Slams Joining 10 Masters?
- Thread starter marc45
- Start date
marc45
G.O.A.T.
have to subscribe, but more on it...sounds like it's going down
theathletic.com
Grand Slams plot deal for premier tour that would revolutionize tennis
The Grand Slams teaming up with Masters tournaments could make the sport more sellable and avoid repeat of golf's Saudi battles
theathletic.com
A
ALCARAZWON
Guest
Middle East tends to host tennis in December-January with Abu Dhabi exhibition event and Doha, both events have been used by Nadal and other stars.
So Saudis should buy-out the Australian Open, so the 1st Slam will be in Middle East, so no need for anyone to go to Australia.
So Saudis should buy-out the Australian Open, so the 1st Slam will be in Middle East, so no need for anyone to go to Australia.
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Looks bad to be honest but it might make financial sense for the many masters. The slams are moneymaking machines but other competitions suffer.
Still with the Saudis those gains might me more short than long-term.
Still with the Saudis those gains might me more short than long-term.
Gumbo Jackson
Rookie
Very interesting. Right now it is difficult for casual fans to follow outside of the four majors and the season is way too long which is tough on the players.
I want to see more details, but I'm cautiously optimistic that this could be good for the sport.
I want to see more details, but I'm cautiously optimistic that this could be good for the sport.
marc45
G.O.A.T.
@jon_wertheimQuiet part out loud: tennis’s global appeal as a betting sport will loom large in its future…The optimism for streaming and data is on account of sportsbooks/gamblers much more than it is conventional media companies and conventional fans….
@BM_SC_t
Replying to @jon_wertheim
I would like to know where these "hundreds of millions" of untapped potential are supposed to be coming from. If it is from TV/streaming services, then the fans will pay the price for it.
Last edited:
Beacon Hill
Hall of Fame
It won't be difficult to get journalists to cover the event as the Saudis are known to go the extra mile for them.
A
ALCARAZWON
Guest
The season is easy, now that Masters Finals are only best-of-3-sets.
I didn't hear anyone complaining about the season back in the Fedal era....
The players just need to toughen up and suck it up, or retire.
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
Not sure how this would be a good thing, or really change much of anything. Those events already exist, so would they just get more marketing hype? As it is, I think only "hardcore" fans care about anything outside the 4 slams. None of the casuals seem to be aware of the Masters events, unless their casual favorite (someone like Gauff, for example) happens to be in the final of one.
But then...
They really opened pandora's box with the gambling stuff. It's only a matter of time before some serious scandals come to light, and/or one of the big gambling companies does something dumb. Large sums of money and less than reputable people rarely mix well. Just look at all the crypto nonsense...
But then...
This makes sense. They are betting on the betting... and that angle I can see. Giving casual fans, or even non-fans that gamble, something to thrown money at all year long. Again, these events already exist, but they could be more visible for the gamblers to get drawn into.
They really opened pandora's box with the gambling stuff. It's only a matter of time before some serious scandals come to light, and/or one of the big gambling companies does something dumb. Large sums of money and less than reputable people rarely mix well. Just look at all the crypto nonsense...
Boozyuzi
Legend
From the Athletic -
Tennis’ Grand Slams are attempting to partner with a collection of the sport’s other best-known tournaments in what could become the most revolutionary transformation of the game since the 1990s.
Their goal, according to five people who have been both involved with and briefed on those discussions, is to form a partnership with at least the 10 largest tournaments and their own events — Wimbledon, the U.S. Open, the French Open and the Australian Open — to create a premium tour that resembles a tennis version of Formula 1.
The move comes as the sport’s most powerful entities, executives and top players have come to accept that tennis in its current form does not work nearly as well as it should. Among their criticisms: it is confusing for fans to follow; hundreds of millions of dollars that could be earned are left on the table; its nearly endless schedule overtaxes top players, whose careers are cut short by injury and mental fatigue.
Those factors, officials worry, have left tennis prone to the kind of aggressive disruption that has plagued golf the past two seasons, as the Saudi Arabia-backed LIV Golf venture cleaved top players from the established PGA Tour and led to an expensive legal battle that forced a merger whose details are still being worked on. Warding off a similar turn of events has become a top priority for the seven governing bodies that oversee tennis and bringing together the most valuable and best-known properties in the sport to create an elite collection of events and a simplified season is widely seen as the best defense.
