Fashion's biggest night had some of the sports world's biggest stars in attendance on Monday night at the Met Gala.
Sports standouts ranging from the NFL to tennis to Formula 1 walked the carpet in their custom outfits all interpreting the theme "Sleeping Beauties: Reawakening Fashion" in different ways.
Tennis legends Serena and Venus Williams returned to the Met Gala. At last year's Met, Serena famously announced her second pregnancy with husband Alexis Ohanian during a carpet interview.
Take a look at all the athletes that went to the 2024 Met Gala.
Serena Williams
The 23-time Grand Slam champion wore a custom gold Balenciaga dress that many deemed a "going for gold" theme to commemorate her legendary tennis career.
The five-time Wimbledon champion also wore a shining dress, but with hers more on the silver side. Her custom Marc Jacobs dress was reflective like a disco ball, but with a sheer first layer.
Lewis Hamilton
The Formula 1 driver, who's known for his fashion sense, wore a significant outfit on the carpet. His custom Burberry suit was made in honor of one of Britain's first Black gardners, John Ystumllyn. An excerpt from Alex Wharton's 'The Gardener' poem was embroidered into the inside of his suit jacket.
The Chicago Sky rookie became the first WNBA rookie to walk the Met Gala carpet on Monday, and it was fitting that she flew from practice that morning to make it to the New York City event at night. It was also Reese's 22nd birthday as she walked in her 16Arlington by Marco Capaldo seafoam colored dress.
Training camp in the morning, Met Gala at night, preseason game tomorrow.
The Brooklyn Nets guard wowed fans with his Thom Browne suit. The black sparkly suit with a plaid design at the top wasn't complete without the briefcase with a giant clock on it. This piece fit more into the "Garden of Time" theme.
LPGA star Korda, who won five consecutive tournaments already this year, took a break ahead of this month's U.S. Women's Open to attend the Met Gala in an Oscar de la Renta gown. Her dress included red flowers with green leaves.
The new Miami Dolphins receiver wore an embroidered suit jacket with flowers and birds on it from Bode. His pants continued some of the design from the jacket as well.
Dwyane Wade
The retired NBA star walked the carpet with his wife, actress Gabrielle Union. Wade wore a lilac colored Versace suit completed with a plain white T-shirt and black shoes, while Union gave off mermaid vibes with her Michael Kors dress.
Hitting a tennis ball against a wall tends to get old in roughly the time it will take to read this sentence. Canadian doubles, or two-against-one, is the last refuge of the desperate, a configuration that leaves no player fully satisfied. Tennis has doubles; not throuples. This is a sport of even numbers, of symmetry. It has a particular aversion to the number three.
This geometry is thrown into sharp—and often uncomfortable—relief in the film Challengers, which opened on Friday.
This is a … well … let’s stop here for definitional discussion. The movie features plenty of tennis and competition but is way too complex (and sexual) to be considered a traditional “sports film” on the order of, say Hoosiers or even Bull Durham. It’s mordantly funny at times; but too dark (and sexual) for the designation of comedy. It can’t be considered a thriller, so long as it (spoiler) has a lame, cop-out of an ending—one of the film’s few flagrant unforced errors.
But not unlike a tennis match—and roughly the same duration—Challengers is filled with tension, clean winners and unpredictable plot twists. Directed by Luca Guadagnino of Call Me By Your Name, it uses clever chronology and structure to tell the triangulated story of Tashi Duncan (Zendaya), Art Donaldson (Mike Faist) and Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor). In all combinations and permutations, they kind of love each other and kind of hate each other. Depends on when you’re doing the status update.
It’s also a proverbial big swing for Zendaya. She’s 27 now, no longer “the girl from Euphoria.” In this role, arguably her first truly leading one, she makes a choice, playing a prodigy-turned-coach … of her husband. (Imagine if Lady Macbeth had once played the Wimbledon juniors.) She bubbles with self-confidence in this role, and it says a great deal about her self-regard (in the best way possible) as an actor that she would take a chance with a complicated role like this.
A word to parents considering taking their preadolescent son or daughter to see Zendaya in the sugary new tennis film: don’t. We mentioned the sex, yes? We also mentioned the bailout ending, right?
But, otherwise, there is plenty to recommend. Not least the tennis. If the three principals aren’t confused for pros based on their strokes, they nail their respective roles—especially the tennis nuances. The walk. The talk. The body language. The sport’s sadistic trait of twinning happiness with results. We also get the niceties of junior tennis, challenger-level tennis and even college tennis. (As Laura Robson was first to note, there’s even a nod to the Applebee’s scene at the Cincinnati event.)
