents.

F) The WTA is, in effect, a work culture. The players may be independent contractors. But they don’t exist in a vacuum. An abusive coach directly impacts the player. But he—and the majority are men—may also impact the comfort level, and potentially, the safety of other players, other coaches, tour personnel, etc. (Aside: Recently, multiple sources tell me, the father of a player was reported to WTA safeguarding. The chief concern was for the player and her well-being. But there is also concern that this father is contaminating the culture, making others uncomfortable.)

G) It’s impossible to ignore the past. The WTA has a lamentable history of abuse—sexual, mental, verbal, even financial—at the hands of coaches and parents. A cursory Google search would reveal some names. There are other cases, known by many, that were never reported. A week before the Australian Open, local TV aired a documentary about Jelena Dokic. (Full disclosure: I was among those interviewed.) One of the takeaways from the documentary was that at the time of the abuse, everyone whispered; many suspected trauma; the player denied it at the time (understandably), given the consequences and the toxic dynamic. So many felt paralyzed when they could have done so much more.

H) Here, Vukov denied the abuse. So did Rybakina, which complicated matters. If the alleged victim in a partner violence case denies abuse—or even refuses to testify— it does not bar charges or end a criminal investigation. But it makes a prosecution much more difficult. Here, you had a series of witnesses—other players, other coaches, even, allegedly the player’s mother—effectively testifying against Vukov. But Rybakina stood firm behind her coach, the man who was also, per the WTA, a romantic partner.

I) You’ll remember that at last year’s Australian Open, Rybakina was coached by Goran Ivanišević and Davide Sanguinetti, but Vukov was allegedly in Melbourne. Ivanišević quit shortly thereafter. Last February, the WTA announced it had concluded its investigation and that Vukov would be suspended for a year.

J) Some of the WTA investigation’s findings were stronger than others. Vukov allegedly made Rybakina cry. He had harsh words for her. Which does not distinguish him from countless other coaches. But then there was this: While there was a no-contact directive between him and Rybakina while the investigation unfolded, he flooded her phone with more than 100 texts and calls and appeared at her hotel in New York, trying to win her back.

K) As I see it, this was the deal-breaker that supported the WTA’s decision: Put aside the specific allegations, Vukov violated the process. In the WTA safeguarding code that he had signed as a condition for working on the WTA, there is this clause:

F. INTERFERENCE WITH A WTA SAFEGUARDING INVESTIGATION OR OUTCOME A Covered Person may not, for any reason, interfere with a WTA Safeguarding Code Investigation, nor any subsequent resolution procedures determining the outcome of an Investigation.

In violating the non-contact directive, Vukov interfered with the safeguarding investigation. The WTA should and must enforce its own policies. And, at this point, the WTA had to impose a punishment.

L) During his provisional and actual suspension, Vukov continued traveling with Rybakina and shadow coaching her. By all accounts, Rybakina supported him throughout and did not change her stance.

M) The optics are problematic for the WTA. Yes, it had punished a coach whose behavior concerned and offended many. But it had acted inconsistently with the player/employer, an adult with agency and free will. The WTA essentially told Rybakina, “Our investigation and conclusions override your personal autonomy.”

In August, Vukov’s appeal was successful, and he was reinstated. Since then, he has resumed as her full-time coach. And her results are indisputable. Rybakina has said little, but when she won November’s WTA Finals in Riyadh and, conspicuously, declined to stand with WTA CEO Portia Archer, it did not go unnoticed.

N) This was messy and painful and maybe unsatisfying to all. But is it possible that the system worked as it should? There was a mechanism for filing a complaint. The WTA acted and used its investigative power. It made a decision that contradicted the player’s wishes, but was supported by evidence. (Again: If you sign a code of conduct, you abide by it. If there’s a no-contact directive between you and a player, you can’t disregard it and not expect consequences.) There was an avenue and a process for appeal. The coach returned to the fold, perhaps (one hopes) modifying some of the behavior some found concerning. The player’s game, objectively, improved. And she won her second major last week.

Aryna Sabalenka and Elena Rybakina played a thrilling three-set final at the Australian Open. | Erick W. Rasco/Sports Illustrated

Q&A

Curious your thoughts on [Craig] Tiley’s parting shot from AO saying he thinks women’s matches should be best of five from the quarterfinals on.

RS, Fla.

• This was Tiley’s cagey way of getting the USTA to withdraw its job offer. (Kidding.) Or his way of deflecting attention and throwing off the scent about his career decision. (Not kidding.)

