Rally: How We Talk About Silence in Tennis

Bounces and Power Plays discuss the investigation into Elena Rybakina's coach and parallels to the new film "Julie Keeps Quiet."

Julie Keeps Quiet (L); Stefano Vukov and Elena Rybakina (R, Photo by Hameltion)

This is a collaborative cross-post conversation between Bounces, a new tennis-focused outlet by Ben Rothenberg, and Power Plays, a no-bullshit newsletter about sexism in sports by Lindsay Gibbs.

Ben and Lindsay, friends and colleagues for many years now, are joining forces to discuss both a new movie about suspicions of abuse at a tennis academy, Julie Keeps Quiet (which premiered at Cannes last year and will be released in the USA in early 2025), as well as the parallels in the unfolding, troubling saga of real-life women’s tennis star Elena Rybakina and her coach, Stefano Vukov.

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces:

Lindsay, when I first reached out about collaborating between Bounces and Power Plays around the film Julie Keeps Quiet, I didn’t think it would prove to be time sensitive for anything but the fast-approaching Oscar season.

Nominated by Belgium as its submission for the Best International Feature Award—and being distributed in North America by Naomi Osaka’s production company Hana Kuma—Julie Keeps Quiet is a fictional story about a talented 15-year-old player training at a tennis academy in her native Belgium, hoping to improve and to impress the Belgian national tennis federation. Julie Devriendt, the protagonist played by tennis player Tessa Van den Broeck in her first acting role who makes the tennis look more realistic than any tennis movie I’ve ever seen, is an impressive talent with clear potential, by far the standout prospect at her academy. But Julie’s bright hopes are clouded, persistently, by the shadow of an investigation into the man who has been her longtime coach, Jeremy. As the investigation into Jeremy opens and proceeds, Julie—persistently, resolutely, and faithfully to the title of the movie—keeps quiet. As glimpses into her story come into focus, Julie’s stubborn silence is alternately understandable, frustrating, and heartbreaking.

But then, in timing I hadn’t anticipated, life imitated art. Charlie Eccleshare and Matt Futterman of The Athletic reported last Thursday that there has indeed been an investigation by the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) into Stefano Vukov, the longtime coach of Elena Rybakina, and that Vukov has been provisionally suspended from being credentialed at tournaments, pending that investigation.

The Rybakina-Vukov situation is complex, with a lot we don’t yet know, and what we do know largely is in various fragments. So I wanted to start—as I often do at Bounces—with a timeline of events.

2019:

19-year-old Elena Rybakina hires 32-year-old coach Stefano Vukov, a Croatian whose own playing career did not advance past the Futures level, to be her first full-time coach as a professional on tour. Rybakina, who had previously been a stand-out junior player, soars up the WTA rankings, breaking into the WTA Top 100 and then Top 50 for the first time.

Early 2020:

Rybakina is one of the most dominant players at the start of the 2020 season, reaching finals at four tournaments (Shenzhen, Hobart, St. Petersburg, Dubai) before the Covid-19 pandemic abruptly interrupts the season.

June 2021:

Rybakina, who had struggled to regain her pre-pandemic form when the tour resumed, beats Serena Williams in the fourth round of the French Open, a victory that felt more emphatic than the 6-3, 7-5 scoreline. It’s the last match Serena ever plays at the French Open or in the second week of a major. Rybakina loses in the quarterfinals.

July 2022:

Seeded 17th, Rybakina makes an unanticipated run to the Wimbledon title, her first major title and the first for any player representing Kazakhstan. The field at Wimbledon that year was depleted by the tournament’s decision to ban Russian and Belarusian players; because Rybakina switched her official nationality from Russia to Kazakhstan four years earlier, she avoids the ban, and goes on to win the tournament, beating 2019 champion Simona Halep in the semifinals and Ons Jabeur in a three-set final.

Rybakina, who already had a reputation for showing very little emotion on court, reacts to her major title with unusual stoicism.

Because of the ban of Russian and Belarusian players, the WTA withheld all ranking points for Wimbledon, and thus Rybakina is not awarded any ranking points for her win—normally 2,000 points for a major title—and her ranking does not soar as it otherwise would have.

To commemorate the victory, Vukov follows through on a promise he said he made a year earlier, and gets a large tattoo on his right forearm.

