The lords of professional tennis have big plans: big for their wallets, big for their power over the sport and big for a group of top players who already enjoy a fairly comfortable life on tour.
Big for fans? An asset for players trying to break into the top 100? Big for tennis in general as a sport with a strong global following?
That remains to be seen – and there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about how the four Grand Slams could attempt to take over the entire tennis calendar.
According to a report Tuesday in The Athleticmore meetings will take place this week around the event in Madrid as leaders of the four Grand Slam tournaments try to sell players and agents their version of the future of tennis.
And it will undoubtedly be a compelling vision: fewer tournaments, a longer offseason and more money – including equal pay for men and women – with the creation of a premium circuit centered around the four Grand Slam tournaments and 10 other major events around the world.
On the surface, it sounds good. Who doesn’t want to work less to get paid more? By pooling the media rights of the world’s four biggest tournaments – the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open – with some Saudi investment, you can undoubtedly create major events that will make the best players very rich without asking for anything. them to grind their bodies to dust by traveling the world for over 25 weeks a year cashing checks and collecting ranking points.
In essence, you can build a tennis version of Formula 1.
But there’s a big problem with this theory: Tennis isn’t Formula 1. It’s a sport in which your weekly ranking creates either an opportunity or a challenge. It’s a sport where fortunes rise and fall, a sport in which it’s possible for someone like American journeyman Chris Eubanks to change his life because he got hot for a few weeks on the grass in the summer last. It’s a sport where you eat what you kill and get what you deserve. It is a sport where the mere existence of tournaments around the world has inspired future champions.
Is all this about to change?
Details are still scarce. But there is no doubt that major changes are underway in the structure of tennis, with the four Grand Slams in one team and the ATP/WTA tours in another.
Until now, the Slams all operated as independent entities. Although they occasionally collaborate on certain issues, they each own their two-week slot in the calendar and the huge revenues they generate, but little else. The ATP and WTA approve the weekly tournaments that make up their tour schedules and sell their media rights as part of a combined package, but each event is individually owned and managed in terms of ticket sales and some sponsorships.
Last week, for example, there were smaller men’s tournaments in Bucharest, Romania; Barcelona, ​​Spain and Munich, while there were women’s tournaments in Stuttgart, Germany, and Rouen, France. On the surface, this doesn’t make much sense. Why would you want Munich and Barcelona to compete for the best players instead of a bigger tournament where they are all in the same field and competing for bigger prizes?
That’s a good point ! And that’s exactly the problem golf is currently grappling with. thanks to LIV Golf poaching some of the world’s best players from the PGA Tour and DP World Tour. All sports are better when the best play as often as possible.
But in the reported version of a premium tour owned and operated by the Grand Slams, the only tennis that really matters takes place 14 times a year. Essentially, every other tournament is reduced to being part of a developmental league in which there is no real incentive for top players to participate.
And it’s a potential disaster for tennis at large.
You do not believe me ? Just listen to Roger Federer, who volunteered to play the role of ball boy at the Swiss Indoors, a tournament that attracted Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and Michael Stich, all Wimbledon champions he idolized in growing.
“I got to see the best players in the world, how they prepared, how they sweat, how they handled pressure,” he said in an interview with Tennis TV in 2017. “Deep down, I will be always a ball boy.”
Does Federer become Federer if he doesn’t host an ATP tournament in his hometown of Basel?
Maybe that’s too dramatic. But in a premium circuit designed by the Grand Slam, tournaments from Charleston, South Carolina, to Washington, D.C., from Rio de Janeiro to Guadalajara, Mexico, and from Rotterdam, Netherlands, to Vienna, do not no longer have any importance.
Do these tournaments always attract the best players? No, but these are great local events that players love, sell lots of tickets and bring tennis to the forefront in these markets on an annual basis.
What’s the point of telling fans that these tournaments don’t matter anymore? How does this change the game?
Some of the ideas behind a premium tour are solid. Prize equality, which exists at Grand Slam tournaments but not everywhere else, should be a priority. Better television exposure than the current hodgepodge of tennis media rights would benefit fans. Knowing when and where big stars are going to show up is helpful for sponsors and ticket buyers.
But if the four Grand Slam tournaments take control of the sport and marginalize all but the 14 biggest tournaments, the sport ossifies. The path to building new stars, generating interest locally and giving young prospects a chance to move up the ladder is getting more complicated.
Is it worth fattening the pockets of a few dozen players at the top of the sport and the tournaments themselves? This is the question at the heart of the civil war behind the scenes in tennis. At this point, it’s anyone’s guess how this will turn out.