But this seems like a misreading of the room. Players—not shy about voicing opinions (nor should they be) about everything from cameras to balls to scheduling—never agitate for this. Fans’ attention spans aren’t getting longer and there’s already too much tennis being played. I don’t know anyone who left the women’s final—which lasted 2 hours and 18 minutes—feeling cheated.

If all matches, men’s and women’s, were best-of-three in Week 1, and best-of-five from the quarterfinals on, maybe we’re on to something. But for all the ways tennis can improve to maximize player health, fan experience, broadcast quality, etc., I’m not sure longer women’s matches make my top 100 list.

The Australian Open has been tremendously successful, I believe, but I am not at all sure this was due to the level of the tennis. Up to the quarterfinals, some may say semifinals, there was little excitement. All were awaiting the [Aryna] Sabalenka/[Iga] Świątek and [Carlos] Alcaraz/[Jannik] Sinner finals. [Novak] Djokovic snuck through with a w/o and retirement but totally went away after a very good first set. No one really stands out for me except perhaps Rybakina, but that was no big surprise either. Craig Tiley jazzed the whole thing up with the “entertainment” as a way to make more money out of it. For serious tennis fans, the ridiculous cost is prohibitive.

Regards, Peter French

• Two different issues.

A) You “jazz up” an event as a hedge against meh matches and star-deprived fields.

B) You’re right. Tennis needs to be more creative in ensuring the sport is not cost-prohibitive for true fans.

50 items and not one mentioning Stan Wawrinka?

Sincerely, Multiple readers

• I love Stan. You love Stan. Most fans love Stan. But, A) I feel like we mention him plenty around here. B) He got a wild card, won two rounds against players outside the top 100 and then lost to Taylor Fritz, who then lost his next match. Not exactly Jimmy Connors at the 1991 U.S. Open here.

Hi Jon; As an over the hill tennis fan, it pleased me to see Stan Wawrinka and Venus Williams get lots of fan support and media attention at the Australian Open. And how about some love for 41-year old Vera Zvonareva? In her first appearance at a major in nearly two years, she made it to the semifinals in women’s doubles with partner Ena Shibahara.

Ted Cornwell, Minneapolis

• All hail Vera Zvonareva. In 2010, she pulled an Amanda Anisimova, advancing to the finals of Wimbledon and the U.S. Open back-to-back. Sixteen years later, at 41, she’s still chopping.

What did you think of the treatment [Alexander] Zverev got? Or make that, the treatment Alcaraz got to get treatment on his legs when he was cramping. The broadcasters were going mad and they were right.

Andy C., Sydney

• To be clear, there are different rules for cramps compared to a conventional injury. The rationale is that injuries merit treatment. Cramps are temporary and a function of (perhaps deficient) conditioning, so it would be unfair to the opponent to stop play for addressing and redressing them. And Alcaraz should, technically, not have benefited.

I say this in no way to condemn, but rather to point out a fact: Assuming the “broadcasters” you reference were Lleyton Hewitt and Jim Courier, they were two of the fittest players of their days and might have had particularly strong opinions on cramping policies, given their peak conditioning. But yes, the letter of the rule was violated here.

Jon:
Your note on climate reckoning is an important one. With that said, is the Australian Open discussing solutions? Is moving the event to April or May an option?

Respectfully,
Jay Zavislak

• There are no plans to move the calendar. But, the tournament should build more covered courts, provide more shaded stands and start matches later in the day.

Love listening to you and Andy on Served. How about a shout out to Milos Raonic on his recent retirement? Of the current players, Matteo Berrettini reminds me a lot of Raonic. What do you think of the comparison? Both are 6' 5" righthanders, with big, flat serves and powerful forehands who peaked in the top 10 (Raonic at No. 3, Berrettini at No. 6), both made Wimbledon finals (with Raonic losing to [Andy] Murray and Berrettini losing to Djokovic), both made two other majors semifinals and both, unfortunately, had their careers hampered a lot by injuries.

Andrew Lachow

• Very good. I could nitpick a few differences, but that’s an excellent comp. The serve. The one Wimbledon final. The dangerous-but-are-they-healthy cut-and-paste. I would add this: Both play a vital lineage, see-it-to-be-it role. Berrettini crawled, so Sinner (and Lorenzo Musetti and Flavio Cobolli) could run. Milos crawled so Félix Auger-Aliassime, Denis Shapovalov, Leylah Fernandez, Bianca Andreescu and Victoria Mboko could walk.

I’ve been enjoying this AO very much. So much great tennis and fabulous coverage. I can see you’re working very hard (although, I can’t imagine that having to talk to Martina every day is really that difficult). Keep up the good work.