2023:

After having a relatively quiet fall, and a deflating first-round exit at the 2022 U.S. Open, Rybakina consolidates her status as one of the top players on tour with a run to the Australian Open final, beating top-ranked Iga Swiatek in the fourth round before losing a three-set thriller to Aryna Sabalenka in the final, probably the best women’s final at a major this decade so far.

Rybakina avenges the loss to Sabalenka by winning Indian Wells, and further solidifies her position as one of the best players in the world with a run to the final of Miami and a title in Rome.

2024:

Rybakina remains one of the best players in tennis when healthy, which is increasingly rare. She struggles with injuries and illness throughout the season, withdrawing or retiring from Dubai, Indian Wells, Rome, Eastbourne, the Olympics, and Toronto. She also grows increasingly sullen and combative in her press conferences, particularly after a first round win at the French Open.

August 2024:

A few days before the U.S. Open begins, Rybakina abruptly announces the departure of her coach in an Instastory. “Hello Everyone, after 5 years, Stefano and I are no longer working together. I thank him for his work on-court and wish him all the best for the future. Thank you all for your support.”

After his sudden departure, rumors begin to spread about Vukov being banned. I ask the WTA for comment about Vukov possibly being banned—as well as his being quickly removed from a page on its website listing WTA coaches—and get this reply:

“As Elena has communicated, she and Stefano Vukov are no longer working together. The WTA is focused on Elena’s continued success and preparation for upcoming events. As far as the coaching page, the WTA routinely updates coach profiles on the website to reflect which WTA athletes they are coaching.”

When I ask for direct clarification about Vukov being banned or on a Do Not Credential list, the WTA does not reply.

After a first round win over Destanee Aiava, Rybakina withdraws before her second round match in New York. She does not play again until the WTA Finals in Riyadh in November.

November 2024:

In a pre-tournament press conference in Riyadh, Rybakina announces that Goran Ivanisevic, who had most recently worked with Novak Djokovic in his late-career dominance, will be her new coach.

Rybakina notches a win over top-ranked Sabalenka but loses her other two round-robin matches in Riyadh, ending her season. She begins training with Ivanisevic in Dubai in the off-season.

January 2025:

During her first tournament with Ivanisevic, the United Cup, Rybakina announces that Vukov will be rejoining her team.

“Hello everyone, I am excited to announce that Stefano will be joining the team for the 2025 season,” Rybakina wrote in an Instastory. “Thank you all for the support. And wishing you a great 2025.”

The news of Vukov’s return is met with strong disappointment by many in tennis, particularly Pam Shriver. “It’s time for our entire sport to finally stand up to known abuse and cult like manipulations of players,” Shriver tweeted. “This is a very sad situation and my prayers are with ER.”

Vukov tells Russian reporter Sofya Tartakova that there was “no ban.” The WTA, which had previously kept Vukov’s provisional ban and its inquiry into his possible wrongdoing confidential, breaks its silence and confirms to The Athletic that Vukov is under a provisional suspension, though it gives no further details about the accusations against him.

Rybakina, in a press conference at United Cup, says Vukov has “never mistreated me.”

Ivanisevic, her newly hired coach, tells Bounces that his status on the team is “day to day,” pending the results of the investigation. “I am, for the moment, here,” Ivanisevic told Bounces. “What's going to happen in a couple of days, I don't know. But for the moment, I am here. Hopefully I will stay, and hopefully everything is going to be OK.”

There’s a lot to sort through in this saga, Lindsay, and this remains a decidedly unresolved story. What stands out to you most about it at this point?

Lindsay Gibbs, Power Plays:

First off, let me start with the obvious: I hate absolutely everything about this. I have covered many types of abuse cases during my almost 15 years in sports journalism, though most of them have been cases of domestic violence or sexual abuse between intimate partners. By reporting on those cases and talking to many experts, I have learned that there is so much more grey area in abuse cases than we are often led to believe, and that’s often because the labels of “abuser” and “victim” can feel so all-encompassing.

It seems very clear that Rybakina does not view herself as a victim, and she does not view Vukov as an abuser. Via The Athletic, she might even defiantly push back on any punishment Vukov receives:

People who have been in direct contact with Rybakina, the 2023 finalist in Melbourne, have said it’s not clear what she will do if Vukov is not allowed to coach her. Possibilities include everything from acquiring tickets so that he can watch matches inside the stadium to boycotting the tournament and events on the WTA Tour.

