Changes brewing at the ATP

[Fee]

Well, it seems there is a lot going on behind the scenes in Hamburg this week. Players are very unhappy about a number of things, the 2009 Calendar still has not been approved, some tournaments are unhappy, and so on. I'll start with this story and then post an older one with a bit more background...

http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=3753830

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Exclusive: Rogers Removed From ATP Board; Player Unrest Grows
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]By Richard Evans[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]5/13/2008 11:59:00 PM

[/FONT] Reliable sources in the game are confirming that Perry Rogers has been removed from the ATP Board of Directors. Rogers, who managed Andre Agassi throughout his career and remains Agassi's best friend, has served, for the past two years, as one of three player representatives on the six man Board which is chaired by ATP CEO Etienne de Villiers.

The player council, comprised of 10 current players, one former player and a coach, voted Rogers off the board. There is no indication yet of who Rogers’ replacement will be. Under terms of the ATP constitution if a board member has more than a year left on his term when he is voted out of office then another vote must be held to fill his seat. Rogers' replacement will be voted on during Wimbledon, which begins on June 23.

"We can confirm that there has been a change to the composition of the ATP Board by action of the Player Council and look forward to working with the new Player Board Representative," an ATP spokesman told Tennis Week this morning. "We thank Perry Rogers for his dedicated service on the ATP Board."

Tennis Week has contacted Rogers' office for comment and will post his comments as soon as they are available. Rogers is president of Agassi Enterprises and serves as agent for three of the most popular athletes in the world: Agassi, his wife Steffi Graf and NBA star Shaquille O'Neal.

Rogers — along with former ATP pro Jacco Eltingh and Iggy Jovanovic — was one of the three player representatives on the board with Monte Carlo tournament director Zelijko Franulovic, Indian Wells' chief Charlie Pasarell and Graham Pearce serving as the tournament representatives on the board. Ironically, Rogers gained his spot on the board after his predecessor was voted off.

AsRogers was known as a strong de Villiers supporter, this shock move is seen as yet another attempt by several top players to get rid of a man in whom they have lost trust. There is speculation another board member could lose his seat though sources close to the proceedings cannot confirm that at this time.

Locker room unrest first surfaced during the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami in March when all top twenty singles players signed a letter to the Board demanding that de Villiers not have his contract renewed until other candidates had been interviewed for the job. This was widely seen as a vote of no confidence in the former Disney executive who was brought in to create changes and quickly demonstrated a willingness to carry out his mandate.

De Villiers settled the doubles revolt, in which most of the leading doubles players began a law suit against their own association, by persuading them that no ad scoring and a tie break in lieu of a third set would create more television time for their form of the game. For the most part, the players agree that the change has been a success.

But the refusal to listen to good advice from people who had been in the game a great deal longer than himself soon began to reveal the South African’s limitations. A tendency to rant and rave when people offered differing opinions also did not help.

But the calendar remained an insoluble problem as far as placating top players were concerned and the decision to downgrade Monte Carlo and Hamburg from Masters Series status last year as well as switching Hamburg to a slot after Wimbledon so that Madrid could be moved into May, elicited a remarkably vocal response from Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Nikolay Davydenko — all three of whom criticized their leader at a press conference at Monte Carlo thirteen months ago.

Partially as a result of that kind of support, Monte Carlo was able to retain its status, albeit without full player commitment, but Hamburg was treated so thoughtlessly that the German Federation took the ATP to court. Attempts are being made in Boston this week to avoid what is largely viewed as pending disaster for the tour as both sides are participating in mediation. However a source close to the case tells Tennis Week that the ATP remains adamant in its position and will not alter its stance that Hamburg will be stripped of its Masters Series status starting next year. The ramifications of the court case are immense.

"If the ATP lose, the tour will implode," was how one experienced official described it to me. "And if they don’t, Hamburg is still not going to go away. They have money to fight this and are unlikely to accept a first unfavorable ruling."

All this has created the kind of atmosphere whereby players feel they are not being listened to and that their careers are being damaged. Time and again in recent weeks, Nadal has complained of the compressed European claycourt season and now has blistered feet to show for it. Quite apart from that, there have been 23 defaults in five tournaments since the tour arrived in Europe, creating a new crisis for the sport.

Given the current atmosphere, it was inevitable that there would be scapegoats and Rogers, who has been brilliant at handling Agassi’s frequently tempestuous career, has become the first.

"But this is only the beginning," one well informed insider told me from Hamburg today. "The top players are not going to go away. They want what they have always wanted — representation on the Board that reflects their views. It is an old story and has been going on for years. There have been too many people sitting in conference rooms not listening to what the people who have to go out and play the matches on different surfaces with no proper preparation are telling them."

Throughout the history of the Association of Tennis Professionals, which was formed in a tent at Forest Hills in 1972, there have been moments when the locker room contained players with more than average intelligence, leadership skills and determination to forge their own destiny.

Obviously the original group were exceptional. Cliff Drysdale, the first President of the ATP, and his successors Arthur Ashe and John Newcombe, as well as such players as Charlie Pasarell (who instigated the whole idea with Newcombe over a late night drink in Rome), Mark Cox, Ismail El Shafei, Owen Davidson, Jim McManus and others showed maturity beyond their years in organizing and sustaining the Wimbledon boycott of 1973 which changed the way the game was run forever. In the intervening years, Butch Buchholz, Ray Moore, Harold Solomon and Vijay Amritraj proved themselves almost as adept in a board room as on a tennis court.

Now there is a new generation, led by Federer, Nadal and Ivan Ljubicic who are capable of uniting the locker room and sending them out to do battle for a cause.

Jokes about inmates running the asylum can be made about many sports at various times (and maybe some sports at all times) but, in tennis at the moment, it doesn’t hold water. For better or worse, Player Power is raising its head again and the game will change as a result.


© 2007 Tennis Week
[/FONT]

 

[Fee]

Background (I don't think this was ever discussed here).

http://blog.douglasrobson.com/2008/04/10/more-on-the-de-villiers-letter-and-other-items.aspx

The De Villiers Letter and Other Items

Posted by Douglas Robson at 4/10/2008 9:13 PM and is filed under Tennis

De Villiers Taking Heat

Ft. Lauderdale's Sun-Sentinel first reported that a letter of discontent regarding ATP Chairman Etienne de Villiers was circulating at Key Biscayne last week. I confirmed the report about the brewing mutiny. Here is a near-verbatim copy of the letter as described to me by a person familiar with it:

Dear Player Council and Player Board Representatives:

We the undersigned players request that our voice be heard and our input be sought on the future discussions of the future ATP CEO /Chairman of the board position.

As you have been elected by us, the players, it is important that we are part of the discussions on Etienne de Villiers’ future. Like in many of your current decisions, we would like to see different options. Therefore, we request that other potential candidates are identified, interviewed and assessed prior to any vote taking place on the board in regard to Etienne’s future.

Men’s tennis is a very hot property at the current time. Thus we require an open and transparent process, a process of which Etienne will be part, in order to identify as strong and effective a leader for our sport.

Signed:

Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Nikolay Davydenko, David Ferrer, Andy Roddick, David Nalbadian, Richard Gasquet, James Blake, Tomas Berdych, Mikhail Youzhny, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Andy Murray, Tommy Robredo, Paul-Henri Mathieu, Juan Monaco.

The petition lacks just three players from last week's top 20: Guillermo Canas, Marcos Baghdatis and Ivo Karlovic. I was told the only reason they didn’t sign is because they weren’t available.

What does the letter mean? Well, for starters, it denotes a lack of communication and growing dissatisfaction with the job de Villiers is doing. Obviously, he’s taken his lumps with the failed round-robin experiment, the Hamburg lawsuit and the seemingly endless Sopot investigation (and possible lawsuit from Davydenko). He’s had his triumphs too, such as the revamped doubles scoring, and prize money is up 30% on his watch.

De Villiers has long maintained that if he could no longer affect change or loses support of the players and board, he would quit. He doesn't need the money. Surely, he doesn't need the headache. Frankly, I’m surprised he’s lasted as long as he has. De Villiers has long maintained that if he could no longer affect change or lost support of the players and board, he would quit. Frankly, I’m surprised he’s lasted as long as he has.

