The 2018 U.S. Open women’s final between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka should have been a historic moment — a young star defeating the greatest to ever play. Yet the conversation quickly shifted from Osaka’s triumph to controversy, as Serena clashed with chair umpire Carlos Ramos, leading to heated debates about sexism, fairness, and sportsmanship.

Commentators Max Kellerman and Stephen A. Smith both shared their thoughts on the incident, providing different but complementary perspectives. Kellerman noted that while Ramos technically followed the rules, he showed poor judgment in picking such a critical moment to enforce them. He argued that although Serena’s coach admitted to signaling from the stands (which is technically against the rules), coaching from the box is common in tennis and rarely penalized. Kellerman compared it to unwritten rules in other sports, like a baseball player missing second base during a double play without penalty — enforcement only matters if it’s consistent.

Kellerman admitted Serena’s racket smash deserved a penalty, as emotional outbursts must be checked regardless of gender. However, he felt the final violation — a game penalty for calling the umpire a “thief” — was excessive. Drawing on history, Kellerman recalled the fiery behavior of legends like John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, who often hurled far worse insults at officials. He emphasized that the audience was there to see players, not to have officials overshadow the match, and ultimately, it was Naomi Osaka who suffered most, as her major breakthrough was clouded by controversy.

On the topic of sexism, Kellerman acknowledged Serena’s quick turn to that argument and initially questioned it. However, reflecting on how male players’ behavior has been tolerated over the years, he admitted she had a point — at least to an extent. Nevertheless, he warned that labeling Serena’s emotional display as a “meltdown” wasn’t inherently sexist, citing how male players have been heavily criticized for similar behavior.

Stephen A. Smith, while expressing admiration for Serena’s career and resilience against adversity, took a firmer stance. He praised her and her sister Venus as trailblazers and role models but asserted that in this particular situation, Serena was wrong. Smith emphasized that Ramos had a documented history of penalizing both male and female players — citing incidents with Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal — and that Ramos’ decision was supported by tennis authorities after review.

Smith pointed out that Serena lost the argument the moment she framed it around gender discrimination. If she had focused on her individual treatment, the case would have been stronger. By bringing gender into it, despite Ramos’ history of similar penalties against male players, she weakened her position.

Furthermore, Smith argued that when competing at the highest levels, athletes must prepare for not just their opponents but also how matches are officiated. Ramos was known for being strict — a factor Serena and her team should have anticipated. Smith admitted Ramos could have shown more restraint but ultimately insisted that Serena’s behavior warranted the penalties under the rules.

Both commentators agreed that while Serena remains a legendary figure in tennis and beyond, and while emotions were understandably high, this controversy could have — and should have — been avoided. Ultimately, the real victim was Naomi Osaka, whose incredible achievement was overshadowed by a dispute that stole the spotlight from a historic moment.

In the end, the lesson was clear: in the heat of competition, even legends must pick their battles carefully — because sometimes, the bigger story gets lost.