Ahead of the release, flanked (foreshadowingly!) by her two male castmates, Zendaya spoke with Sports Illustrated. Some outtakes, edited lightly for brevity and clarity …
Mike Faist, Zendaya and Josh O'Connor in 'Challengers'.
Niko Tavernise/Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures
Sports Illustrated: How are we defining this movie? This is not your conventional sports movie …
Zendaya: The truth is, there is no answer to that question, which I think is what drew all of us to it. I think it's not quite a tennis film. It's not quite a sports film.
But it has tennis in it. I wouldn't say a romantic comedy, although there is romance and it's funny. I wouldn't say that it's entirely a drama, but there are dramatic moments. So I think that's the beauty of it —it really can't be defined or categorized as any one thing. Just as I think the characters can't be defined or categorized. It's all just a complicated, beautiful mess.
SI: What sort of tennis background/knowledge/preconceived notions did you bring to this?
Zendaya: I did not have much of a tennis background. I mean, I joke: when I was little, I did like tennis camp with my grandma, when I was like seven. Retained nothing from that because I was just a kid, and we didn't really learn much.
But I really am grateful to this film for introducing me to the world of tennis. It is so special. I think honestly getting to understand the psychology of it as well—I think it's an incredibly lonely sport—and I can't imagine the pressure and the demand to always be at the top.
Mike [Faist] brought this up the other day. He was speaking about how in our industry, there is no literal ranking. To think that you're like on a number system of how good you are is, is terrifying, you know? I can't imagine that kind of physical demand and mental demand. I have grown to absolutely adore the sport and really respect the game and those who play it, a newfound respect and understanding for it. Once you pick up a racket and you're like, Oh, I can do that. And then you get out there and you can't, I'm telling you right now: You. Cannot. When that ball is coming a hundred and something miles at your face, it's not happening. I now think that tennis is one of my favorite sports to watch.
SI: When you see this sport up close in person, what are you appreciating, picking up on, noticing that you may have been lost on you before you did this film?
Josh O’Connor: I went to Wimbledon [in 2022] … I saw [Rafael] Nadal win. And I really felt the loneliness, which we kind of like explored when we were making the film. We were on Centre Court and looking down on Rafa, and he just looks so small and just so isolated. And Wimbledon particularly because it's so quiet.
SI: You guys each get to play doubles with one tennis player. Who are you picking?
Zendaya: Serena. Serena. Yeah, because then I could just, I'd be like, ‘You got it, sis, I'm with you.’
Mike Faist: I think all of us would end up being, like, the ball people, you know what I mean? … I would choose Nadal because he seems like he's really funny.
JO: Actually [Roger] Federer's pretty funny too. I really love [Nick] Kyrgios. I'd love to see Kyrgios causing havoc. I'd love to be on the court while he's doing that.
Zendaya: Stressful.
JO: Yeah, I would be like, ‘Oh, he doesn't mean it … that's a joke he does.’
SI: You mentioned how solitary tennis is. Is it strange: film is so collaborative and yet you're playing roles that are so solitary?
Zendaya: Maybe to go against that, I think these characters, their main problem is they can't be by themselves. They can't be alone. Everything in their existence is dependent upon someone else's existence. Like, something else someone has that they don't have. My character can't play tennis. So now, it's all on someone else and they’re pushing their passion on someone else, wanting something out of life that you can't have on your own.
And so, if anything, I think it's incredibly codependent. And, you know, tennis, while isolating is also—you can see when two incredible people who are great at what they do are just in a zone together, right? When you see a beautiful rally it’s like you can't play tennis by yourself.There has to be somebody else on the other side giving you that back. And, um. I think in many ways, that's what [the cast] is constantly doing with each other. Sometimes it's aggravating and frustrating and there's anger on the other side. And then sometimes there's just pure joy and appreciation.
Welcome and welcome back. We just crossed into May and already it’s been quite a year at Sports Illustrated. Happily, we seem to have landed softly in the hands of a responsible and ethical new steward. In tennis terms, we’ve gotten a reset.
SI lives.
The mailbag lives.
• Thanks for your assorted comments, questions and concerns during an uncertain period for the enterprise.
• A few of you asked: you can send questions via social media or the old school email: [email protected].
• If you want the mailbag link sent directly to your inbox, we can make that happen. Just email your address.
• Andy Roddick and I are having a lot of fun with Served. Your comments, suggestions, observations, objections to the cursing, and objections to the bleeping are welcome. Here’s the latest podcast episode.
• Comedy Central had a go at the tennis vs. pickleball war. (Takeaway: who knew Patrick McEnroe had this level of comedy chops?)