Her stance makes talking about this extremely difficult. In the movie, Julie is only 15 years old. Julie’s silence, her inability to deal with any of the complex emotions she is feeling, her unwillingness to open up to the people around her even though they regularly reach out to her, is understandable. She is a child. This relationship with her coach is all she knows.

Rybakina, on the other hand, is 25 years old and has access to extensive financial resources. It feels almost patronizing and infantilizing to project our outside perception of her relationship with her coach onto her reality. Who are we to tell her how she is supposed to think and feel about the way she is coached? Doesn’t she have agency in all of this? It does make me uncomfortable.

But, of course, abuse dynamics are complicated, as are coaching dynamics, especially in an individual sport such as tennis, and especially when it’s an older male coach and a younger female athlete. Just because someone doesn’t see themselves as a victim does not mean that they aren’t being mistreated. Rybakina is an adult with money and agency right now, but it seems she began working with Vukov six years ago, when she was only 19 years old. He was the first full-time travelling coach she had with her on tour, and he helped her reach heights that few thought were possible, even winning Wimbledon in 2022. Being a tennis player is a very lonely existence, and it’s very common for a player’s team – coach, trainer, etc. – to become their de-facto family. She feels loyalty to and comfort with Vukov, but comfort and safety are not always synonyms. If chaos and mistreatment are all a person knows, it might be what they are drawn to. But again, I am projecting!

Unfortunately Rybakina’s quiet and stand-offish ways only serve to encourage said projections. She does not let the public in. She is stoic and aloof and almost painfully unaffected at times, on and off the court. In that way, even before the Vukov news broke this week, it was easy to see the similarities between Rybakina and the protagonist of the movie, Julie. The movie did a phenomenal job at really capturing how distant Julie felt from the world around her, and how her quiet demeanor impacted those in her orbit, leaving her classmates and fellow tennis players wondering if she was a snob and her parents and teachers wondering if she cared at all. Viewers could see how unmoored she felt when her coach was abruptly removed from her life for an investigation, and how she began to privately piece together the realities of their dynamic. But with him out of the picture, she slowly but surely began creating bonds with her peers, making friends, and having fun, and she even embraced the input from a new coach who was brought into the academy. She still wasn’t willing to talk, but because adults removed this presence from her life, her world began to expand and flourish.

Though we do not know for sure what has happened between Rybakina and Vukov, there was so much excitement when Rybakina hired Ivanisevic. So many in the tennis world were absolutely thrilled that she would get a fresh start, that maybe she recognized that there was another path to success, that she could find health and happiness to go along with her talent and drive. But, to go back to where I started, it’s never simple.

Ben, you have followed both the WTA and disciplinary decisions (or the lack thereof) from tennis tours much more closely than I have over the past couple of years. What exactly are the mechanisms of the rules/regulations that pertain to this investigation? Is there any precedent for suspending a coach over abuse? And what is the burden of proof required?

Ben Rothenberg, Bounces:

Let me start just by stating the sadly obvious: women’s tennis, unfortunately and infamously, has a long history of overbearing parents and coaches, dating back to its earliest days. Last month I spotlit the graphic novel Suzanne about 1920’s tennis superstar Suzanne Lenglen; even in that story from over 100 years ago, a harsh and exacting coach-slash-father was a central character.

There were more fraught stories over the years, most often involving fathers who coached their daughters, and intensifying as women’s tennis grew into by far the most lucrative women’s sport in the world. Most infamous among these overbearing and abusive figures is probably Jelena Dokic’s father, Damir; her harrowing story was the subject of a best-selling memoir in 2017, and more recently a documentary that came out in Australia a couple months ago.

I bring up this century-long history just to emphasize how recent some of the actions have been by the WTA to combat these issues. It wasn’t until 2022 that the WTA created a dedicated Director of Safeguarding position (you can read the listing for that job opening here). Seattle-based attorney Lindsay Brandon was ultimately hired for that role. Under Brandon’s auspices, the WTA created its new WTA Safeguarding Code, detailed in a 57-page document.