I fully recognize this is a perpetual conversation at the Grand Slams. Sponsors buy seats and then don’t fill them. That said, for the Australian Open (which has the brand of being a fan-centric experience with 100,000 attendees a day) to have so many visibility empty seats for a marquee match is frankly, ludicrous. What are the variables that make finding a solution to this problem so difficult?

Jenny C

• Talking to Martina Navratilova every day was indeed a joy. Sometimes we even made it about tennis.

This is not unique to tennis, but it is a problem at most majors. You have committed tennis fans snaking around back courts, hoping to get in. And the prime seats behind the baseline—the ones featured in every rally—go unfilled. It’s a terrible look. “Ludicrous,” your word, fits. It supports the (lame) trope that tennis is for the elite, canapé-eating crowd. It’s insulting to the players. Especially in this age of dynamic pricing and AI-modeling, this shouldn’t be a hard fix.

The track record of Terry and Kim Pegula as team owners may be suspect, but as parents they seem to have done a great job. I’m always so impressed at how down-to-earth and gritty Jessica Pegula is despite her profound wealth. Clearly she’s not grinding Ferrer-like for the money so, kudos to mom and dad for raising a kid with a great work ethic and humility. That’s what we call shepping naches!

Neil Grammer, Toronto

• Let’s table the discussion of the Bills, though I would argue that, on balance, it is a well-run franchise. (I can’t speak to the Sabres.) But your point is well-taken. Is there a cooler, more measured and reasonable professional than Pegula? Pet theory: The Pegula family wealth is an easy talking point, but it’s lazy and icky. You want real insight? Look at her tennis career. When you spend the first half of your career grinding—she failed to qualify for 12 major main draws from 2011 to ’18—with sinuous results, you bring a certain perspective. And when you spend the first half of your career making your own travel arrangements and hotel reservations, you bring a certain self-possession, self-sufficiency and problem-solving to the job.

Alexandra Eala fell to Alycia Parks in the first round of the Australian Open. | Mike Frey-Imagn Images

Hi Jon,

Did you notice the massive numbers of Filipino fans flocking to the Australian Open to watch Alexandra Eala?

I could not believe Craig Tiley scheduled her match against Alycia Parks on a small outside court and then repeated the mistake the following day with her doubles match.

So many Eala fans were denied the chance to see her. Lines snaking around the precinct as her fans waited in vain trying to find a seat were proof of that. (The health and safety concerns that causes is worth a separate discussion.) He could have even moved her matches on the day to cater for demand. I believe Eala’s fans love her so much that they will return next year, but surely they would have been upset with the AO over the scheduling of Alexandra. And rightfully so. Alexandra deserved better as well, such is the interest she creates in the sport.

Regards
Russell, Melbourne

• A) You are right.

B) At Bounces, Ben Rothenberg has been all over this. He makes a credible case that, based on metrics, Eala might be the most popular player in tennis.

C) Last year, on the eve of the U.S. Open, I did a bit for Tennis Channel, going out for pizza with Alexandra Eala. She was lovely. We ate well. This was not exactly a hard-hitting, elaborate feature. I gather it ended up among the most-watched pieces of Tennis Channel digital content last year. Why? Because it got into the Filipino online slipstream.

D) You’re right that the scheduling of Eala was woefully inadequate. Imagine coming from the Philippines to watch this athlete—I’m told the most prominent sports figure since Manny Pacquiao—and having to wait outside the court. Especially for a major that (grandiosely) boasts that it’s the major of Asia-Pacific, this was a whiff.

E) I am determined not to become the old man back-in-my-day storyteller. But I started my career in tennis around the same time as the Anna Kournikova mania. That is, a player whose appeal and popularity outstripped her tennis results. The reasons for the imbalance are different here. So is the player’s willingness to engage in the mania. (Eala lost in the first round and still must have posed for 100 selfies.) But tennis would do well to lean into this. Scheduling players solely based on their ranking and achievements is naive.

A miscellaneous note

• As many of you noted, there were some changes to the ESPN crew. Brad Gilbert, Pam Shriver, Darren Cahill, Rennae Stubbs and Cliff Drysdale were missed. The new members of the roster filled in capably. These are friends and colleagues, so I’m reluctant to say much more. But, A) happily, each still has a significant role in tennis. B) Look at the longevity of broadcast teams (and the general mechanical bull ride that is modern media), and perhaps the real story here is the remarkable run of people like Shriver and Gilbert, not their unfortunate departures. C) Look at any ESPN show over the past 10 or 20 years (including the Monday Night Football rotation and even the gold standard College GameDay) and you won’t find nearly the consistency you had/have in tennis.

The case involving Elena Rybakina’s coach

Q&A

A miscellaneous note

More Tennis on Sports Illustrated