“We all know that premium drives the business,” Steve Simon, the chief executive of the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) tour, said in an interview Tuesday.
For a week in Turin, Italy, earlier this month, top officials in tennis eagerly awaited the proposal from the biggest and most powerful entities in the sport following roughly six months of debate and discussion. The organizations that operate the four Grand Slam tournaments have come together with a rare unity.
Several of the officials interviewed for this story asked not to be identified to avoid jeopardizing their professional relationships.
Ultimately, officials with the other governing bodies who were in Turin, the site of the men’s ATP Tour (Association of Tennis Professionals) finals, left without getting the long-awaited proposal. Executives with the Grand Slams, who declined to comment publicly for this article or did not respond to messages seeking comment, have told officials with the men’s and women’s tours they needed more time to finalize their proposal. The goal is to have a plan ready to present when the sport gathers in Australia in January for the Australian Open.
In a sign of how serious the slams are about forcing change, they have yet to sign the next three-year agreement with the tours that codifies the system of awarding rankings points. That move signals their view that a significant transformation is in the offing, so signing a multi-year agreement based on the current schedule is pointless, even if that means beginning the 2024 season without an agreement.
Executives involved with the discussions have described them as fluid and largely positive. All said there was a significant possibility that they could fall apart, or the premium tour could be expanded to include more than just the Grand Slams, the top-level events, and a few others deemed worthy. In recent years, tennis executives have worked with top consulting and investment firms that came up with similar proposals to the one now under consideration, only to fail to move tennis beyond its status quo.
A more focused, premium tour that the Grand Slams had partial control over could also protect them against significant changes in the schedule leading up to their events. In recent months, this has become a top concern for Craig Tiley, the chief executive of Tennis Australia, as the men’s and women’s tours considered adding a top-level event in Saudi Arabia during the first week of the season, beginning in January 2025.
A top-level January event in Saudi Arabia would likely doom the series of tournaments across Australia and New Zealand that, along with the Australian Open, constitute the first swing of the year. It could also spell the end of the United Cup, a mixed-team event that Tennis Australia launched last year.
The plan for a premium tour that the slams are formulating aligns, at least theoretically, with one of the top goals of Andrea Gaudenzi, the chief executive of the ATP Tour.
Gaudenzi has long wanted to close the gaps in prestige, import and financial might between the Grand Slams and the biggest events on the men’s and women’s tours. These are often referred to by the men’s tour as the “Masters” events and women’s tour as “the 1,000s” — for the number of rankings points the women receive.
Those tournaments include mixed events in Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome, Toronto/Montreal, and near Cincinnati. Already more than half of the top events have been extended to 12 days from one week, compared with two weeks for the Grand Slams.
“We want to grow our premium product and that’s a fact that we’ve been very vocal about,” Gaudenzi said during a meeting with a small group of journalists in Turin two weeks ago. “For the sport, closing the gap between the Masters and the slams is good for everybody. Now, there is a very big gap.”
While Gaudenzi and the slams may share a vision of what is best for tennis, it’s not clear what role he, his WTA Tour counterpart Simon, or the tours themselves would have moving forward. They may be left to oversee a collection of the small and mid-sized tournaments, known as the 500s and 250s. Under one scenario, developing players could largely make up the fields of those events, while players ranked in the top 100, who could earn a “tour card” good for the season and a specified guaranteed salary, focus on the top-level tour but are still able to participate in smaller events if they choose to.
A major question, Simon said, is, “How do you create a calendar that is easier to follow?”
Players who have begun to learn details of the plan the slams are trying to formulate have so far generally been supportive of the concept, especially those involved with the Professional Tennis Players Association, the player organization Novak Djokovic helped launch three years ago.
Tennis players play the longest season in professional sports. Among their largest priorities are earning more money while having to compete less, so they can rest and maintain their health. A premium tour could accomplish both of those goals and produce a more simplified version of the sport than the sprawling one that now exists.
If the top 100 players had to focus mainly on the slams and roughly a dozen top-level tournaments, that would account for about 32 weeks of competition and leave ample time for them to play a few smaller events, where they could receive lucrative appearance fees, while also maintaining enough time for rest and a proper off-season.
Sports executives say revenues would likely rise if the slams and the top tournaments could sell their television and sponsorship rights more collectively, rather than driving down the market by competing against one another, though the structure of the partnership has not been finalized. It may not include all of the commercial rights for all the tournaments, the officials said.