I don’t know if this is a negotiating tactic or something deeper, but it could be that the players have lost faith in the three reps on the board, former doubles pro Jacco Eltingh, Andre Agassi’s agent Perry Rogers and Iggy Jovanovic, who was not a touring pro but worked for the ATP.

One top agent told me the players feel the board is stacked in de Villiers’ favor and that their voice is simply being ignored. Players were also alarmed by rumors that negotiations on extending de Villiers contract had already begun at Indian Wells - without the proper transparency. Stay tuned – this could get messy. Then again, this is the dysfunctional family called tennis.

 

[Fee]

And a blurb that Robson posted at the end of his blog on 5/10/08:

More trouble for De Villiers?
A source in Rome tells me that the Players Council voted this week to take down ATP Chairman Etienne de Villiers and the three players’ reps on the ATP board, which if nothing else, is a vote of no-confidence. De Villiers, meantime, threatened to resign. Stay tuned on this unfolding acrimony between the players and ATP leadership (and see my earlier blog of Thursday, April 10, for more background).

http://blog.douglasrobson.com/2008/05/10/nadal-henin-hegemony-at-roland-garros-in-question.aspx

 

[sureshs]

This is far more interesting than a Federer match these days.

 

[flyer]

hhhmmmmmmm, wow all those guys signed it? they must really feel strongly that they are ignored

 

[rfprse]

It's good that players finally did something about their dummy representatives who fail to represent them.

More trouble for De Villiers?
A source in Rome tells me that the Players Council voted this week to take down ATP Chairman Etienne de Villiers and the three players’ reps on the ATP board, which if nothing else, is a vote of no-confidence. De Villiers, meantime, threatened to resign. Stay tuned on this unfolding acrimony between the players and ATP leadership (and see my earlier blog of Thursday, April 10, for more background).

http://blog.douglasrobson.com/2008/05/10/nadal-henin-hegemony-at-roland-garros-in-question.aspx

Why just threatening? Just do it De Villiers!
Didn't he keep saying that he doesn't need the job as if he did some charity?
He doesn't think too highly of tennis itself. He kept saying he doesn't need money. What's stopping him? Maybe his convoluted and oversized ego?

 

[daddy]

I am confident that players will not allow anything to compromise the game. It's only natural and although money is a factor in every sport, balance between money driven changes and the status of tennis should be well taken care of.

 

[Fee]

a-ha! I thought I had started a thread about this before. Another story on this issue. The ATP player meeting and elections this Saturday in London are going to be a very big deal, wish I could be a fly on the wall for that....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/sfl-0618brickertennis-column,0,1812530.column?page=1

Players taking control of ATP, but future in jeopardy

Charles Bricker
Sports Columnist
3:46 PM EDT, June 18, 2008

Step by step, dagger by dagger, the ATP Players Council is taking almost complete control of the men's tennis tour, and the tipping point that could lead to the end of the ATP as we know it could come at an absolutely critical meeting on Saturday at Wimbledon.

The 10-member Council, which is primarily advisory to the ATP Board of Directors as a sort of conduit between players and management, has tired of the cajoling and pleading for more communication and more influence in major decisions.

The only major power the Council has, and it's using it, is to replace the men who are empowered to make financial and policy decisions - the ATP Board and, by extension, the chairman and chief executive of the ATP himself, Etienne de Villiers.

There will be no more shots over the bow of the boat.

Gone: Jacco Eltingh, who held the European seat on the board and whose alliance with de Villiers made him a prime target.

Gone: Perry Rogers, Andre Agassi's longtime friend, agent and confidante, who held the Americas seat, dumped a month ago by the Council because they couldn't communicate with him and because he, too, was a strong de Villiers ally.

Gone: By Saturday, the international representative to the board, Iggy Jovanovic, who will step down. That's three of the six board members.

At the Saturday Council meeting, there will be more emphatic moves.

The Council probably will elevate its chairman, the highly-esteemed player and tour elder statesman Ivan Ljubicic, to one board seat. The other two places undoubtedly will be filled by people whose goals match those of the players who have revolted against de Villiers' controversial decisions over the past two years.

Once that's done, de Villiers will be stripped of board support.

The international seat on the Board will come down to either Mahesh Bhupathi, the Indian doubles player, or David Egdes, senior vice president of the Tennis Channel.

There are seven men running for the Americas seat, but only two are believed to have realistic chances of winning - retired player Justin Gimelstob, who thought he had the seat won a year ago when he contested Rogers, and Norman Canter, managing director of Renaissance Tennis Management.

Once the Council partisans are in control of the board, it's very difficult to see how de Villiers, whose contract is up Dec. 31 anyway, can survive the rest of the year.

In fact, sacking de Villiers could lead to an out-of-court settlement of the devastatingly expensive lawsuit that was filed by the German Tennis Federation in March of 2007 after de Villiers, as part of a plan to redesign and streamline the ATP schedule, moved the Masters Series event at Hamburg to Madrid and downgraded Monte Carlo. That lawsuit, which will be heard beginning July 23, already has cost the ATP an estimated $7 million in attorneys' fees and, says Ljubicic, that number will be significantly higher when the case is adjudicated. It could bankrupt the ATP.

Here are a number of scenarios that lie ahead for the ATP:

· No longer backed by a friendly Board of Directors, de Villiers resigns and the ATP settles the Hamburg suit. The deal to take the Hamburg event to Madrid as a combined clay-court tournament with the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour, is cancelled and Hamburg goes back to its original May date in Germany, retaining its Masters Series status.

· de Villiers stands fast as a lame duck the rest of the year and is replaced Jan. 1 by a new CEO, even if the ATP wins the Hamburg suit.

· Financially ruined by the cost of the suit, the ATP disbands and the players reform a union and recreate the men's tennis tour.

· Finally, this very intriguing possibility. The ITF, which runs the Grand Slams, and the various Slams themselves, financially bail out the ATP if the Hamburg suit is lost. No one is going to advertise it, but there have been key conversations along this line already, involving some of the most important international executives in tennis.

When the history of these past two turbulent years of men's tennis is written, one of the crucial questions will be, "Why did all this happen?"

It happened because de Villiers, who spent 15 years in executive jobs for the Walt Disney Company, including president and managing director of Walt Disney International, was brought in to kick the ATP into the 21st Century and the players didn't like his management style.

Rank and file players, particularly those in the top-20, wanted heavy influence over streamlining the tour and de Villiers discovered early on that if you ask 20 players for a view, you'll get at least 15 different answers.

No leader can function trying to please every constituent.

U.S. and European players in general want more hardcourt tournaments. Spanish and South Americans want more clay. Some players were outraged that they could be suspended if they didn't play a Masters Series event, another of de Villiers' proposals.

He inherited an almost impossible situation because the job of professional tennis player has no long-term guarantees. As a result, about 95 percent of the players never see the big picture of what could make the tour better. They see only their picture.

Nevertheless, here's where I think de Villiers got into trouble. At Disney he had only to report to a Board of Directors and, once in awhile, have a sitdown with Mickey and Donald. The ATP is a completely different animal.

It was a mistake to think he only needed to deal with a board. There are over 1,000 independent contractors (players) out there who demand to be more involved in his decisions, and they have a lot more at stake than your average stockholder.

de Villiers never made the management style adjustment from Disney to tennis.

There were early mistakes. His 2006 round-robin tournament system that was designed to keep top players in the draw, even if they lost in the first round, was widely opposed by the players from the start.

There was his misfire over a rule that should have allowed Russia's Evgeny Korolev to come out of the round robin and into the quarterfinals at the Tennis Channel Open in Las Vegas. de Villiers ruled that James Blake, a much bigger draw, would get that spot.

He admitted those mistakes, and that's to his credit. But that's where the disconnect with the players began, creating just enough doubt in players' minds about his ability to understand their needs that almost everything he would do after that was open to question.

"I still have a lot of respect for Etienne. I think he's a very good leader," Players Council member Tommy Johansson told me on Tuesday. "But I have to say he's got to have the right people around him.

"He's a great businessman. His knowledge about tennis is not that big, but it has improved a lot since he came on board. It's just a very tough job because you can't please everybody."

Johansson went on to talk about the communications disconnect, an issue that has left me perplexed.

