PDA

View Full Version : The ATP Monopoly


obsessedtennisfandisorder
10-18-2009, 03:02 AM
I'm disturbed by the lack of talk in here about the ATP organisation.

For example, people want to change the calender ,ranking systems etc.
gasquet gets into "trouble" and threads descend into drug debates etc
fed vs sampras etc...what nadal eats for breakfast:) etc...

But I would love good discussion on what the ATP has become since
being rejigged in 1989/1990.....

Please forgive any mistakes here because I'm familiar pre 1992.

My understanding was ATP was simply a UNION for players..that's all.
they had nothing to do with telling directors what to do etc...

Events were a *played out conflict* between directors and players
agents etc and the ATP as we know it now (I'll call it middle man:twisted:)
had no part of this.

here's some articles to start us off...

http://cornedbeefhash.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/atp-lawsuit-could-remake-non-team-sports/

In this case directors are being overun by the ATP....

so where am i going with all this?

I think The ATP (basically a business trying to make money) is dictating to everyone..and I don't think that's good for tennis.

Tennis should be contorlled by the ITF(an organisation run for the benfit of tennis..not the ATP(for $$$)

and disputes betwen players and directors should be settled between them
not some middle man.

A good example is the current mandate players must play all 8 ms events.
why? are tennis-players self employed persons or not?

Get back to ITF rankings and idssolve the ATP...the slams and ITF have the power to do this...and I think in the long run tennis priorities re-aligned.
IF the top players refuse ATP contracts and get together a shake up would be good.

Now I've made a number of opinion statements here...your thoughts?

TensProfes
10-18-2009, 08:32 PM
I'm disturbed by the lack of talk in here about the ATP organisation.

For example, people want to change the calender ,ranking systems etc.
gasquet gets into "trouble" and threads descend into drug debates etc
fed vs sampras etc...what nadal eats for breakfast:) etc...

But I would love good discussion on what the ATP has become since
being rejigged in 1989/1990.....

Please forgive any mistakes here because I'm familiar pre 1992.

My understanding was ATP was simply a UNION for players..that's all.
they had nothing to do with telling directors what to do etc...

Events were a *played out conflict* between directors and players
agents etc and the ATP as we know it now (I'll call it middle man:twisted:)
had no part of this.

here's some articles to start us off...

http://cornedbeefhash.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/atp-lawsuit-could-remake-non-team-sports/

In this case directors are being overun by the ATP....

so where am i going with all this?

I think The ATP (basically a business trying to make money) is dictating to everyone..and I don't think that's good for tennis.

Tennis should be contorlled by the ITF(an organisation run for the benfit of tennis..not the ATP(for $$$)

and disputes betwen players and directors should be settled between them
not some middle man.

A good example is the current mandate players must play all 8 ms events.
why? are tennis-players self employed persons or not?

Get back to ITF rankings and idssolve the ATP...the slams and ITF have the power to do this...and I think in the long run tennis priorities re-aligned.
IF the top players refuse ATP contracts and get together a shake up would be good.

Now I've made a number of opinion statements here...your thoughts?

A lot of interesting and discussion-worth statements here, but one rather large misconception. Tournament directors are not being overrun by the ATP. On the contrary, they are part of the board, and currently the most influential part of it. This is the reason that calendar change hasn't taken place, despite player entreaties for years. If anything, the tournament directors are the strongest force in the ATP, and actual execs are weak. I'd say separation of the players from the tournaments would better express each side's interests, while currently neither side's hopes are being served.

Falloutjr
10-18-2009, 08:53 PM
I think you're 100%. The ATP (The Association for Turning Profit) SHOULD function more like AAU but seeing as they're making money...doubt it'll happen.

IvanAndreevich
10-18-2009, 10:17 PM
Oh, so you want to put someone who is not making a profit in charge of something complicated like the tennis season? Sounds like socialism - where's the incentive for better performance in managing / promoting / developing the sport? No monetary incentive = not going to be successful.

Having a commercial organization running things is better. Best way for the ATP to make money is to promote / grow tennis / and take good care of their big stars.

What would be the best if ATP had a full blown competitor, and both shared the point system. Kind of like Grand Slams, but more tournaments. A competing commercial organization on the free market.

Polvorin
10-19-2009, 02:34 AM
Oh, so you want to put someone who is not making a profit in charge of something complicated like the tennis season? Sounds like socialism - where's the incentive for better performance in managing / promoting / developing the sport? No monetary incentive = not going to be successful.

Hehe I think too much of our propaganda is making it across the border.

kOaMaster
10-19-2009, 02:51 AM
and I thought you're speaking about the game - which would've been actually funny and something to buy! :(

wyutani
10-19-2009, 03:53 AM
wouldnt it be great if they made a game out of it.

brad1730
10-19-2009, 04:06 AM
Another road block to change is the disparity between players. The top players earn plenty of money, and are influential. The players at the bottom are basically powerless. They earn a decent living - compared to most jobs, but not compared to other pro-athletes. People are also coming and going from the bottom, which makes it difficult to attain any political power. The number of players is far larger than other sports, and tennis players are very individualistic.

Fee
10-19-2009, 09:52 AM
One of the biggest problems with the ATP is that it has no control over the four biggest events of the year, the Slams. Those are ITF events and they are governed independently of the ATP.

The ATP is a complex organization serving two masters equally - the players and the tournaments. For a while it was dominated by the tournaments, but I think the players are starting to get heard on some of the issues they are most concerned about. Not sure what they can do about this ridiculously long season though.

