Wednesday was a very special day for up-and-coming British artists. Seventeen Britons have already earned their spots at Wimbledon, with seven in the men’s singles and seven in the women’s. It wasn’t their tennis that made the difference, though. It was their country.

This isn’t meant to put down the 14 British players who got wild cards into the singles tournaments; they are, by all accounts, dedicated, hard-working, and truly skilled. But the same could be said about the hundreds of players from around the world who are ranked better than the British players who got wild cards.

It’s an amazing accomplishment to reach a grand slam. As of now, the 128th best football, cricket, or rugby player in the world would be a world star. But tennis only lets 128 singles players into its biggest games.

Eight of these spots are not based on how well a player does on the court. In the case of Wimbledon, they are chosen by the All England Lawn Tennis Club council, which gives out the wild cards.

Thanks to the wild-card system, Wimbledon has one of the best stories in the history of the Championships. And three years after losing his third Wimbledon final, Goran Ivanisevic fell to 125th in the world in 2001. He asked the All England Club for a wild card in writing.

On the third Monday of the 2001 event, Ivanisevic slammed a serve down the tee and saw Pat Rafter’s return hit the net. He then fell to his knees and celebrated by getting the trophy he wanted most of all. Back in 1986, Pat Cash made it to the quarterfinals as a wild card. In 2008, Zheng Jie, whose standing had dropped because of an injury, made it to the semi-finals in SW19 as a wild card.

These moving stories, on the other hand, are definitely the exception. Alex Bogdanovic is a better example of how things work most of the time. Bogdanovic got into the Wimbledon main draw with a “wild card” for eight years in a row, from 2002 to 2009. He lost all eight games and was out in the first round each time. He won just three sets.

For those who get wild cards, it’s a great chance to boost their jobs. Wild cards can change things for players even if they lose in the first round. Each Wimbledon first-round loser gets £66,000, which is about the same amount of money that many pros make by playing in low-profile Challenger Tour games all year.

When Josep Bartomeu, who used to be president of Barcelona, tried to give the biggest teams automatic entry into the Champions League, he called the idea “wild cards.” It was a dishonest term for an idea that went against the idea that players should decide on their own eligibility, and it was criticized by many. Still, the idea that grand slam spots are chosen in committee rooms instead of on the tennis court is still accepted.

Grand slams give home-grown players an unfair edge, and Wimbledon is just the worst example of this. The four slams all work together so that each of the other two slam countries can use one of their eight wild card spots. For example, one player from the US and one from Australia got wild cards into both the men’s and women’s draws at the French Open last month. This was done through horse-trading, which was good for all three countries.

A country that hosts a grand slam might say that the system is a racket. Over the past year, the slams have given out 63 wild cards in their singles tournaments. Only nine of these wild cards have been given to players from countries other than Australia, France, Britain, and the US. The Wimbledon men’s wild card has not yet been announced. So, the wild-card method makes it harder for players from Africa, Asia, and South America to get into the main draw, which reinforces the unfairness of where players come from in tennis. They can get wild cards at big ATP events in their own countries, which is something that other European players do all the time.

Lois Boisson made it to the semi-finals at Roland Garros last month after getting a wild card. But while Boisson made a big splash in Paris, she could have done the same thing after the qualifying event, just like Emma Raducanu did on her way to winning the US Open in 2021.

In fact, wild cards are meant to get more people from the United States interested in grand slams, but they have the opposite effect: they lower the general level of play and make it more likely that games will be decided by one player.

Ivan Ljubicic, who is in charge of high performance for the French Tennis Federation, recently admitted this to be true. He said of France’s wild cards at Roland Garros, “We’ve given up a lot of points.” “You’re inviting people who don’t have the level or ranking to play in the tournament, and this doesn’t always work.

Ljubicic was not used to getting wild cards because he was from Croatia. He said in France, “It’s the other way around here.” “There’s a storm if you don’t get a wild card.”

There might not be any wild cards left, and protected positions would be the only way to help players who have been hurt. Reform, not revolt, would be a more likely choice. Each slam could still set aside three spots for players from their own country. To get people interested, they could pick the local players who are most likely to win Championship matches.

Grand slams could also use wild cards to bring tennis to more people around the world. A wild card could be given to a player from Africa, Asia, or South America at each slam. These are the regions that don’t get to host grand slams. The Australian Open does, in fact, set aside one wild card for players from the Asia-Pacific area.

That means there are still two wild cards left. Tournament organizers could use these however they wanted. They could pick an older former winner, like Wimbledon did with Venus Williams in 2023 or Angelique Kerber last year, or a young teenager who is already very good. Grand slams might even go with a crazy idea: they could cut down on the number of wild cards they give out and let more players in, no matter what color their passport is.