I asked: "OK, you're not getting enough information from the Board of Directors or you feel that Etienne isn't meeting with players enough to answer questions. How simple is it to just let them know, as a Council, that this is a serious problem and it needs to be corrected right now?"

"I don't know," Johansson replied. "We're still working on it."

And it will be settled on Saturday.

"I still think Etienne is a great leader," said Johansson. "But if he would have just had the right guys next to him. Maybe a guy like Jim Courier or Mats Wilander. Not to work for the ATP, but to just pick up the phone and call them and ask for their opinions. Things would have been smoother."

If anything good comes out of this mess, it is this: "This is pretty much the first time in the history of tennis that the players are united," Johansson said.

This was not, however, the way anyone wanted to unite the players.

Charles Bricker can be reached at cbricker@sun-sentinel.com His blog can be read at sun-sentinel.com/sports.

Copyright © 2008, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

 

[BeHappy]

a-ha! I thought I had started a thread about this before. Another story on this issue. The ATP player meeting and elections this Saturday in London are going to be a very big deal, wish I could be a fly on the wall for that....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/sfl-0618brickertennis-column,0,1812530.column?page=1

Players taking control of ATP, but future in jeopardy

Charles Bricker
Sports Columnist
3:46 PM EDT, June 18, 2008

Step by step, dagger by dagger, the ATP Players Council is taking almost complete control of the men's tennis tour, and the tipping point that could lead to the end of the ATP as we know it could come at an absolutely critical meeting on Saturday at Wimbledon.

The 10-member Council, which is primarily advisory to the ATP Board of Directors as a sort of conduit between players and management, has tired of the cajoling and pleading for more communication and more influence in major decisions.

The only major power the Council has, and it's using it, is to replace the men who are empowered to make financial and policy decisions - the ATP Board and, by extension, the chairman and chief executive of the ATP himself, Etienne de Villiers.

There will be no more shots over the bow of the boat.

Gone: Jacco Eltingh, who held the European seat on the board and whose alliance with de Villiers made him a prime target.

Gone: Perry Rogers, Andre Agassi's longtime friend, agent and confidante, who held the Americas seat, dumped a month ago by the Council because they couldn't communicate with him and because he, too, was a strong de Villiers ally.

Gone: By Saturday, the international representative to the board, Iggy Jovanovic, who will step down. That's three of the six board members.

At the Saturday Council meeting, there will be more emphatic moves.

The Council probably will elevate its chairman, the highly-esteemed player and tour elder statesman Ivan Ljubicic, to one board seat. The other two places undoubtedly will be filled by people whose goals match those of the players who have revolted against de Villiers' controversial decisions over the past two years.

Once that's done, de Villiers will be stripped of board support.

The international seat on the Board will come down to either Mahesh Bhupathi, the Indian doubles player, or David Egdes, senior vice president of the Tennis Channel.

There are seven men running for the Americas seat, but only two are believed to have realistic chances of winning - retired player Justin Gimelstob, who thought he had the seat won a year ago when he contested Rogers, and Norman Canter, managing director of Renaissance Tennis Management.

Once the Council partisans are in control of the board, it's very difficult to see how de Villiers, whose contract is up Dec. 31 anyway, can survive the rest of the year.

In fact, sacking de Villiers could lead to an out-of-court settlement of the devastatingly expensive lawsuit that was filed by the German Tennis Federation in March of 2007 after de Villiers, as part of a plan to redesign and streamline the ATP schedule, moved the Masters Series event at Hamburg to Madrid and downgraded Monte Carlo. That lawsuit, which will be heard beginning July 23, already has cost the ATP an estimated $7 million in attorneys' fees and, says Ljubicic, that number will be significantly higher when the case is adjudicated. It could bankrupt the ATP.

Here are a number of scenarios that lie ahead for the ATP:

· No longer backed by a friendly Board of Directors, de Villiers resigns and the ATP settles the Hamburg suit. The deal to take the Hamburg event to Madrid as a combined clay-court tournament with the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour, is cancelled and Hamburg goes back to its original May date in Germany, retaining its Masters Series status.

· de Villiers stands fast as a lame duck the rest of the year and is replaced Jan. 1 by a new CEO, even if the ATP wins the Hamburg suit.

· Financially ruined by the cost of the suit, the ATP disbands and the players reform a union and recreate the men's tennis tour.

· Finally, this very intriguing possibility. The ITF, which runs the Grand Slams, and the various Slams themselves, financially bail out the ATP if the Hamburg suit is lost. No one is going to advertise it, but there have been key conversations along this line already, involving some of the most important international executives in tennis.

When the history of these past two turbulent years of men's tennis is written, one of the crucial questions will be, "Why did all this happen?"

It happened because de Villiers, who spent 15 years in executive jobs for the Walt Disney Company, including president and managing director of Walt Disney International, was brought in to kick the ATP into the 21st Century and the players didn't like his management style.

Rank and file players, particularly those in the top-20, wanted heavy influence over streamlining the tour and de Villiers discovered early on that if you ask 20 players for a view, you'll get at least 15 different answers.

No leader can function trying to please every constituent.

U.S. and European players in general want more hardcourt tournaments. Spanish and South Americans want more clay. Some players were outraged that they could be suspended if they didn't play a Masters Series event, another of de Villiers' proposals.

He inherited an almost impossible situation because the job of professional tennis player has no long-term guarantees. As a result, about 95 percent of the players never see the big picture of what could make the tour better. They see only their picture.

Nevertheless, here's where I think de Villiers got into trouble. At Disney he had only to report to a Board of Directors and, once in awhile, have a sitdown with Mickey and Donald. The ATP is a completely different animal.

It was a mistake to think he only needed to deal with a board. There are over 1,000 independent contractors (players) out there who demand to be more involved in his decisions, and they have a lot more at stake than your average stockholder.

de Villiers never made the management style adjustment from Disney to tennis.

There were early mistakes. His 2006 round-robin tournament system that was designed to keep top players in the draw, even if they lost in the first round, was widely opposed by the players from the start.

There was his misfire over a rule that should have allowed Russia's Evgeny Korolev to come out of the round robin and into the quarterfinals at the Tennis Channel Open in Las Vegas. de Villiers ruled that James Blake, a much bigger draw, would get that spot.

He admitted those mistakes, and that's to his credit. But that's where the disconnect with the players began, creating just enough doubt in players' minds about his ability to understand their needs that almost everything he would do after that was open to question.

"I still have a lot of respect for Etienne. I think he's a very good leader," Players Council member Tommy Johansson told me on Tuesday. "But I have to say he's got to have the right people around him.

"He's a great businessman. His knowledge about tennis is not that big, but it has improved a lot since he came on board. It's just a very tough job because you can't please everybody."

Johansson went on to talk about the communications disconnect, an issue that has left me perplexed.

I asked: "OK, you're not getting enough information from the Board of Directors or you feel that Etienne isn't meeting with players enough to answer questions. How simple is it to just let them know, as a Council, that this is a serious problem and it needs to be corrected right now?"

"I don't know," Johansson replied. "We're still working on it."

And it will be settled on Saturday.

"I still think Etienne is a great leader," said Johansson. "But if he would have just had the right guys next to him. Maybe a guy like Jim Courier or Mats Wilander. Not to work for the ATP, but to just pick up the phone and call them and ask for their opinions. Things would have been smoother."

If anything good comes out of this mess, it is this: "This is pretty much the first time in the history of tennis that the players are united," Johansson said.

This was not, however, the way anyone wanted to unite the players.

Charles Bricker can be reached at cbricker@sun-sentinel.com His blog can be read at sun-sentinel.com/sports.

Copyright © 2008, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

This reminds me of Dallas so much

 

[Klatu Verata Necktie]

Fee,
What's your opinion of all this? I'd be a bit anxious to see the ATP go down, since it's been around since I can remember. Many news reports I've read are not optimistic about the future of tennis as a marketable sport, and I wouldn't want to see it's prospects harmed by a damaged ATP.

 

[Fee]

How much time have you got?

I think that DeVilliers has to go, even if that means making the vote and the announcement within the next week and keeping him around as a lame duck for a few months (he's already a lame duck of sorts, all of these moves lately are pretty much 'no confidence' in neon lights).