TensProfes
10-19-2009, 12:29 PM
Another road block to change is the disparity between players. The top players earn plenty of money, and are influential. The players at the bottom are basically powerless. They earn a decent living - compared to most jobs, but not compared to other pro-athletes. People are also coming and going from the bottom, which makes it difficult to attain any political power. The number of players is far larger than other sports, and tennis players are very individualistic.

Not sure which players you refer to when you say "at the bottom", but the ones at the bottom of the ATP rankings (#'s 1300+) absolutely do not earn a decent living. They are actually cash negative after the costs of playing. In fact, below about 150 in the world, it's usually a cash negative proposition.

IvanAndreevich
10-19-2009, 12:31 PM
Hehe I think too much of our propaganda is making it across the border.

What are you referring to?

JankovicFan
10-20-2009, 10:49 AM
<>I think The ATP (basically a business trying to make money) is dictating to everyone..and I don't think that's good for tennis.

Tennis should be contorlled by the ITF(an organisation run for the benfit of tennis..not the ATP(for $$$)

and disputes betwen players and directors should be settled between them
not some middle man.

A good example is the current mandate players must play all 8 ms events.
why? are tennis-players self employed persons or not?<>In order for a tournament to agree to provide enough prize money to qualify for a tournament level they have to know that players will show up. ATP has a formula for that, attempting to ensure the quality of play and some level of celebrity draw appropriate to the tournament size. This is also reflected in players commitment contracts, ensuring they are available and have to be there, barring injury, etc.

It is pretty simple that if players want more freedom, they will have less money and perhaps fewer tournaments.

yellowoctopus
10-20-2009, 01:06 PM
Not sure which players you refer to when you say "at the bottom", but the ones at the bottom of the ATP rankings (#'s 1300+) absolutely do not earn a decent living. They are actually cash negative after the costs of playing. In fact, below about 150 in the world, it's usually a cash negative proposition.

This is a fact; there is actual data to back this up.

In order for a tournament to agree to provide enough prize money to qualify for a tournament level they have to know that players will show up. ATP has a formula for that, attempting to ensure the quality of play and some level of celebrity draw appropriate to the tournament size. This is also reflected in players commitment contracts, ensuring they are available and have to be there, barring injury, etc.


Good point. By this, ATP is actually a type of labor union that tournament organizers buy into with certain level of confidence that the ATP will supply a number of 'laborers' that will generate good revenue for the touraments.


It is pretty simple that if players want more freedom, they will have less money and perhaps fewer tournaments.

I don't think it's that simple, since ATP has a monopoly on the majority of the revenue creating events for the players. Players cannot simply opt out of signing a contract with ATP and play in the major tournaments.

IvanAndreevich
10-20-2009, 01:22 PM
I don't think it's that simple, since ATP has a monopoly on the majority of the revenue creating events for the players. Players cannot simply opt out of signing a contract with ATP and play in the major tournaments.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you can qualify and enter many ATP Challenger / Tour events without being a member of the ATP? That's why they are called "Open".

yellowoctopus
10-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but you can qualify and enter many ATP Challenger / Tour events without being a member of the ATP? That's why they are called "Open".

You are correct. A player can choose not to be part of ATP and still 'qualify' to partake in many of these tournaments via playing the qualifying matches or influence the tournament organizers to give them a wild card.

Since ATP do the 'ranking' and all tournaments pretty bought into it; it's tough for players to choose not to be part of it.

IvanAndreevich
10-20-2009, 02:05 PM
You are correct. A player can choose not to be part of ATP and still 'qualify' to partake in many of these tournaments via playing the qualifying matches or influence the tournament organizers to give them a wild card.

Since ATP do the 'ranking' and all tournaments pretty bought into it; it's tough for players to choose not to be part of it.

Yeah, the ranking points monopoly is a problem. It would be good to have ranking points assigned by an independent organization, so that tournaments not part of the ATP could also award them.

brad1730
10-20-2009, 02:38 PM
Not sure which players you refer to when you say "at the bottom", but the ones at the bottom of the ATP rankings (#'s 1300+) absolutely do not earn a decent living. They are actually cash negative after the costs of playing. In fact, below about 150 in the world, it's usually a cash negative proposition.

Agreed. It plays into the tournaments hands to have the powerful, prestigious players fat and happy. These players would have to push for change in order for change to occur - but why would they when they themselves are getting an inordinate piece of the pie.

obsessedtennisfandisorder
10-21-2009, 08:26 PM
Agreed. It plays into the tournaments hands to have the powerful, prestigious players fat and happy. These players would have to push for change in order for change to occur - but why would they when they themselves are getting an inordinate piece of the pie.

following on from a previous point...this is what I mean why the ITF
should control tennis.

The ITF would control the rankings, NOT the ATP.

RESULTS eg player smith beat Player jones...are an information that should
be the domain of the ITF and not used for monetary gain.

Current system=These results are then "owned" by the ATP and then used against "new"prospects of good players saying basically "sign with us" or you have no chance of achieving anything.

By the ATP being a monopoly...this is an unfortunate default occuring

The slams simply take the top 96 or whatever ranked players..on ATP's
books (a business)...someone not signed with the ATP has to either qualify
or try wildcard(unlikely) thus vicious circle occuring.

Whats more...it's clear from the current *democractic*(LOL) system
the ATP directors...NO show of power from players ranked 10
and under anyway...within the ATP.

eg in theory 1 vote players 1-10,1 vote (10-50) 1 vote (100-300)etc
surely the top players would be outvoted something like 5-1 on issues.

This doesn't appear to be happening now.

the big question:

what happens to the money the ATP makes?

example: a new tournamnet that wants to start up on ATP must pay
a hefty(I'm taking almost $1mill US) fee ign on...where does that $ go???