The changes would likely take at least a year or two to begin and longer than that to go into full effect as executives work to unwind or renegotiate long-term media and sponsorship deals and to figure out how to divide revenues between the top-level tours and the other tournaments
Tennis’ Grand Slams are attempting to partner with a collection of the sport’s other best-known tournaments in what could become the most revolutionary transformation of the game since the 1990s.
Their goal, according to five people who have been both involved with and briefed on those discussions, is to form a partnership with at least the 10 largest tournaments and their own events — Wimbledon, the U.S. Open, the French Open and the Australian Open — to create a premium tour that resembles a tennis version of Formula 1.
The move comes as the sport’s most powerful entities, executives and top players have come to accept that tennis in its current form does not work nearly as well as it should. Among their criticisms: it is confusing for fans to follow; hundreds of millions of dollars that could be earned are left on the table; its nearly endless schedule overtaxes top players, whose careers are cut short by injury and mental fatigue.
Those factors, officials worry, have left tennis prone to the kind of aggressive disruption that has plagued golf the past two seasons, as the Saudi Arabia-backed LIV Golf venture cleaved top players from the established PGA Tour and led to an expensive legal battle that forced a merger whose details are still being worked on. Warding off a similar turn of events has become a top priority for the seven governing bodies that oversee tennis and bringing together the most valuable and best-known properties in the sport to create an elite collection of events and a simplified season is widely seen as the best defense.
“We all know that premium drives the business,” Steve Simon, the chief executive of the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) tour, said in an interview Tuesday.
For a week in Turin, Italy, earlier this month, top officials in tennis eagerly awaited the proposal from the biggest and most powerful entities in the sport following roughly six months of debate and discussion. The organizations that operate the four Grand Slam tournaments have come together with a rare unity.
Several of the officials interviewed for this story asked not to be identified to avoid jeopardizing their professional relationships.
Ultimately, officials with the other governing bodies who were in Turin, the site of the men’s ATP Tour (Association of Tennis Professionals) finals, left without getting the long-awaited proposal. Executives with the Grand Slams, who declined to comment publicly for this article or did not respond to messages seeking comment, have told officials with the men’s and women’s tours they needed more time to finalize their proposal. The goal is to have a plan ready to present when the sport gathers in Australia in January for the Australian Open.
In a sign of how serious the slams are about forcing change, they have yet to sign the next three-year agreement with the tours that codifies the system of awarding rankings points. That move signals their view that a significant transformation is in the offing, so signing a multi-year agreement based on the current schedule is pointless, even if that means beginning the 2024 season without an agreement.
Executives involved with the discussions have described them as fluid and largely positive. All said there was a significant possibility that they could fall apart, or the premium tour could be expanded to include more than just the Grand Slams, the top-level events, and a few others deemed worthy. In recent years, tennis executives have worked with top consulting and investment firms that came up with similar proposals to the one now under consideration, only to fail to move tennis beyond its status quo.
A more focused, premium tour that the Grand Slams had partial control over could also protect them against significant changes in the schedule leading up to their events. In recent months, this has become a top concern for Craig Tiley, the chief executive of Tennis Australia, as the men’s and women’s tours considered adding a top-level event in Saudi Arabia during the first week of the season, beginning in January 2025.
A top-level January event in Saudi Arabia would likely doom the series of tournaments across Australia and New Zealand that, along with the Australian Open, constitute the first swing of the year. It could also spell the end of the United Cup, a mixed-team event that Tennis Australia launched last year.
The plan for a premium tour that the slams are formulating aligns, at least theoretically, with one of the top goals of Andrea Gaudenzi, the chief executive of the ATP Tour.
Gaudenzi has long wanted to close the gaps in prestige, import and financial might between the Grand Slams and the biggest events on the men’s and women’s tours. These are often referred to by the men’s tour as the “Masters” events and women’s tour as “the 1,000s” — for the number of rankings points the women receive.
Those tournaments include mixed events in Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome, Toronto/Montreal, and near Cincinnati. Already more than half of the top events have been extended to 12 days from one week, compared with two weeks for the Grand Slams.
“We want to grow our premium product and that’s a fact that we’ve been very vocal about,” Gaudenzi said during a meeting with a small group of journalists in Turin two weeks ago. “For the sport, closing the gap between the Masters and the slams is good for everybody. Now, there is a very big gap.”