I think the ATP needs to find a way to skate that very fine edge of being a player-centered organization while still keeping an eye on the needs of the tournaments which have to make money in order to provide the players a place to play so they can make money. Easy job, right? But wait, how about a CEO who also cares about making tournaments accessible to the fans, so that more fans will come so the tournaments can make money so that they can pay the players to put on a good show for the fans. See, easy job.

I do not want to see the demise of the ATP simply because there is nothing better to replace it with just yet. If it goes, the ITF and the slams will take over, and that won't be pretty at all. As for the finer points and longer term problems, well it's late and I need to get to bed so I can't write about all of that coherently just yet.

I will say (to no one's suprise, I'm sure) that I hope that Justin gets elected to the Board. He may not always make the right decision, or the best decision, but I know his heart is in the right place (and he utilizes a pretty good focus group of one from time to time). Not sure who is up for the other two seats, but Ivan Ljubicic is another good choice. He's been doing a lot behind the scenes for the last year or more, and he deserves a lot of credit for his work.

 

[malakas]

Definitely not the way one would like to unite the players..Can't wait to see what happens this Saturday.De Villiers is time to go,but if there isn't any substantial change made,the one who replaces him could have the same fate.
The opinion and the information very much appreciated Fee!
Let's hope everything turns out okay,for the good of the fans,the players and the sport!

 

[cucio]

Great thread, Fee. Thanks!

Regarding Gimelstob, if one goes by his public persona (i.e., what you read and hear in the news) he doesn't strike me as a person that has the broader picture in his mind. One can't deny his passion and dedication to the sport, but many times he comes out as biased and pigheaded. If I am not mistaken, he threw some ugly accusations at Rogers when he lost the board elections to him and he had to apologize afterwards.

In an organization that needs more cohesion, I wonder if a polarizing personality like his, no matter how good his intentions are, can be the one to provide the much sought after unity. If you go by his column at SI I can see him favoring anything USA, fast courts and burning bridges with the WTA.

But it is up to the players, they spend a lot of time together and they should know well who could do the best job.

And if the South American and Spanish players want to have a bigger say, they should begin by learning some proper English first. Like it or not, it is the "lingua franca" nowadays and, as a Spaniard myself, I find rather irritating how these young lads don't make a better effort in that direction, it makes them look provincial and hard to take seriously.

 

[cmb]

Great thread, Fee. Thanks!

Regarding Gimelstob, if one goes by his public persona (i.e., what you read and hear in the news) he doesn't strike me as a person that has the broader picture in his mind. One can't deny his passion and dedication to the sport, but many times he comes out as biased and pigheaded. If I am not mistaken, he threw some ugly accusations at Rogers when he lost the board elections to him and he had to apologize afterwards.

In an organization that needs more cohesion, I wonder if a polarizing personality like his, no matter how good his intentions are, can be the one to provide the much sought after unity. If you go by his column at SI I can see him favoring anything USA, fast courts and burning bridges with the WTA.

But it is up to the players, they spend a lot of time together and they should know well who could do the best job.

And if the South American and Spanish players want to have a bigger say, they should begin by learning some proper English first. Like it or not, it is the "lingua franca" nowadays and, as a Spaniard myself, I find rather irritating how these young lads don't make a better effort in that direction, it makes them look provincial and hard to take seriously.

There is really no need to bring the skills of english, or lack of skills, into this. Even though english is the main language in the world, its not the Europeans fault that Americans don't like tennis.

It seems like Asia has more of a market and just the same amount of advertising money to spend on tennis, since CBS obviously cares more about the NCAA basketball tournament then the Nasdaq, move the spring hardcourt tournaments to Asia. Tennis is not popular in the states anymore, its time to move on

 

[cucio]

There is really no need to bring the skills of english, or lack of skills, into this. Even though english is the main language in the world, its not the Europeans fault that Americans don't like tennis.

It is not all about the USA.

I once met this American tourist that expressed her deep gratefulness, seemingly believing that we internationals learned English just to communicate with them yanks. The hubris!

It is about letting your voice be heard properly in an international environment, whether it includes countries where English is the native language or not.

The players have a lot of opportunities to practice and catch a lot of the language just by hearing it around, and I can't believe they can't spare a couple of hours a week to gobble down some basic grammar when part of their job is giving press conferences or acceptance speeches.

 

[AndrewD]

Fee,

What was Justin's reaction when Perry Rogers got the boot from the ATP board (player representative) ?

I fully agreed with his (Justin's) sentiments when he lost out to Rogers in their head-to-head vote and was disappointed more players didn't voice concerns about the result. I just hope that, if he does get elected, Justin is willing to use his voice for the betterment of the game (especially as it relates to the non-Eu and Latin nations) and not merely the advancement of the ATP.

 

[BeHappy]

Didn't Gimelstob freak out really childishly when the results were announcec;that he'd lost to Rogers?

 

[malakas]

It is not all about the USA.

I once met this American tourist that expressed her deep gratefulness, seemingly believing that we internationals learned English just to communicate with them yanks. The hubris!

It is about letting your voice be heard properly in an international environment, whether it includes countries where English is the native language or not.

The players have a lot of opportunities to practice and catch a lot of the language just by hearing it around, and I can't believe they can't spare a couple of hours a week to gobble down some basic grammar when part of their job is giving press conferences or acceptance speeches.

This is OUT OF TOPIC but: These players are nothing more but the represantion of the language skill of the countries they come from!A country as touristic as Spain,and noone can tell you even road directions.So,don't just blame the players,it all comes down to the educational system.

But,in my opinion the knowledge of good english doesn't plays such an important role in this matter,if they want to express their opinion they will find a way.

 

[paterson]

Getting rid of De Villiers and Perry Rodgers is a big mistake. They never got a chance to see their changes thru. Adding a master series in Shanghai was brilliant. Hamburg is a loser tournament.

 

[sureshs]

And if the South American and Spanish players want to have a bigger say, they should begin by learning some proper English first. Like it or not, it is the "lingua franca" nowadays and, as a Spaniard myself, I find rather irritating how these young lads don't make a better effort in that direction, it makes them look provincial and hard to take seriously.

Things will be different after a young Spaniard lad wins Wimbledon this year.

 

[rfprse]

Other than Ljubicic (or/and maybe on paper, Buhpathi), the names floating in the article don't look good.
No wonder players didn't have a real voice in the board meetings.
Players need to be careful to select the right reps who will follow their (council's) decision and not those with their own agenda or who can be easily manipulated or influenced by their outstanding business or personal interests and ties.

 

[crazylevity]

Sounds like some serious cr4p is going to hit the fan. Thanks for the heads up, Fee.

 

[Fee]

Great thread, Fee. Thanks!

Regarding Gimelstob, if one goes by his public persona (i.e., what you read and hear in the news) he doesn't strike me as a person that has the broader picture in his mind. One can't deny his passion and dedication to the sport, but many times he comes out as biased and pigheaded. If I am not mistaken, he threw some ugly accusations at Rogers when he lost the board elections to him and he had to apologize afterwards.

In an organization that needs more cohesion, I wonder if a polarizing personality like his, no matter how good his intentions are, can be the one to provide the much sought after unity. If you go by his column at SI I can see him favoring anything USA, fast courts and burning bridges with the WTA.

But it is up to the players, they spend a lot of time together and they should know well who could do the best job.

You haven't read all of his columns have you?

Fee,
What was Justin's reaction when Perry Rogers got the boot from the ATP board (player representative) ?

I fully agreed with his (Justin's) sentiments when he lost out to Rogers in their head-to-head vote and was disappointed more players didn't voice concerns about the result. I just hope that, if he does get elected, Justin is willing to use his voice for the betterment of the game (especially as it relates to the non-Eu and Latin nations) and not merely the advancement of the ATP.

You know, I never talked to him about it. He was on vacation when it happened, and when I emailed him he said he already knew. That was the day before the Justine retirement broke and he was actually writing a column about it at his hotel to publish the next day. We never talked about Perry.

Didn't Gimelstob freak out really childishly when the results were announcec;that he'd lost to Rogers?

No, he didn't.

To answer all of your questions as delicately as I can, there was a lot going on that particular Saturday last year. Promises were made and broken (or perhaps people flat out lied) and yes, Justin was angry about it afterwards, justifiably so in my opinion. He apologized to Perry for his outburst and went the extra step of putting it in his SI column even though very few people outside of tennis had any clue what was going on. {This is how Justin and I became friends, because he was man enough to look me in the eye and apologize to me for something}.

