prairiegirl
Hall of Fame
In this, the third year of the Laver Cup, a series of tennis matches over a period of 3 days, it’s clear that the premise which is “Team Europe” versus “Team World” is a bizarre concoction which doesn’t work. I have no argument with a tournament honouring Laver, and if anyone deserves to have a tournament in their honour, it’s the Rocket.
If tennis wishes to honour Laver, however, the tournament they’ve designed is deeply flawed. First, what is Team World? Isn’t Europe part of the world? And why Europe vs. the World? It seems like an arbitrary designation that makes little sense. Yet, when one delves deeper into the structure of this tournament, there is a definite logic at work here. If one would make an analogy to gambling, it would translate into this is a “stacked deck”. Team Europe has stacked the odds in favour of themselves from the very beginning. Even when Roger and Rafa retire, there are plenty of top ranked European players to take their places.
Going forward, it’s difficult to think that the Laver Cup won’t have both an image and deep-rooted problem with sustainability. A tournament cannot maintain its credibility when one side is stacked with talent, and the other side far less so. This translates into a high likelihood that Team Europe will win for the third consecutive time. It will be a miracle if they don’t. The prognosis is this; no tournament is viable if the same outcome is expected year after year. Audiences will diminish, and possibly sponsors as well. Players will be less likely to participate, and the event itself could peter out.
If Team Europe can’t lose then fans and sponsors alike will begin to question the tournament’s viability and sustainability. Currently, the tournament basically owes its lustre to the fact that two of the best players in the history of the game have committed themselves to play. Of course, the pay-off for both of them is extremely high. Each member of the winning team receives $250K.
There is definitely a fun, positive vibe to the Laver Cup. As a long-time tennis aficionado, I enjoy watching players form a team and engage in the spirit of camaraderie as they cheer each other on. Ultimately, the Laver Cup will rise and fall based on how the two teams perform over time. If Team Europe continues to dominate as it has the past three years, it may become increasingly less interesting to fans, sponsors and venue owners. When people lose interest and ticket sales go downhill, a tournament usually dies a slow death.
Perhaps Laver Cup could investigate other possibilities such as: NextGen v. Grand Slam and Masters Champions, or separate the tournament into days such as North America v. South America, Europe v. Asia, Australia v. Europe, etc. These kinds of variations would more likely keep people interested and engaged, and attract the players necessary to sustain the tournament over the years. Given that the tennis season is long, arduous and already physically challenging, the tournament is going to have to lure them to participate. The current format doesn’t work, and isn’t sustainable for the long-term.
If tennis wishes to honour Laver, however, the tournament they’ve designed is deeply flawed. First, what is Team World? Isn’t Europe part of the world? And why Europe vs. the World? It seems like an arbitrary designation that makes little sense. Yet, when one delves deeper into the structure of this tournament, there is a definite logic at work here. If one would make an analogy to gambling, it would translate into this is a “stacked deck”. Team Europe has stacked the odds in favour of themselves from the very beginning. Even when Roger and Rafa retire, there are plenty of top ranked European players to take their places.
Going forward, it’s difficult to think that the Laver Cup won’t have both an image and deep-rooted problem with sustainability. A tournament cannot maintain its credibility when one side is stacked with talent, and the other side far less so. This translates into a high likelihood that Team Europe will win for the third consecutive time. It will be a miracle if they don’t. The prognosis is this; no tournament is viable if the same outcome is expected year after year. Audiences will diminish, and possibly sponsors as well. Players will be less likely to participate, and the event itself could peter out.
If Team Europe can’t lose then fans and sponsors alike will begin to question the tournament’s viability and sustainability. Currently, the tournament basically owes its lustre to the fact that two of the best players in the history of the game have committed themselves to play. Of course, the pay-off for both of them is extremely high. Each member of the winning team receives $250K.
There is definitely a fun, positive vibe to the Laver Cup. As a long-time tennis aficionado, I enjoy watching players form a team and engage in the spirit of camaraderie as they cheer each other on. Ultimately, the Laver Cup will rise and fall based on how the two teams perform over time. If Team Europe continues to dominate as it has the past three years, it may become increasingly less interesting to fans, sponsors and venue owners. When people lose interest and ticket sales go downhill, a tournament usually dies a slow death.
Perhaps Laver Cup could investigate other possibilities such as: NextGen v. Grand Slam and Masters Champions, or separate the tournament into days such as North America v. South America, Europe v. Asia, Australia v. Europe, etc. These kinds of variations would more likely keep people interested and engaged, and attract the players necessary to sustain the tournament over the years. Given that the tennis season is long, arduous and already physically challenging, the tournament is going to have to lure them to participate. The current format doesn’t work, and isn’t sustainable for the long-term.
.