There have been coaches investigated and banned under previous frameworks before—almost always without becoming public knowledge due to the WTA’s strict confidentiality policies—but let’s focus on this new set of rules and the parts of that document that are relevant to this investigation into Vukov.

“Upon receipt of a Complaint by the Safeguarding Department, the Director of Safeguarding will determine if the alleged Misconduct falls under the jurisdiction of the Safeguarding Code or the WTA Rules Code of Conduct. If appropriate, the Director of Safeguarding will cause an Investigation to be undertaken. The Director of Safeguarding is authorized to determine whether the Investigation should be conducted by WTA Staff or by a third-party Investigation service…Factors that would be considered in whether or not a Complaint results in retention of a third-party Investigation service include (but are not limited to): the number of witnesses; the types of witnesses (i.e. WTA Staff); the seriousness of the allegations; and the number of allegations made.”

This tells us that there would have been a complaint made by someone to trigger the investigation into Vukov. We also know that this case fit the criteria to be handled outside the WTA, since the Vukov case is reportedly being handled by a third-party investigation service.

In some Cases, the Complainant may not necessarily be the Victim of an alleged Safeguarding Code offense. The Complainant may be a Third-Party Witness who is someone that has either witnessed an alleged Safeguarding Code Violation or has a reasonable belief that a Safeguarding Code Violation occurred. It is not uncommon for these individuals to request anonymity in the reporting and subsequent Investigation process. The WTA encourages anyone who has witnessed an alleged Safeguarding Code Violation to fully participate throughout the Investigation and subsequent resolution proceedings to ensure that all relevant evidence is provided and included throughout the Investigation and resolution process.

We don’t know who made the complaint against Vukov that triggered this investigation. It’s even possible it was Rybakina herself who made a complaint to the WTA at a time she felt differently about Vukov than how she currently professes. That’s another thing I think Julie Keeps Quiet showed well: problematic relationships are often processed in non-linear ways as a person’s understanding of the dynamic shifts and evolves.

Another thing I think the film depicts in a way that’s instructive for understanding real-world cases like this one is how even a critical mass of third party suspicion and concern really isn’t enough to solve an abusive situation if the alleged victim is not ready to address it herself. This was a challenge that WTA chief executive Steve Simon addressed in 2022 when discussing the new safeguarding initiative with The New York Times:

“One of the education pieces is: we need to help ourselves,” Simon said. “If you see it, you need to report it, so we can react to it versus just dealing with rumors. Because it’s such a sensitive topic, and it’s hard to get people to come forward.”

In the case of Rybakina and Vukov, many outside their relationship have been far from silent about it: there has been a chorus of concern from observers on tour—particularly former WTA players—for years now.

Rybakina’s status as a title contender during her run to the final of the 2023 Australian Open put a greater spotlight onto her during that tournament than ever before; that spotlight extended for the first time to her relationship with Vukov, who was shown frequently during her matches, often being visibly critical and negative.

There had already been an undercurrent of disapproval about Vukov and his treatment of Rybakina within women’s tennis insiders, but it began to spill out into the open during that tournament. Roberta Vinci said on an Italian broadcast that Rybakina should fire Vukov. Laura Robson, who was calling matches on the tournament’s official broadcast, frequently expressed disapproval: “I don't know how she deals with the coach, he seems to be so negative," Robson said.

Marion Bartoli went beyond the mid-match treatment others were citing and said she had seen Vukov treat Rybakina in ways she found unacceptable behind the scenes during her own time as a coach on the WTA Tour. “The way Rybakina’s coach is talking to Rybakina on the court is just not something I can accept. I just can’t take that any more,” Bartoli said. “I sincerely hope for her sake and for her to be able to continue that game that she will be able to find a coach that talks with respect to her no matter what the result is because she is really trying her hardest on the court. To see someone going hard at her in such a negative way—and I’ve seen that in the past myself, much more at events when I was with Jelena Ostapenko when she was playing those events as well, in some practice courts when there is no cameras—he is behaving in some ways I can’t accept.”

Pam Shriver tweeted: “As I watch Rybakina try to win her second major in 7 months, I hope she finds a coach who speaks and treats her with respect at ALL times and does not ever accept anything less.”