Onward …
Let’s start with a toast. The ghoul pool is awfully deep these days. Rafa, Andy, Stanislas, Venus. Gael … the players whose career obits are being written in advance right now, who are unlikely to finish 2024? They are sufficiently well known that no surnames are required. Then, last week, another future Hall of Famer called it a career. Already on hiatus, Garbiñe Muguruza announced that she was tapping out.
First, let’s dispense with the Hall of Fame talk. She’s in. It’s not a close call. No challenges to the chair, please. We can debate the Hall’s precedents and standards for admission. But given the state of play, Muguruza qualifies. Multiple majors. Other deep runs at majors. A stint in the rankings penthouse. As we’ve written before, prize money—normed for present value—tends to be a good indicator of success. Her $25 million speaks volumes.
There comes a point in any discussion when we must trot out two of our favorite tennis factoids/quirks. And it is this: Muguruza won 10 career titles. Eight came on hard courts. The others? Wimbledon and Roland Garros—of course, the two biggest events not played on hard courts. The other: she beat both Serena and Venus Williams in the two major finals she won. (Nerding out: she hit a match point ball on the line to beat Serena; on match point against Venus, she won a challenge.)
Garbine Muguruza of Spain hits to Petra Kvitova of Czech Republic.
Danielle Parhizkaran-USA TODAY Sports
The retirement announcement was, at once, surprising—she’s only 30; she’s only a few years from winning the WTA Finals; she is/was an athletic player who could heat up as fast as she could cool off—and not at all surprising. She had spoken openly about the lack of fulfillment the sport had brought her recently. (Less openly, it must be noted that a former coach bleached some of her joy from the sport.) This was a player who, you suspected, had achieved enough for her liking and was looking forward to pivoting to a more conventional life. Good on her.
Another omnibus … We’ve gotten a lot of questions/takes/quests for clarity on the great tennis rivalry of 2024: CEO of Tennis Australia Craig Tiley versus ATP chairman Andrea Gaudenzi … the Premier Tour versus what I am calling “Tours Marry—and the Saudis fund the reception and honeymoon.”
All signs suggest that starting in 2026, pro tennis will look considerably different. The question is how so? And who is happier at the handshake?
This is a fluid story, but here are some quick points:
A. The Masters 1000s hold most of the cards. Will they decide to break free of the tours and partner with the majors? Or will they elect to stick with the tour format?
B. If the Premier Tour prevails, what happens to the tours? And what happens to the 100-plus events that will, effectively, be downgraded? What happens to the players outside the 100? (Conversely: What happens when the majors take the unusual step of banding together, creating an alternative entity to kneecap the tours … and don’t prevail?)
C. At some level, we ought to applaud the Premier Tour’s boldness. For decades everyone has complained about tennis’s verkakte structure and governance and balkanization. The Premier Tour addresses this head-on. “We are shaking this s--- up!” …. But the more one pokes, the more holes emerge. The generously compensated consultants may have helped with PowerPoints and impressive financial projections. But there are still so many unanswered (or insufficiently answered) questions that come trailing inconveniently, like toilet paper stuck to a shoe. This plan was clearly conceived first as defense (Tiley insistent on keeping his Aussie January intact). Then it became offense (the majors form an alliance and put their hip-high boots on the necks of the tours). But so many details were glossed over or ignored altogether.
D. Though Tiley was in Madrid, right now it’s advantage, Gaudenzi. But he (and the ATP) has a real problem. Where to put the Saudi 1000 event, on which so much financing is conditioned? How does he repair the damage with the Dubai and Doha events, who wonder, not unreasonably, Wait, I’ve been paying dues here since the 90s. And the Saudis jump the line? Where’s the loyalty? Putting the Saudi event in Week 1 is an act of war against Tiley and Tennis Australia.
E. We were told that the “open bid” for the 1000 event only yielded two takers: Saudi Arabia and Dubai. (Neither Doha nor Tennis Australia submitted.) The Saudi bid was higher. Where would a Saudi Masters 1000 go on the clogged artery that is the calendar? (There are only two real choices: the first week of the year and sandwiched between the French Open and Wimbledon—which is impractical.)
F. Rare tennis consensus: mixed events are the way to go. Two-week mixed events are too long. If this can be addressed in the process, great.
G. Where are the players? We seem to be proceeding on the assumption that, like Willie Sutton, they will go where the money is. But given not only the tremors but the vast range of outcomes, it’s remarkable to me that we are not hearing more … objections, support, lobbying, questions and concerns from, you know, the folks most immediately impacted.
H. When does the WTA announce its new CEO? We hear it’s are down to two candidates. But given that Steve Simon relinquished his CEO position in December (he shrewdly, remains chairman) it’s been a long succession period.