This is a decision that the players will make, and yes, they know him better than all of us (me included). Based on what I know of him, his business sense, his love of tennis, and other things, I think he would be good. He would be one person on a 7 person board, not the face of the ATP. His personality is just fine for this job.

 

[Casey10s]

I just hope the revolution doesn't go too far. If the players get complete control without some input from other entities, this could get messy. Very few players understand the economics, marketing, financial issues, and the like to effectively run this type of organization. One have to realize that most of these players have no college background and I bet a lot of them have barely finished high school, if even that far.

As stated in the article from yesterday, the players in general don't see the big picture and are more concerned about themselves as they stand today. Take a look at the NFL players union for one. They pretty much have kicked the players that preceeded them under the train. These retired players get hardly no medical benefits and financial support when they need it. The union is making sure that the current members 'get theirs' and they forget that they will be in the same predicament as these retired players in the next 10 to 20 years. There are similar things happening in other players unions but I can't recall any specifics at this time.

The players have to look at the situation today and where things will be 5 to 15 years from now when they have passed on to other pursuits. Maybe the current board is not the best make-up but having only players on the board will be a worse mistake. From the several articles floating around, it is hard to discern what the players really want - keep the current organization with different members or go in a completely different direction where they have complete control over their destiny.

 

[Fee]

It's impossible for the players to take complete control, the other 3 seats on the board are chosen by the tournament directors. The 7th seat is the CEO of the ATP.

 

[Casey10s]

Unless they decide the ATP is not for them. There has been some vaguely worded articles that quoted players saying something like if the ATP doesn't change, they may go their own way. May be posturing but you can't tell with a bunch of 18 to 27 year olds.

I know that many news reporters like to spice up a mundane report to sell their wares. Right now, there are comments floating around that hopefully don't reflect the majority of the players but are only by people shooting from the hip. I think that most players really don't understand the total scope of the tour and all the things that go on that they never see.

 

[Fee]

They tried that a few years ago with the ITPA or whatever it was called (I believe Wayne Ferreira was the head of that). It didn't get very far. I sincerely doubt the players will get organized enough to form their own association, and it would be kind of silly to even try. They need to work within the current structure to strengthen the player voice (and that includes ALL players, especially the ones below 100) and get their concerns addressed. But the first thing they need to do is meet as players and form a consensus because they really are all over the place on some of these issues.

 

[Casey10s]

As I stated elsewhere on this board, the big issue I see is prize money. When you have the 30th something player in the PGA making more than all but 3 on the ATP tour and a huge percentage of ML baseball players making more the $1M per year, this is a problem. To make a living, many players have to play all the time and this leads to all of the other problems such as having to play too many weeks in a row, increase of injury, fatigue, betting scandals, and so on. The prize money (in my opinion) issue is not being addressed as well and directly as it should. I know they are looking for new markets, better media coverage, different advertising, but they need to state very forwardly that the players need to make more. This will put on a better show and will solve some of these simmering issues. Also, from what I can tell, the worldwide income from media is nowhere where it should be to support a better tour. They need to get more income from TV and the like.

 

[laurie]

In my opinion Ettienne Devilliers has brought this all on himself. That round robin thing was a nonsense and a non starter which the players didn't like. But what really got me was the cheek to attempt to downgrade Monte Carlo and Hamburg, two of the oldest events on the tour - and trying to put Madrid in Hamburg's place. That wasn't the right way to go about changing the calendar - I thought the purpose was to reduce the calendar. He just doesn't appear very competent for the job, and like Larry scott of the WTA, seems obsessed with money. The answer always seems to offer more and more prize money for tournaments whilst Tennis is played to half empty stadiums around the world and on TV channels which most people don't have access to (admittedly that contract was done pre Dveilliers but that needs looking at).
The Super Nines were great when they were on Eurosport because they had a much bigger potential audience.

I'm also interested to see how the move for the year end championships will work when they move to London. I went to the WTA final in Madrid last year. The ticket cost me only 33 euros, that's about £28 and my round robin ticket cost only 25 euros, around £20. With London been such a costly city I shudder to think how much they are going to charge Londoners for the right to watch some live Tennis.

I'm completely disatisfied with how the ATP is run right now and I think it's in need of a shake up. Sometimes a crisis means something good could come out of it.

 

[sureshs]

Didn't Gimelstob freak out really childishly when the results were announcec;that he'd lost to Rogers?

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_tennisblog/2007/06/this-justin-gim.html

Seems to be a little different in real life from the goofy self-deprecating on-TV persona - probably has high personal ambitions of a political kind.

This Justin: Gimelstob fuming over election loss

> Posted by Charles Bricker at 7:49:56 AM
WIMBLEDON, England -- Justin Gimelstob, the veteran player/blogger/TV commentator from Santa Monica, Calif., was angry and, as he stalked around the outdoor players lounge here with a cell phone at his ear, he wasn't trying to disguise his fury to ATP general counsel Mark Young.

The word "duplicitous" was overheard as Gimelstob demanded an explanation of how he lost to Andre Agassi's agent and long-time friend, Perry Rogers, in a fight for the Americas spot on the three-member ATP Board of Directors.

"You tell me to my face, off the record, that there wasn't some manipulation going on," Gimelstob snapped at Young on the phone.

It was Rogers, Gimelstob charged, who was "duplicitous. No doubt. He's completely duplicitous and manipulative, 100 percent, and, for lack of a better word, a liar. I had eight of the 10 votes going in," Gimelstob maintained when we sat down to discuss his agitation. "I've had players coming up to me. . .Tommy Robredo came up to me and asked, 'How is it possible you lost.'

"Yes, I'm upset. I guess I could look at it as a learning experience, but not a very rewarding learning experience. But I'm trained to compete against people in front of my face. I'm not trained in politics."

Let me digress to explain how the Board and Player Council is organized and how the voting takes place:

There is a 10-member Player Council which delivers advisory decisions to the Board of Directors, which has the power to accept or reject the Council's suggestions. The Council consists of four players who are 1-50 in singles (currently Ivan Ljubicic, James Blake, Thomas Johansson and Olivier Rochus), two 51-100 in singles (Paul Goldstein and Davide Sanguinetti), two 1-100 in doubles (Bob Bryan and Kevin Ulyett) and two at-large members (Paradorn Srichaphan and Martin Garcia).

The Board of Directors has three members, each with two-year terms, and they are elected by the 10-member Council -- international representative Iggy Jovanovic, European rep Jacco Eltingh and Americas rep Perry Rogers. Only Rogers' seat was up at this election and it's important to point out that there has never been an active player on the Board of Directors, a key reason Gimelstob was running.

He pointed out that the players views are not being recognized by the Board. Last year, for example, the Council voted unanimously that no wild cards be given for a specified time for players returning from doping suspensions. The Board of Directors overruled the Council. "It's a pivotal time in the game," said Gimelstob.

The vote was secret, but Gimelstob and others I've talked to believe it was 6-4 for Rogers. Two other candidates, former ATP executive David Higdon and retired player Horacio de la Pena, did not get votes.

In Rogers' favor is his enormous network of connections in the sports world and, though he's not been a professional tennis player, one might argue that he understands player needs through Agassi.

This internecine fight is not what the U.S. needs right now as it tries to galvanize its resources to get American tennis back on a higher level, but this election appears to have created some bitterness that won't go away soon.

I can understand Gimelstob's huge disappointment. But everyone who voted in this election is a player, like Gimelstob. Whatever influenced their decision, only they can cast ballots, and six of them cast for Rogers.

 

[soyizgood]

This mess boils down to money, power, and respect.

* Money
The players want more money from the tournaments, but where is this money going to come from? It's difficult for even the large tournaments to turn a profit. Tennis doesn't generate great ratings nor is it friendly for networks to schedule due to unpredictable match duration.

The poor tennis players (i.e. the below top 50) play more often than the elite players, but play for practically peanuts and/or for points. What's being done to help these poor players out? A handful of them will become tomorrow's superstars, but the vast majority of them will end up barely making ends meet now and when they retire. No medical/vacation/401k/pension plans and no compensation when you get injured. About the only benefit you get are frequent flier miles. That and camaraderie sharing hotel rooms with other starving players (I knew an ex-pro that told me a few stories of struggling on the tour).