There was pushback against the criticism and scrutiny from expected corners: Rybakina’s fans, who took umbrage at suggestions she wasn’t handling her career correctly, and a few predominantly male figures in tennis, notably retired Russian ATP player and later WTA coach Dmitry Tursunov, who pushed back hard against Shriver’s assessment:

After the critical mass of criticism, a statement defending Vukov was posted to Rybakina’s Instagram account.

After a great AO, I have seen some disturbing comments on social media about the behaviour of my coach Stefano Vukov. I want to clarify any misinterpretations. Stefano has believed in me for many years, before anyone else did. We plotted a strategy together in how I could achieve great things and his method shows in my Grand Slam success so far. He is a passionate coach, with a lot of knowledge about tennis. Unlike people that are making these comments, he has great knowledge about me as a person and as an athlete. Those who know me well, will know that I would never accept a coach that didn’t respect me and all our hard work. I may be quiet on court and in general, but inside me is a competitive athlete that wants to achieve great things and Stefano has helped me greatly in this way. So please disregard any fake news to the contrary. #factcheckplease’

I immediately wondered upon seeing that—did Rybakina write that and choose to post that, or did Vukov do it himself? It was impossible to know. There is so much about their relationship that no one but the two of them could ever fully know or understand. This was evident in Julie Keeps Quiet as well; no one else seemed to know how much contact Julie and Jeremy still maintained even while Jeremy was under-investigation; closed doors and smartphones make it possible to live lives that even our closest friends and family can’t witness or comprehend.

One thing Rybakina did in both that 2023 statement and in her response this weekend was credit Vukov for her successes as a player—Tursunov even called Vukov “solely responsible” for them—which Julie also does with Jeremy. And so I wanted to ask you about that next, Lindsay: how much should be tolerated in the name of successful coaching, at least defining “successful” to mean winning? Across various sports there’s been a valorization of tyrannical coaches who win—Bobby Knight and Kim Mulkey come to mind from basketball most immediately for me—and some athletes are convinced that they need someone harsh to get the best out of themselves. Is that a preference we should abide, or a mindset we need to continually push back upon?

Lindsay Gibbs, Power Plays:

Wow. Okay. So, sorry this response is a little delayed. Reading Tursunov’s tweets, which I had somehow never seen before, made me so incredibly angry that I forgot how to function for a while. Of course everyone who makes it to the top of any sport has gotten a lot of help; but if you are singling out one person the most (or SOLELY) responsible for the success? IT IS THE ATHLETE WHO IS ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK.

Ahem. Anyways. Back to your question.

There is absolutely a line between tough coaching and abusive coaching, between discipline and disparagement, between critique and condemnation. But I agree that because bully coaches have been so revered throughout the history of sports, that line is blurrier than it should be.

So, to provide some clarity, I found this list of abusive coaching behavior by Canadian law firm Howie, Sacks, & Henry to be instructive:

• Emotional manipulation; undermining the athlete’s sense of self-worth

• Public humiliation; encouraging teammates to ostracize an athlete

• Frequent emotional outbursts and threats

• Physical aggression or intimidation; property damage

• Forced physical exertion; pushing an athlete past their mental or physical limits

• Denying access to water, food, or rest periods

• Physical or sexual assault

• Encouraging secrecy from parents or guardians

Howie, Sacks, & Henry also note that, “At its most basic, abuse is based on a power imbalance – the coach or trainer is a dominating force and the athlete feels powerless to push back or withdraw their consent (if they are even old enough to give it!). Abusive behavior is deliberate, prolonged and repeated – eventually the pattern of abuse can come to be seen as ‘normal.’”

The most important thing I take away from those definitions and examples? Abuse is intentional and has nothing to do with teaching or instructing; it’s about wielding power and control.

That sounds pretty straightforward, right? But here’s where the grey area comes into play: Abusers are incredibly effective at gaslighting victims into believing that their behavior is a normal, even positive, thing. Abuse typically occurs in private, meaning there are rarely witnesses and it can be incredibly difficult to prove. And just because a coach is abusive does not mean that they are abusive all the time or towards every athlete they coach. Multiple different athletes can have different experiences with the same coach, even teammates in team sports.