I. CVC has already won. Private equity (almost) always wins.
The men's final trophy at Roland Garros.
Susan Mullane-USA TODAY Sports
Jon, I have noticed you and others referring to the French Open more and more as Roland Garros? Am I imagining this? If not, when did this become a thing?
Jess, NY
• You are not imagining. I would say maybe five years ago word came down that the preferred nomenclature was Roland Garros. Not sure why. You imagine the hommes and femmes gathered in the marketing meeting. We can refer to this event as a national title, the way two other majors do. Or we can start using the name of the obscure World War I pilot—who had nothing to do with tennis and died more than 100 years ago.
We’ll take porte numero deux!
Part of me feels icky being co-opted into this marketing strategy. But, ultimately, I feel about this, the way I do people who get honorary degrees and thereafter insist on being called “doctor.” That is, “Your name, your choice. If that’s what you prefer to be called, why would I not try and oblige?”
Have you seen the film Challengers? If so, should I?
Mark P., UK
• I got an advanced screening in New York way back when. I’ll have a review and conversation with Zendaya later this week. There’s a lot to recommend here. I commend the risk-taking—by the director, by the screenwriter, by Zendaya in one of her first leading roles. With the exception of a few pedantic nitpicks, they nail the tennis. If not the ball striking, then the rhythm, body language and levels of the game. Laura Robson was quick to note they even nod to the Applebee’s scene in Cincinnati.
My one sweeping caveat: this is not a sugary protagonist-overcomes-obstacles-and-wins-in-the-third act sports film. Heed the “R” rating. The director, Luca Guadagnino, is the guy who made Call Me By Your Name. It’s possible this film has a higher volume of suggestive content. Know that going in. Leave the kids home. But this is real cinema. And well worth your 130 minutes. All the more so if you like tennis. But even that is not a prerequisite.
What does “good people” have to do with anything?
Name withheld
• This was in reference to Muguruza, and the suggestion her Hall of Fame credentials—already airtight—benefit from her disposition. “Good people” is:
A) Obviously, somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
B) Subjective.
C) Unquantifiable.
But a Hall of Fame takes inventory of a sporting career. And, along with wins, losses and titles, I would argue that good—not perfect, but good—citizenship is a necessary requirement. Tennis is hardly alone here, but it has had to confront players who qualified based on numbers but whose conduct made them unworthy. I would vote for Maria Sharapova, but I know others who find an athlete’s doping suspension to be disqualifying.
In Muguruza’s case, she’s in with the track record. And her comportment—her professionalism, the way she went about the job—only adds sheen to her candidacy.
Is it just me or does almost nobody care about HoF outside of the US, players excluded...its just not something that gets a mention at all here in Aus anyway.
• Respectfully, it’s you. Maybe a decade ago, I would have agreed with you. But no more. Short of big news events—Serena Williams retiring, a Novak Djokovic-gets-deported level controversy—no topic gets more attention from readers, everywhere. Last week I visited Simona Halep in Romania. She wondered to me how her doping suspension might impact her Hall of Fame candidacy. I know one player who won a major, played in the final of another, and part of the disappointment in losing stemmed from the fact that her Hall of Fame status would not be automatic.
I asked Kim Clijsters about this when she was being inducted in 2017. Paraphrasing, when she met her husband she asked him to explain the sports Hall of Fame and why Americans are so obsessed. By the time she retired, she grasped it. She is now a HoF executive. It’s as good a metaphor as any.
Shots:
We talk sometimes about total disruptors. Is there a completely different approach to tennis that could, materially, change the way the sport is practiced and played? A Fosbury flop? A knuckleball? An Ohtani? Randy Walker offers this:
Brian Battistone, playing first round doubles at the @VeroFutures, hitting volleyball style first serve followed by traditional style second serve… but left-handed! (Note Brian is playing with only a single-handled racket, for those who know) pic.twitter.com/3ANynRRs0x
Luminaries from the world of tennis, celebrity tennis fans, philanthropists and supporters will celebrate the impactful work of the Harlem Junior Tennis & Education Program (HJTEP) at the HJTEP 52nd Annual Gala on May 13 at the Ziegfeld Ballroom in New York City. Tickets for the gala are available at www.HJTEP.org or [email protected].
Tickets to each of the 16 individual sessions of the Cincinnati Open are available for purchase at cincinnatiopen.com. The 2024 tournament will begin on Aug. 11 and will conclude on Aug. 19 at the Lindner Family Tennis Center. Single session tickets include a seat at Center Court for all matches taking place during a session.
