Yes, I would say that the article is controversial. And not wholly fair. Surely Novak is no Connors or McEnroe. He's sometimes given to irritable behavior on court, and maybe he should get done for it more often, especially of late, with the umpires. The obvious contrast is with Kyrgios, who has complained about it directly, and who seems to be on permanent parole. If the question is if it's doled out completely fairly, I think we'd all say no. But is it because they're top players and unsanctionable, or is it the randomness of umpire discretion? I think there's an argument for the latter. An example: earlier this year, Nadal, very uncharacteristically, used an obscenity, and got the code warning for it. He implored the umpire that he'd never done that before, but no leniency. Correct to the letter of the law, but another umpire might have told him not to do it again, knowing that he never had before, without the official caution. An example of a top player given no break.
There is latitude in the choices that the chair umpires make, and I'm generally in favor of it. They are the arbiters of the match. If sanctions come later about behavior, the ITP can decide, and levy fines.
While the main difference between Djokovic and Kyrgios is their status in the game, of course, another big factor is that Novak presents himself as a good guy, even when he has sometimes been on the edge of disagreeable, snarly will ball kids or umpires and smashing racquets. Nick has embraced the black hat. I think this has a lot to do with how Djokovic is handled, especially in contrast to Nick. Novak sells himself better as a "good guy." And the umpires buy it. It's not wholly about being #1 or top 5. If you're perceived as a generally honorable, you'll be treated as such. Fair? Not necessarily. But understandable in human terms. And umpires are human.