* Power
The players want more input into how the tour is run. They argue that they bring in the money and its their bodies taking the punishment from all the travel and tournaments they take part in. The top 20 think they best represent the needs of the pro players. But do they really?

It seems the pros want to be able to get more off-season time, play fewer tournaments, make more money. And somehow the tour will have money coming from nowhere to accommodate their requests without the players doing much in return. As it stands the players are quite divided in what they want. Some want a longer clay season, but others want more grass, indoor and hardcourts. What could the players do to generate more revenue so that it could cultivate and grow the sport? What would they do regarding challenger and satellite events? What would be the focus and direction of the tour if the players got this power suddenly? I doubt even the top 20 players can come to an agreement, let alone the 1000 players who are more or less independent mercenaries.

* Respect
The players want the tour to listen to ideas and suggestions they have to best address the needs of the players as well as the state of affairs from their perspective. I don't think they expect the tour to accept all their requests, but they do want them to at least listen.

However, players tend to have a narrow-minded view of what goes on around them and likely lack the insight to see the bigger picture. That's not from lack of intelligence, but due to the fact their careers are relatively short an without any real financial security they may pursue ideas that can protect them now, but possibly at the expense of future and past players. The tour under DeVilliers did do some things that the players felt were a slap in the face to them, but have they considered the logic behind those moves? Or did they just make an immediate reaction to them? Neither side truly trusts the other and at this point, neither side can be blamed for that though it's BOTH their faults for letting things get to this point.

 

[sureshs]

No medical/vacation/401k/pension plans and no compensation when you get injured.

I think they have a pension plan. Maybe also a discounted group health insurance plan? Fee would probably know.

 

[veroniquem]

This mess boils down to money, power, and respect.

* Money
The players want more money from the tournaments, but where is this money going to come from? It's difficult for even the large tournaments to turn a profit. Tennis doesn't generate great ratings nor is it friendly for networks to schedule due to unpredictable match duration.

The poor tennis players (i.e. the below top 50) play more often than the elite players, but play for practically peanuts and/or for points. What's being done to help these poor players out? A handful of them will become tomorrow's superstars, but the vast majority of them will end up barely making ends meet now and when they retire. No medical/vacation/401k/pension plans and no compensation when you get injured. About the only benefit you get are frequent flier miles. That and camaraderie sharing hotel rooms with other starving players (I knew an ex-pro that told me a few stories of struggling on the tour).

* Power
The players want more input into how the tour is run. They argue that they bring in the money and its their bodies taking the punishment from all the travel and tournaments they take part in. The top 20 think they best represent the needs of the pro players. But do they really?

It seems the pros want to be able to get more off-season time, play fewer tournaments, make more money. And somehow the tour will have money coming from nowhere to accommodate their requests without the players doing much in return. As it stands the players are quite divided in what they want. Some want a longer clay season, but others want more grass, indoor and hardcourts. What could the players do to generate more revenue so that it could cultivate and grow the sport? What would they do regarding challenger and satellite events? What would be the focus and direction of the tour if the players got this power suddenly? I doubt even the top 20 players can come to an agreement, let alone the 1000 players who are more or less independent mercenaries.

* Respect
The players want the tour to listen to ideas and suggestions they have to best address the needs of the players as well as the state of affairs from their perspective. I don't think they expect the tour to accept all their requests, but they do want them to at least listen.

However, players tend to have a narrow-minded view of what goes on around them and likely lack the insight to see the bigger picture. That's not from lack of intelligence, but due to the fact their careers are relatively short an without any real financial security they may pursue ideas that can protect them now, but possibly at the expense of future and past players. The tour under DeVilliers did do some things that the players felt were a slap in the face to them, but have they considered the logic behind those moves? Or did they just make an immediate reaction to them? Neither side truly trusts the other and at this point, neither side can be blamed for that though it's BOTH their faults for letting things get to this point.

Nevertheless, players deserve to be represented by somebody who respects their opinion and works in their best interest. If it's not happening then there has to be some serious changes. There has to be some harmony and positive communication between players and administrators of the tour. DeVilliers is a disaster in that respect.

 

[soyizgood]

I think they have a pension plan. Maybe also a discounted group health insurance plan? Fee would probably know.

That would be interesting if they had a pension plan because I thought the players are essentially independent contractors. How would they determine the amount of pension? Based on highest rank or year end rank attained? Number of years on tour? Percentage of career winnings?

 

[sureshs]

That would be interesting if they had a pension plan because I the players are essentially independent contractors. How would they determine the amount of pension? Based on highest rank or year end rank attained? Number of years on tour? Percentage of career winnings?

ATP puts aside 3% of prize money for a pension fund.

 

[Fee]

The dues paying members of the ATP do have some benefits, based on whether they are Division 1 or Division 2 members (dont know what seperates the two divisions). They have a health insurance plan, they can purchase disability insurance, there is a retirement plan of sorts, and they get assorted deals and discounts through the ATP.

I really dont think this is just about money or power (and if it is about money, its about money for the lower ranked players, the top have plenty), I think its more about being listened to and trying to get the council to act more like player representatives instead of just letting all these changes happen.

 

[rfprse]

Some people makes this change of player reps in board as if it will give players the power to decide on every ATP matters, but it's not like players will get the power to decide anything.
They just have 3 votes out of 7. It's just the number that players council's opinion can be respected in some way.
The change is not about giving players a new power but about making the board dynamic to work the way it is supposed to work. Nothing drastic.

 

[superstition]

Career longevity and health is a huge issue, even more so in the WTA, and reducing the number of events won't fully address it. Ball speed (stiff racquet) and court surface rigidity are the two areas that need the most improvement. There need to be fewer hard court tournaments and more grass. The split between the three main surfaces should - at least - be equal, and it's not. Frankly, hard courts for pro tennis should be rare as they simply are not compatible with the human body no matter how many people myopically "like them". Even if racquets aren't restricted (by cutting down stiffness), having few hard court events and getting rid of 5 set matches would go a long way toward providing career longevity and quality. It's good for the pros and it's good for the sport because fans want to see their favorite pros healthy and competing, not pulling out or playing few events due to an unhealthy emphasis on concrete, stiffer than necessary racquets and strings, and unnecessarily fast balls coming from power racquets with poly

Whoever takes over needs to:

1. Restore balance so that all three types of tennis have an equal chance (baseline, all-court, serve-volley). More grass. Very flexible racquets to dramatically slow the ball to allow for viable net play. Equal split between fast and slow courts for slams and the calender.

2. Greatly reduce injury/fatigue and increase longevity. Slower ball speed from use of very flexible racquets reduces injury. Grass courts to replace many hard courts. No more 5 set matches.

Doubles is still a problem:
Another thing that should be done to help doubles is to make participation in doubles for top players more compelling. Doubles matches at the slam level are too short right now to be taken very seriously as well. Bring greater parity in prestige and payout to bring greater depth, especially in mixed, which tends to be a mess. For mixed doubles, it may be necessary to force male players to use a handicap (such as wood racquets, standard-size graphite racquets that are really flexible, or a single serve) to make the matches more legitimate.

Making doubles more legitimate will improve the sport because fans will get to see their favorite pros play more and will get to see them in singles and doubles action which adds to the interest. It will improve the net play of all players, which will lead to more interesting singles matches. Even "baseliners" have shown they can do well in doubles.

 

[rfprse]

Posts like soyisgood's is why I don't like Bricker's article: Bricker's been a kind of de Villiers fanboy througout his articles related to de Villiers.
He (subtlely?) depicts the whole situation as if some not so smart disgruntled small number of jocks (not so smart part is sadly right) are trying to mess up what's good by getting rid of such a good CEO (these parts are total b.s.)
without knowing what they are doing.

About Bricker's faux amazement on communication breakdown issue:
If the lack of communication is a serious problem then why not just tell the board and de Villiers? Where has he been last couple of years?
About giving de Villiers credit of admitting mistakes:
When did de Villiers admit his mistakes? Do we count belittling the
significance of tennis to dismiss the significance of his mistake as an admission of his mistake?
About the rationalization on de Villiers not listening to players:
He didn't listen to players because of the differences among their opinions? No kidding, from what I read, he just doesn't listen to any opinion different from his own period (but instead rants bitterly on and on...). And players happened to have different opinions in some key issues unfortunately to him.