We saw this in Julie Keeps Quiet, how most of Julie’s peers had a very different relationship with Jeremy, who coached many tennis players at the academy, than Julie did. When news broke of Jeremy’s suspension and his former pupil’s death, most of Julie’s classmates were stunned because they didn’t have that experience with him. However, all attention was on Julie quickly because, as the most talented player at the academy, everyone knew that she had a closer relationship with Jeremy than anyone else. I thought one of the most impactful parts of the film was how viscerally Julie reacted when the academy’s new coach, Backie, singled her out during a group practice. Backie was just trying to show everyone what a successful kick serve looked like, but Julie was used to such attention being a harbinger for something else.

Going back to Rybakina, there are a few other things I think are worth mentioning. First, there’s the turmoil that surrounded her off of the court all last season, not just because of the scrutiny over Vukov, but also because of her regular withdrawals and retirements from tournaments due to a smattering of injuries and illness, such as bronchitis, gastrointestinal illness, insomnia, and back problems. Again, it’s easy to project, and fitness can be a flukey thing, but she just did not seem like she was surrounded by a healthy environment in 2024.

Secondly, I keep thinking back to the excitement surrounding her partnership with Ivanisevic, and how happy she looked last week at the United Cup. That made it so bizarre when she released her statement saying Vukov would be re-joining her team, and it's very troubling that Ivanisevic was reportedly “blindsided” by the announcement. Unlike most coaching-athlete relationships, tennis players are CEOs of their own career, and Rybakina is certainly welcome to construct her team however she sees fit; she doesn’t need Ivanisevic’s permission or anyone else’s. But the fact that she had only been with Ivanisevic for such a short period of time when she made the change and that she apparently did not consult Ivanisevic about the decision sets off alarm bells. Is that simply an immature, inconsiderate move from Rybakina? Is it a case of just having a hard time adjusting to a new voice? Or is something else going on? (It seems even stranger for there to be this tension and lack of communication considering both Ivanisevic and Vukov are countrymen, normally a bond in the small world of tennis.)

Finally, I just keep thinking about Rybakina’s talent. When she is healthy and playing, Rybakina is without a doubt one of the best tennis players in the entire world. There’s a reason people have tried to force a “Big Three” narrative with Rybakina, Aryna Sabalenka, and Iga Swiatek over the years; because she is a true rival to both of those giants, and I very much mean that in the present tense – she had a great win over Sabalenka two months ago at the WTA Finals, and even though she lost in straight sets, I am positive that her match against Swiatek at the United Cup last week, particularly the 72-minute first set, will be one of the best displays of tennis I see all season long. She is special. And honestly, the fact that a player of her caliber is (allegedly) wrapped up in this shows how insidious abuse can really be.

[Spoiler alert for Julie Keeps Quiet below]

In the film, Julie finally seems to find a willingness to participate in the disciplinary hearing against Jeremy after she finds out that he had been hired to work at another club, meaning her silence could have awful consequences for other young girls. (We never actually hear her speak though, a powerful directorial choice that I applaud, even if I found it frustrating.)

Coming forward can take time. Pam Shriver, now a leading voice in the fight against abusive coaches, only spoke out a couple of years ago, after her former coach, Don Candy, passed away. In fact, she had spoken glowingly about him in his 2020 obituary.

“Don was a huge part of that [success],” Shriver recalled. “For me to get that far, to do all I did during that run, I needed someone with a steady hand and who knew the ropes. Don did.”

Her full-time coach for 15 years, Candy always knew what to say to settle Shriver.

“He understood the competition, the travel and even the rain,” she said. “He handled rain delays lightly, without grinding. He told funny stories, over and over, putting a little spin on each. I remember passing those times laughing a lot.”

Shriver wasn’t lying in 2020, she just wasn’t ready to tell the full story; she later said she had waited to come forward until after Candy’s widow, Elaine, and her own mother, Margot, had passed away, in order to spare them from the truth.

I don’t know where we go from here, but I am glad that we are having these conversations out in the open right now, and that Pam Shriver’s bravery pushed the WTA to finally put some protocols in place to attempt to protect players from abusive coaches, even if they did come 50 years later than they should have. It’s a step in the right direction. Now, if Rybakina or any other WTA player ever does decide to speak up, there will be people in positions of power ready to listen.

Thank you for reading. You can subscribe to Ben’s work at Bounces here and subscribe to Lindsay’s work at Power Plays here.