For all the good in millennials, it has become apparent that one of their nicer tendencies to shine a light on the power of privilege contains a dark underbelly.

Women’s tennis professional Maria Sharapova recently tested positive for meldonium, a substance that was made illegal by the World Anti-Doping Agency — the foundation that decides the legality of drug use for Olympic athletes — earlier this year. What has followed is immense public criticism of Sharapova, including Nike suspending its contract with her and the United Nations suspending her as a goodwill ambassador just last week. But it is the general reaction from many think pieces that is as cruel as it is self-serving and has been a sad revelation.

Millennial masses have worked hard to make sure the underprivileged and stigmatized finally get their due. But this has too often led to unfair attacks and this time, Sharapova has become a victim in a way that reveals the ways in which critics are abusing her identity for their own agenda.

It is clear that Sharapova has always received a type of resistance. And while many of those who have written on her may have good intentions, the attacks on Sharapova — at their core — are primarily sexist, ethnocentric and based in beauty standards. What has followed is the too common phenomenon where the public pigeonholes an athlete into an archetype and attempts to take merit away from the individual’s actual accomplishments.

Studies have shown that, in general, it is easier to be successful if you are perceived as attractive and by consensus, there are few athletes more conventionally attractive than Sharapova: People named her one of the most beautiful celebrities in the world in 2005, she posed in 2006 in Sports Illustrated and has consistently been named by magazines like Maxim as one of “hottest” athletes in the world.

But rather than this just being a side note to her professional career, her beauty has consistently undermined her career achievements. Many have clamored that Sharapova must only be as successful as she is because of the ways in which her looks augment marketability.

“Sports like tennis rely heavily on famous players playing well — and winning — and that is what drives ratings, tournament attendance and endorsement contracts that further illuminate their sport,” said Rick Burton, a David B. Falk endowed professor of sport management at Syracuse University, in an email.

Critics have used Sharapova’s popularity to illustrate their points by placing her in a rivalry with fellow women’s tennis great, Serena Williams. Some writers wish to show institutionalized racism toward Williams and the black community, which there undoubtedly is. A quick look through the history of adversity Williams has faced at various matches proves this.

But Sharapova’s only crime before the drug controversy is being born with looks the majority of people find very appealing and the marketability that goes with it despite being one of the greatest to ever play the sport: Maria Sharapova is only one of ten women’s tennis players to have a career grand slam and the only Russian — male or female — to even have one. She has totaled 21 weeks at the number one spot over the course of her career and was named one of the 100 greatest tennis players of all time by the Tennis Channel in 2012.

Maria Sharapova is clearly skilled at tennis, but her whole career there has been at least one better.

The rivalry between Sharapova and Williams is one of those historic rivalries that is as famous as it is one-sided. In head-to-head matches, Serena leads 19-2 and while Sharapova has won five grand slam singles, Serena has won 21. But articles continue to argue that Sharapova should be considered at least equal, despite that virtually no one who follows tennis holds this opinion.

Williams is not only the most popular women’s tennis player, but possibly the most popular women’s athlete in the world. And yet people continue to tiptoe around this and claim there is a media bias toward Sharapova. In this way, she, and Williams, are tools to the public. The viewing of the on-court rivalry has given way to a viewing of a rivalries of their personas.

“(Sharapova and Williams) have regularly played against each other for the last 10 years,” Burton said. “And their achievements, like those of many other (professional) tennis players before them, shape a natural expectation that for one to win, the other (must) lose.”

These attacks must stop. They’ve already taken an uglier turn, with the bias toward Sharapova extending to Russians, implying “those people” cheat. To paint Sharapova as the stereotypical beautiful Russian woman is no worse than calling Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton a thug just because he is an expressive black man against the quintessential “plain” white athlete of a Peyton Manning.

We demand nothing but perfection from our sports stars and yet seem to hate them when they achieve it. Millennials have arguably worked tirelessly to help fight racism and sexism, but when they fight fire with fire, everyone loses.

Sharapova has broken the rules, but that should not transform her from a person into rhetorical tool.

Mark DiBona is a senior television, radio and film major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mdibona@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @NoPartyNoDisco.

Published on March 24, 2016 at 2:24 am