This mess boils down to money, power, and respect.
* Money
The players want more money from the tournaments

The poor tennis players (i.e. the below top 50) play more often than the elite players, but play for practically peanuts and/or for points. What's being done to help these poor players out?

I agree that more attention should be paid to the welfare of the lower ranked players. One of the reasons why they need a real players union.
However, I don't think money is the issue. The initial selling point of de Villier was increasing prize money and players were sold at first.
And it's not like the ones that currently take a hold of the board (de Villier and a couple of TD's in and outside of the board) actually care about the welfare of lower ranks.
They just want to make money with their tournaments and that's all. Do you think ATP which is dominated by TD's would come up with ideas like getting rid of doubles and round robins if they care about the struggling lower ranks?

* Power

The change of player reps on board does not give players any power to decide ATP matters.

The top 20 think they best represent the needs of the pro players. But do they really?

Players council also includes reps of lower ranks.

It seems the pros want to be able to get more off-season time, play fewer tournaments, make more money.

Real problem is not about off season (anyone can take time off by not playing tournaments if he can afford to do so). Real problem is the number of mandatory events (and suspensions for failing to play,..., etc) The whole calendar shake up agenda was pushed as a way to protect players by shortening season and reducing the load. But it turned out the opposite.

As it stands the players are quite divided in what they want. Some want a longer clay season, but others want more grass, indoor and hardcourts.

Who are they? I don't think anyone wanted any longer season on any surface. And on the issue of demoting (and change time) of MC and Hamburg (one of the issues where whole thing started) it was not just clay court specialists objected the change.

What would they do regarding challenger and satellite events?

Futures (what you call 'satellites') are ITF events.

However, players tend to have a narrow-minded view of what goes on around them and likely lack the insight to see the bigger picture.

I don't know how you know this. Don't give too much credit to Bricker to almost quote him. J/K.
Of course they would be narrow minded. However, do you think TD's and guys like de Villiers are not? It's one of the reasons why ATP board needs some balance (and not dominated by some TD's and someone who knows and cares nothing about tennis).

 

[sureshs]

The dues paying members of the ATP do have some benefits, based on whether they are Division 1 or Division 2 members (dont know what seperates the two divisions). They have a health insurance plan, they can purchase disability insurance, there is a retirement plan of sorts, and they get assorted deals and discounts through the ATP.

I really dont think this is just about money or power (and if it is about money, its about money for the lower ranked players, the top have plenty), I think its more about being listened to and trying to get the council to act more like player representatives instead of just letting all these changes happen.

Health insurance is interesting. Are the premiums reasonable and how are the benefits?

 

[Fee]

Before Play, Politics Takes Center Stage

Posted by Douglas Robson at 6/20/2008 8:45 AM and is filed under Tennis

As noted in today’s USA Today, the off-court action could be as interesting as what happens on court at Wimbledon.

The WTA will announce if it intends to keep or ditch on-court coaching (I predict it will go the way of the 9-point tiebreak). A new players’ council will come to power this weekend, including what should be the top three players, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. And the three vacant player representative positions on the ATP board will be filled.

“It’s an exciting weekend prior to any balls being struck,” outgoing players’ council member Paul Goldstein told me this week.

It’s been a busy few weeks for the outgoing 10-member players’ council. In March, they ousted longtime Andre Agassi agent and confidante Perry Rogers, who represented the Americas region. Within the last two weeks, they dumped former top doubles player Jacco Eltingh, who was the European rep. The third players’ rep, onetime ATP communications director Iggy Janovanic (international rep) removed his name from the list of candidates last week.

I’m told that there are 6-7 candidates for the open Americas region seat, including recently retired Justin Gimelstob (who ran last year and lost); James Blake’s brother, Thomas Blake; Norman Canter of Florida-based Renaissance Tennis Management; and former pros Jeff Tarango and Jeff Morrison.

The Sun-Sentinel reported this week that highly respected Ivan Ljubicic, the players’ council president, would be elevated to one of the seven ATP board seats, presumably for the European region.

The international seat will likely be filled by either Indian doubles player Mahesh Bhupathi, Tennis Channel senior vice president David Edges or tennis coach and academy owner Bob Brett.

It should be noted that it’s not the new players’ council that elects the three vacant ATP board positions, but the old, outgoing council (the one Goldstein is on until Saturday night).

Of course, all of these political machinations are aimed at taking more control of the tour. The top players feel their voice has not been heard and that the previous board reps were in cahoots with ATP chief Etienne de Villiers (which may or may not be true). Suffice it to say, it’s hard to see how ATP head Etienne de Villiers, a former Disney executive, will last beyond the Dec. 31 expiration of his contract, if he lasts that long.

Goldstein, who retired last year and is working for a Silicon Valley green-energy startup, said that “communications could have been better” with the departed board reps. The top-60 ranked player seemed encouraged by the possible election of the Big Three.

“It’s pretty neat that highest ranked guys in the world -- for the first time in my 15 years as a pro and maybe ever -- are taking an active interest in the governance of the game,” said Goldstein, who also happens to be my neighbor in the Noe Valley district of San Francisco.

But what’s really hanging over everyone’s head is the Hamburg lawsuit. Hamburg is suing the ATP over its demotion from Masters Series status. The trial, which sources say has already cost the ATP from $3-$7 million, begins July 21. If the ATP loses, it could shake the foundations of the men’s tour.

“In terms of the future of tour, the result of the Hamburg case is the 800 pound gorilla,” says Goldstein.

I'm zipping off to the airport to fly to London, but I'll have my picks for Wimbledon by Monday.


http://blog.douglasrobson.com/2008/06/20/before-play-politics-takes-center-stage.aspx

Okay tennis nerds , I am heading out of the country on Saturday and will be gone for two weeks. I have no idea what kind of internet access I will have, so I hope that some of you will keep an eye on this story and update this thread (please). Bricker and Robson seem to be the only two writers who have stayed on it all along (even if you disagree with them).

 

[Marcos]

from www.tennis.com/news/ticker.aspx:

Justin Gimelstob, Tennis Channel vice president David Edges and Ljubicic are the new player representatives on the ATP board, according to reports out of Wimbledon.

 

[rfprse]

So Gimelstob, David Edges (v.p. of tennis channel and worked at IMG), Ljubicic got elected.
Not sure how Edges can be counted as a real representative of international position (i.e., for those who (or the region) neither american nor european) given that he works at tennis channel where USTA invested substantially and the market of which is U.S.

As long as these work faithfully as players rep, I wouldn't care who or what they are. I hope it will be the case.

Anyway, here's an article concerning the new american rep. who seems to have some problem with Kournikova: how could he?:shock:

from washingtonpost.com
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2008/06/new_dc_athlete_has_a_kournikov.html
New D.C. Athlete Has a Kournikova Feud

As you obviously know, Justin Gimelstob is one of the cornerstones of our new and oddly named World Team Tennis franchise--the Washington Kastles--and he's be on a whirlwind D.C. media tour this week. Each appearance would seem to be closely tied to the interests of the media member in question. For example, he played tennis against some bookish media types. He discussed blogs with me. (More on that later; yeah, two tennis posts in one day.) And when he went on the Junkies this morning, he talked about--what else?--the female figure.

Early on, it was Brooke Mueller, the new wife of Charlie Sheen, with whom Gimelstob said he was previously "friendly. Biblically friendly. I don't think I was the only one," he added.

There were vague references to other conquests, but his most interesting remarks were reserved for Anna Kournikova, whose St. Louis Aces will face the Kastles in a late July grudge match that will surely be uglier than any World Team Tennis grudge match this town has known. Seriously, if you thought DeShawn-LeBron was ugly, just wait for Gimelstob-Kournikova.

"She's a [bleep]," Gimelstob said of Anna, using a word that rhymes with "kitsch. "We're gonna kick her [bleep]," he added, using a word that almost rhymes with "kastle."

Well then. Will he talk junk to her on the court?

"One hundred percent," he said. "If she's not crying by the time she walks off that court, then I did not do my job."

So it's pure hate then?