While Gaudenzi and the slams may share a vision of what is best for tennis, it’s not clear what role he, his WTA Tour counterpart Simon, or the tours themselves would have moving forward. They may be left to oversee a collection of the small and mid-sized tournaments, known as the 500s and 250s. Under one scenario, developing players could largely make up the fields of those events, while players ranked in the top 100, who could earn a “tour card” good for the season and a specified guaranteed salary, focus on the top-level tour but are still able to participate in smaller events if they choose to.
A major question, Simon said, is, “How do you create a calendar that is easier to follow?”
Players who have begun to learn details of the plan the slams are trying to formulate have so far generally been supportive of the concept, especially those involved with the Professional Tennis Players Association, the player organization Novak Djokovic helped launch three years ago.
Tennis players play the longest season in professional sports. Among their largest priorities are earning more money while having to compete less, so they can rest and maintain their health. A premium tour could accomplish both of those goals and produce a more simplified version of the sport than the sprawling one that now exists.
If the top 100 players had to focus mainly on the slams and roughly a dozen top-level tournaments, that would account for about 32 weeks of competition and leave ample time for them to play a few smaller events, where they could receive lucrative appearance fees, while also maintaining enough time for rest and a proper off-season.
Sports executives say revenues would likely rise if the slams and the top tournaments could sell their television and sponsorship rights more collectively, rather than driving down the market by competing against one another, though the structure of the partnership has not been finalized. It may not include all of the commercial rights for all the tournaments, the officials said.
The changes would likely take at least a year or two to begin and longer than that to go into full effect as executives work to unwind or renegotiate long-term media and sponsorship deals and to figure out how to divide revenues between the top-level tours and the other tournaments
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
I'm sorry, but this makes absolute no sense to me (and not just because this article is poorly written). What are they guys thinking? Are they so out of touch with the average fan, average person, and the overall sports landscape?
First and foremost, 95% of what they are supposedly trying to accomplish is already in existence! The slams are the slams, and the Masters events are the premium events that are right behind them in importance. That seems pretty clear to anyone with a clue about the sport. Likewise, the points system has been simplified nicely in such a way that everyone can understand it, and the calendar is also very clear and straightforward. Between the Slams and the Masters, you have certain "swings" based on geography and surface. It's well organized and clear. How can you possibly dumb it down further for the casual fan you are trying to attract?
And everything they write about the players being overused, and the new system prioritizing Slams and Masters, while giving them a choice about 500's and 250's... is that EXACTLY what happens now? All the top guys are focused on the big events, and they only use the smaller ones as warm-ups, or confidence builders, or maybe because they have a local connection to it (Federer in Basil, Sinner in Vienna...) They don't NEED to play these events now, and most of them don't. Alcaraz skipped an entire slam/swing this year, ffs. It was because of injury, but it didn't blow up his season. Same with Novak. He just plays what he feels like playing. Sure, he seemed to play some events in an effort to chase records, but that's his choice.
Lastly, I'm so sick and tired of Formula 1 being used as some model to aspire to. I used to be a big F1 fan, went to a couple of races, and current F1 is not what it is cracked up to be. Yes, that Netfilx series has been HUGE for them, but that's because it was a perfect fit for the sport. When they tried to copy that with tennis "break point," it came off as just that: a cheap copy. Tennis isn't like F1. Tennis isn't like football/soccer, either. It has some key differences that make certain comparisons impossible.
They want to create a "premium tour" like the F1 calendar? What? F1 events last 3 days, and nobody gives a damn about practice and qualifying, except the really hard core fans, so it's really only 1 day. Tennis tournaments need a week, minimum, if not the two of Slams and 10-12 days of Masters. You think you can keep the same level of attention and excitement that a 90 minute F1 race crates, over the course of two weeks? What drugs are they on? And even if they only focus on semi-finals and finals (each of will will more than likely last more than 90 minutes, otherwise it means they were terrible matches), that means that most of the fans will completely miss out on their favorite players, because you are reducing it to just the 4 men and women that made it through in that event.
I could go on all day, but these guys really need to stop trying to copy other sports. They really need to look at the big picture and see what they have in their hands. Even if you just say that the 4 Slams can capture the attention of the general public for one week each (the second week matches), that is 28 days of public engagement. That is A LOT in the modern day media landscape. That is the equivalent of an entire soccer/football season (actually more, since those games only last 2 hours). That is more than an American football season. That is more than a world cup (which is every 4 years). That is more than an F1 season. What more do they really think they can get????
