Why should Roger Federer retire, even if he is getting bagelled at Wimbledon?

What do professional athletes owe to their fans?

That question crossed my mind repeatedly while I was going through the reactions to Roger Federer's lopsided Wimbledon defeat to Hubert Hurkacz on Wednesday. There were questions asked of the Swiss, accusations hurled at his supposed lack of fight, and jokes cracked at his "embarrassing" and "laughable" performance. It felt like Federer had failed to meet his contractual obligations - or worse, committed a crime - by getting bagelled in the third set, and so he now had to pay for his sins.

But among all the reactions, the most striking - and perhaps the most widespread too - were the calls for the 39-year-old's retirement. "Federer's last Wimbledon?" rang throughout Twitter, and some didn't even bother to add the question mark at the end.

It wasn't just the fans who brought up the R-word though. Even Boris Becker claimed late on Wednesday that Roger Federer may have played his last Wimbledon, since apparently "time doesn't stand still" for anyone.

People speculating about Roger Federer's retirement is nothing new, of course. The man has been dogged by the question for about a decade already; in fact, I had written an article about it all the way back in 2013. But there's something different this time; the sense of entitlement seems more jarring than usual, given the fact that we just spent a whole year without Federer on the tour.

The Swiss was, unsurprisingly, asked in his post-match presser on Wednesday whether he had played his last match on Centre Court. Federer gave a non-committal answer, but that was followed up by another question asking him point-blank whether retirement was on the table.

"Are you able to confirm if retirement is an active possibility in the immediate future?" the journalist asked.

"No, it's just about having perspective," Federer replied. "You need a goal when you're going through rehab. You can't think of the entire mountain to climb at once. You've got to go in steps. Wimbledon was the initial, first super-step if you like. Now that that is over for me, you've just got to reassess everything. You've got to sit down, talk about it, what went well, what didn't go so well. Where's the body, where's the knee, where's the mind."

"I've just got to talk to the team, take my time, not feel rushed - by you guys, or anybody else," he continued. "I've got to take my time and take the right decision. But no, I hope not that that (retirement) is going to happen (laughs). The goal is to play of course."

Roger Federer during his press conference at Wimbledon 2021

It's interesting that Federer talked about the need to "not feel rushed" by the media. It's almost as though he had to remind us that the decision of when to retire was his, and his alone.

It's also interesting that he mentioned how a comeback from injury is not one big splash, but a series of small steps that flow logically from one to the next. Wimbledon was Federer's fifth tournament since returning from double knee surgery, and his steady improvement at each event (with the exception of Halle, where he looked strangely out of sorts) has been fairly evident to the keen eye.

A 39-year-old reaching the quarterfinal of a Slam after two surgeries and just four tournaments of lead-up play would ordinarily be considered a roaring success. But when it comes to Roger Federer, nothing is ever good enough.

Does Roger Federer really need to 'retire on a high'?

The tennis world has been spoilt by stories of champions who retired right after winning a big title or establishing their supremacy one last time.

Pete Sampras won the 2002 US Open and didn't play another tournament, so the last memory that many fans have of him is lifting a Slam trophy. Steffi Graf called it a career right after winning Roland Garros and reaching the Wimbledon final in 1999 (at which point she was ranked World No. 3), so there is a feeling that there was never a time when she was not a Slam contender.

Retirements like those have given some fans the idea that the best time for a champion to go out is when they are still on top. Anything other than that is considered a debasement, as something that tarnishes their legacy and makes them appear mortal.

But we forget that an immortal doesn't become mortal merely with the passage of time. Sure, they may not dominate the competition after going past a certain age, but they never lose the skills that made the world fall in love with them in the first place.

Roger Federer in action at Wimbledon 2021

Roger Federer lost at the quarterfinal stage of Wimbledon, and he was likely never going to win the title even if he had somehow beaten Hubert Hurkacz (and Matteo Berrettini after that). But he still produced moments of magic during the first week that only he can.

The matches against Richard Gasquet and Lorenzo Sonego in particular were chock-full of glorious winners and incredible racket-work that made us realize what we were missing through the entire 2020.

So what if those moments of inspiration from Federer are less frequent now than they were from 2003 to 2018? So what if the spectacular winners are interspersed with insipid errors every now and then? The wizardry of Roger Federer is compelling enough to make us want to trade even one second of it for any amount of bagel sets.

Would you rather Federer had retired in 2018 and we got to see zero seconds of the Swiss at Wimbledon 2021, or that he continues playing and we keep getting fleeting glimpses of his indescribable genius?

Even aside from our personal preferences though, the fact remains that Roger Federer hasn't yet stopped enjoying the sport. His displays of emotion throughout the first four rounds at SW19 showed how much he still loves competing, and how much the cheers of the crowd still mean to him.

He clearly doesn't want to give up any of that while there is still some strength in his legs, so why would we ask him to?

It is worth repeating that Roger Federer doesn't play a team sport, so the parallels with Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni and other legends who played well beyond their prime aren't quite relevant. Federer can harm no one but himself if he loses early at any tournament; he is not blocking the path of younger players, nor is he costing a team anything.

Roger Federer is an individual and independent contractor, so he can play until he is 50 if he wants to.

There is a parallel closer to home that does apply here though. Venus Williams is 41 years old, and she is plugging away on the tour despite not having reached a Slam quarterfinal in over three years.

The seven-time Slam champion is ranked outside the top 100 right now, and she needed a wildcard to enter the Wimbledon main draw. But it is obvious how none of that has dimmed her enthusiasm in the slightest.

Venus Williams at Wimbledon 2021

Admittedly, Venus Williams fans are far fewer in number than Roger Federer fans, so the hand-wringing over her losses will always be less audible. But can anyone deny that Williams teaming up with Nick Kyrgios in mixed doubles made for an electrifying sight? Or that Williams' forehand rockets during the first couple of rounds in singles momentarily took us back to her halcyon days of the early 2000s?

A Roger Federer or a Venus Williams playing at a tournament is always good for the tournament, irrespective of whether they are contenders for the title or not. Champions only lose the frequency of their magic with age; they never lose their magic altogether. And that means they are always worth the price of admission.

After everything that legends like Roger Federer and Venus Williams have given us over the years, we should be able to stomach the occasional bagel. And if we can't find it in ourselves to do that, then do we really deserve to call ourselves fans?

Maybe it is time we ask ourselves what we owe to champion athletes, rather than what they owe us.