"Hate's a very strong word," he said. "I just despise her to the maximum level, right below hate. I think she falls into the Marcelo Rios 'Scumbag' category....And this whole bluff about her retiring because of her back? She had the yips on her serve, she can't get her serve on the court. Wait until you see on July 23, she's gonna be serving 40 miles an hour and I'm gonna be just plugging it down her throat....We do exhibitions together and I'll mock her, and make fun of her. I'll just make her know that she's stupid....I'm sure she'll rue the day that she has to come here and actually share space with me."

The Junkies asked whether she knows that they'll be facing each other; "probably," Gimelstob said. "She might not even be smart enough to read the schedule."

They asked if he would serve at her head; "No, I'm gonna just serve it right into the body, about 128, right into the midriff," he said.

And they asked what would happen if Kournikova made a move on Gimelstob. You know, a Biblical move.

"Definitely not," he said. "I have no attraction to her, because she's such a ******....I really have no interest in her. I wouldn't mind having my younger brother, who's kind of a stud, nail her and then reap the benefits of that."

Later, he was asked to assess the top 20 players in the WTA rankings; he called Tatiana Golovin "a sexpot," Nicole Vaidisova "a well-developed young lady," and Alize Cornet "a little sexpot."

And before signing off after an hour of Junkies talk, which, to be fair, wasn't all of this variety, Gimelstob offered some reflection.

"I guarantee you when I get off this I'll have three messages from my uncle who lives in Annapolis," he said. "He will not talk to me. Now he'll call my dad, HE won't talk to me. This will be World War III again. So I'll have a two-week hiatus from my family....Just so you know, to help you guys boost your already incredible ratings--which is great to hear--my family will not talk to me after this, nor probably my agent."

 

[rfprse]

Here's Bricker's article on the new player rep election result.
I guess Gimelstob really impressed Bricker with the "Rogers is a liar" comment.

ESPN's Justin Gimelstob named to ATP board

Charles Bricker | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
1:00 PM EDT, June 21, 2008


WIMBLEDON - David Egdes, senior vice president of the Tennis Channel, and ESPN commentator and retired former American player Justin Gimelstob were this afternoon elected to the six-member board of directors of the ATP in what is believed to be the first step in the effort by players to seize control of the men's tour away from chairman and chief executive Etienne de Villiers.

"I'm very excited for the opportunity to be involved in the process of re-establishing a healthy communication between the board and its players," said Gimelstob, who lives part-time in Delray Beach.

"The players deserve to determine the direction that the game goes in and I believe the fact that I am recently off the tour and with my access in the world around tennils I hope to bridge the gap and help move the ATP tour in a position direction."

Egdes was briefer, saying he was anxious to begin work in 2009 and that the concerns of rank and file players were his primary concern.

Gimelstob will fill a vacancy created when the 10-member Players Council, whose only real authority is to vote out board members, terminated Perry Rogers two months ago because they found themselves unable to effectively communicate with him.

Rogers is agent, confidante and long-time friend to Andre Agassi. A second spot became available when Iggy Jovanovic declined to run for another term. The Council also created a third opening when it fired Jacco Eltingh. That spot probably will be filled next week by Council President Ivan Ljubicic.

All the electees are strongly opposed to de Villiers for various reasons. The ATP chairman has been under heavy criticism not just for stripping the clay court tournament in Hamburg of its high Masters Series status and moving it to Madrid, but for what player after player has described as a lack of communication.

The German Tennis Federation filed a $76 million suit against the ATP shortly after de Villiers and his board voted to move the tournament to Spain and the attorneys' fees are estimated to be $7 million or more already. The trial is scheduled to begin July 23 in Dover, Del.

Of the six members on the ATP board of directors, three are held by tournament representatives and three by the players. The Players Council has authority to replace only the players representatives and they've exercised that option. With the naming of three people sympathetic to player complaints toward de Villiers, it would appear as though de Villiers no longer has the board backing he needs to effectively continue.

The meeting, at Wimbledon, continued on after the election of Egdes and Gimelstob and there were reports that the 10 members were planning to draft a series of resolutions, one of which called on de Villiers to resign immediately. His contract expires on Dec. 31.

Rogers ran against Gimelstob a year ago and came to Wimbledon thinking he had the votes to win. He lost and got into a protracted dispute with Rogers, calling him "manipulative" and "a liar."

This time, he had the votes and he'll take his place on the board immediately.

 

[rfprse]

And Robson's:

New ATP Board Takes Shape
Posted by Douglas Robson at 6/21/2008 9:25 AM and is filed under Tennis

The breaking news Saturday from Wimbledon is that the three new players’ representative on the ATP board have been elected. The new Americas rep is former pro and current Tennis Channel commentator Justin Gimelstob, who replaces longtime Andre Agassi agent Perry Rogers. Rogers was voted out of his job by the players’ council in March.


Taking over the international position from Iggy Jovanovic is David Edges, a former IMG guy and now vice president with the Tennis Channel. Ivan Ljubicic will serve in the final vacant position as the European rep, replacing the ousted Jacco Eltingh. The Croat will serve as an interim rep until the U.S. Open.


These announcements, along with the names of the new 10-member players’ council, should be posted on the atptennis.com later. The ATP board reps are elected by the old players' council, which as of today is no longer in existence. But I'm told that the Big Three of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic -- all expected to be on the new council -- went in and spoke to the outgoing council members to let them know who they supported.


The ramifications of the new elections for the ATP leadership and other topics remain to be seen. It could clearly affect the major issue in front of the tour - the Hamburg lawsuit. If current leadership is removed, could the suit be settled before it goes to trial?

 

[rfprse]

The meeting, at Wimbledon, continued on after the election of Egdes and Gimelstob and there were reports that the 10 members were planning to draft a series of resolutions, one of which called on de Villiers to resign immediately. His contract expires on Dec. 31.

I wonder if de Villiers will resign immediately. It's about time for him to put his resignation threat into action not just threat.

 

[gully]

... just wait for Gimelstob-Kournikova.

"She's a [bleep]," Gimelstob said of Anna, using a word that rhymes with "kitsch. "We're gonna kick her [bleep]," he added, using a word that almost rhymes with "kastle."

Well then. Will he talk junk to her on the court?

"One hundred percent," he said. "If she's not crying by the time she walks off that court, then I did not do my job."

So it's pure hate then?

"Hate's a very strong word," he said. "I just despise her to the maximum level, right below hate. I think she falls into the Marcelo Rios 'Scumbag' category....And this whole bluff about her retiring because of her back? She had the yips on her serve, she can't get her serve on the court. Wait until you see on July 23, she's gonna be serving 40 miles an hour and I'm gonna be just plugging it down her throat....We do exhibitions together and I'll mock her, and make fun of her. I'll just make her know that she's stupid....I'm sure she'll rue the day that she has to come here and actually share space with me."

The Junkies asked whether she knows that they'll be facing each other; "probably," Gimelstob said. "She might not even be smart enough to read the schedule."

They asked if he would serve at her head; "No, I'm gonna just serve it right into the body, about 128, right into the midriff," he said.

And they asked what would happen if Kournikova made a move on Gimelstob. You know, a Biblical move.

"Definitely not," he said. "I have no attraction to her, because she's such a ******....I really have no interest in her. I wouldn't mind having my younger brother, who's kind of a stud, nail her and then reap the benefits of that."

Later, he was asked to assess the top 20 players in the WTA rankings; he called Tatiana Golovin "a sexpot," Nicole Vaidisova "a well-developed young lady," and Alize Cornet "a little sexpot."

Was he drunk, is he really this obnoxious, or is this blog a fake?

 

[veroniquem]

Gimelstob is a revolting punk.

 

[malakas]

I wonder if de Villiers will resign immediately. It's about time for him to put his resignation threat into action not just threat.

I believe he will stay until 31 Dec. Nice that the "big three" have finally taken a more active role about this,and made clear who they supported too.

btw why the first article?:roll: it has absolutely nothing to do with this subject-plus it is of the worst quality.We are not here to talk about Gimelstob we are here to discuss about the changes concerning the ATP. I don't know if you have an agenda and try to shed negative light to him,and frankly..I don't care! ,but please stay on topic because this is very important issue -concerning all tennis fans and the future of the ATP.

 

[Leublu tennis]

Thank you, fee. Interesting news.