As of today, tennis has something is desperately needs: a rivalry. Rafael Nadal, the brash, young beefcake tennis player can now be marketed worldwide as a legitimate contender for Roger Federer’s crown. Nadal beat Federer to win the Dubai Duty Free tournament, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4, in a match that lived up to the hype. If Nadal can stay injury free, tennis could actually become popular again. As for beefcake, the awards ceremony had to be haulted due to the crowd uproar as Nadal changed his shirt.

So what’s the controversy?

The problem is Dubai. It’s all over the news and now tennis writers are joining in. Both Peter Bodo from Tennis Magazine and Jon Wertheim from Sports Illustrated have criticized the men and women’s tour for pandering to Dubai’s desire to be the Las Vegas of the middle east.

Should tennis players be expected to be the political conscious of the U.S. if the same is not required of Major League baseball players?

Bodo is the loudest muckraker in the tennis world. He lays it on Dubai for money laundering, poor treatment of women, refusing to issue passports to Israelis and brokering nuclear arms deals and even then he didn’t make is sound half as bad as it really is. Mike Davis is known for his exposes of Los Angeles: City of Quartz and Ecology of Fear. In his article about Dubai, you can read about the sex slave market and pre-school children sold into slavery to become camel jockeys. Sounds like a sick joke but it’s real. The screams of terror from these young kids, who have been seen on camels owned by the leader of the country, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, known as Sheikh Mo, spur the camels to move faster.

The men’s year-end final is held in Shanghai, China, a country known for its oppressive government and bad human rights record, but the US is not doing so well either. Repugnant torture techniques at Abu Ghraib and forced imprisonment without trial in Guantanamo qualify as egregious breaches of human rights. So why is it alright to play in the U.S.? Should tennis players be expected to be the political conscious of the U.S. if the same is not required of Major League baseball players?

Speaking of Major League Baseball, the World Baseball Cup started this week. The league and the players’ union are the sponsors of the tournament which is part of an attempt to expand baseball’s global marketing presence. Why else hold your own international baseball tournament when the World Baseball Cup already exists?

Just like other globalization issues that affect sports, athletes need to play an active role. After complaints about working conditions in factories where sports clothing is made, athletes toured factories to observe for themselves. If tennis players cash in on $500,000, the reported amount of Federer’s appearnce fee, to be the entertainment draw for Sheikh Mo’s vision in the desert, it’s fair to ask them to look a little deeper at the country they are working for.

At the very least they should give a wild card to an Israeli player and test Dubai’s visa policy.

Wertheim understandably wonders why Agassi flew all the way to Dubai instead of attending the inaugural ATP event in his home town of Las Vegas, The Tennis Channel Open mentioned above. I would add that next week is the start of one of the biggest tournaments of the year in Indian Wells, a short one hour flight from Las Vegas. Instead, Agassi took a twenty hour flight from Dubai. Can’t be good for his sciatica which has plagued him the last year. His career is winding down and he has a lot of bills to pay so maybe he needs the huge appearance fee.

If all of the top players had entered the Las Vegas tournament, the stands would have been full and there would have been real momentum for next week’s tournament in Indian Wells

Appearance fees contribute to the biggest problem in tennis: the product is diluted. If you go to the Formula 1 racing website and scroll along the top of the page, you roll over each country or continent in the current season. All of the drivers are in the same place at the same time. This week in tennis, you could have attended two matches on hard court on opposite sides of the world or a clay court tournament in Acapulco. If all of the top players had entered the Las Vegas tournament, the stands would have been full and there would have been real momentum for next week’s tournament in Indian Wells

Wertheim suggests that some tournaments take place every other year instead of yearly. A good suggestion if the ATP has the nerve to implement it.

As for the match between Nadal and Federer, it was a doozy. Bjorn Borg came out for the coin toss. No doubt he got an appearance fee too. Borg is auctioning off equipment from his grand slam wins because he needs the money. As he watched the match, he slumped in his chair with a look on his face that said, “Has it come to this?”

Federer looked unbeatable in the first set, he had 10 winners to Nadal’s 1. On set point, Federer cut a backhand overhead at such a sharp angle that all Nadal could do was send the ball skidding along the ground and into the net. But it wasn’t all Federer’s doing.

Federer attacked, correctly figuring that net play is his main advantage over Nadal. Nadal hit balls short – making it easier for Federer to approach – and tried to pass him cross court unsuccessfully. In the second set, Nadal found his groundstrokes and moved his passing shots down the line. Backed up by Nadal’s high spinners, Federer started to lose his edge. In the eighth game, Federer made two quick errors and was then passed down the line by Nadal. On the next point he came in on a short slice backhand, something he got away with in the first set, and Nadal passed him again to get the break and serve for the set.

We now had just what we all wanted, a third set. Federer must have lost confidence in his strategy because he looked a bit rattled. He sent a volley into the net and hit a forehand approach shot long to give Nadal a break in the first game of the set.

In the fourth game, Federer twice sent a slice backhand return cross court, a difficult maneuver. The second one worked and he had a break point on Nadal. On the next point he tried something much simpler, he pulled Nadal wide then hit a winner down the line.

Why has Nadal beaten Federer three out of the four times they’ve played? Because his will is stronger.

Three games later he had a game point on his serve and Nadal threw everything he had at him. He started out with a deep topsin return, hit a backhand down the line followed by one crosscourt, threw in a slice backhand then a forehand down the line and, finally, a forehand approach. By the time he was halfway to the net, Federer hit a gorgeous backhand passing shot then shook his racket at Nadal. “Look here, kiddo, there’s a reason I’ve won 56 straight hard court matches.”

It looked like Federer was getting ready to go on one of his late match runs. But he wasn’t. He sent an approach shot long that could have put Nadal down 0-30 on his serve. Then, serving to get to 5-5, he made three forehand errors, the last to give Nadal the break and the opportunity to serve for the match.

How could this happen? Where was Federer’s vaunted ability to rise to the occasion, to turn it on when it most counted? Federer is one of those sure things in life. Unless he was hobbled, you could count on him to wait for his opportunity and take advantage of it when it arrived but here he was making easy errors.

Nadal served out the set and now stands 3-1 again Federer. At the medal ceremony, Federer called his one win against Nadal “lucky.” And it was. Nadal was two points away from winning that match. Why has Nadal beaten Federer three out of the four times they’ve played? Because his will is stronger.

This was a slow hard court surface. Federer will still beat Nadal on a fast hard court and grass but Nadal has the edge on anything slower. How cool is that? Now we get to see if Federer really is the best player of all time.