If they figure out how to shorten the season and promote more global viewership, that certainly sounds interesting, but I’m not sure I understand it yet. The grand slams and masters 1000 events become a “major” league, and all other ATP/WTA events become a “minor” league? And once you are a top 100 player, you don’t have to worry about participating in the minor league, unless you choose to do so?
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
How will it help me as a fan of tennis? Also how will it compel me to spend more money on tennis?
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
That sort of seems like the idea, although most of those bases are already covered: the slams and Masters 1000 events already enjoy an elevated prestige, while the smaller events can be played at the discretion of the top players, based on preference and preferred schedule. The only difference is guys toward the tail end of the top 100 that do need to play smaller events in order to keep their ranking up, or try to pull it up further.
The current system is actually pretty well optimized. Already getting good sized global audiences for 4 two-week long events every year is a big deal. Most other sports could only dream of that.
It will not help you. And that's mostly because they aren't trying to help you. You are taken for granted in this scenario (as in, you are going to be watching/following the sport no matter what). This is all an attempt to gain the attention of some non-fans that will suddenly discover the sport and start to spend money on it, or perhaps make some casual fans more engaged. They see F1 as some sort of magnet for celebrity attention and corporate sponsorship, and they want that... but they actually already have it to a large degree, and this won't change that.
As for spending more, the only way most existing fans would end up spending more is if they are forced to through more expensive TV coverage/streaming (not a good idea), or they somehow convince them to travel to more events than they would already be planning to do (unlikely).
Remember when NASCAR went through a huge boom phase, when suddenly it was mainstream and cool, and you had celebrities going to races, and new races in lame places like Las Vegas? Well that all faded away pretty quickly, and in an effort to cater to their new audience they alienated a good portion of their more loyal fanbase. The end result is a sport that's weaker than it was 10-15 years ago...
NaBUru38
Rookie
Power and money, as always.
In the good old days, the ILTF and the four Grand Slam organisers had all the power.
Soon after the Open era began, the players launched the ATP and WTA. The men's Grand Prix co-governed, and in the late 1980s the players and promoters kicked out the ITF.
Now it seems that Saudi Arabia pushed too hard to replicate the LIV golf tour, so instead the four Grand Slam organisers want to kick out the small tournament promoters.
In the good old days, the ILTF and the four Grand Slam organisers had all the power.
Soon after the Open era began, the players launched the ATP and WTA. The men's Grand Prix co-governed, and in the late 1980s the players and promoters kicked out the ITF.
Now it seems that Saudi Arabia pushed too hard to replicate the LIV golf tour, so instead the four Grand Slam organisers want to kick out the small tournament promoters.
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
Yep, it would seem to be soooo much easier to fix a tennis match compared to other team sports. Especially at the lower levels.
And the more I hear about the proposed changes, the less sense they make to me. The dedicated fans already understand and follow the sport very well, and with ease. These changes will not alter that, and I don't see how they will get additional fans.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
The possibility of intimidation is frightening.
Last edited:
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
Oh, absolutely. And people forget that tennis is much more global than many other sports. Some of the players come from countries that have huge issues with corruption, organized crime, authoritarianism... It's a recipe for disaster.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
That's one reason why I think Tour zones could be a good idea at the lower levels. I wasn't always in favor of that idea, but as long as they can get players from more remote areas access to the playing zones, it could be viable.
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
But tennis is a sport. Golf isn't a sport. Why would you copy golf?
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Saudis might be getting a fifth slam when Indian Wells is already set up with slam-level stadium courts, ancillary courts and the perfect tennis venue? Say it ain't so! Why not put a fifth slam in Shanghai if you're going to pick idiotic places to host an additional major.
Boozyuzi
Legend
Here it is..
howdysports.com
Wimbledon might redefine its calendar and focus more on gender equality - HowdySports
Billie Jean King proposed a new tournament which emphasizes on gender equality and has to the rescheduling of the Wimbledon Open
howdysports.com
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
The article talks about rearranging the schedule and says all Slams except for the USO would possibly move one week in either direction. But, it really doesn't say why this needs to happen.Here it is..
Wimbledon might redefine its calendar and focus more on gender equality - HowdySports
Billie Jean King proposed a new tournament which emphasizes on gender equality and has to the rescheduling of the Wimbledon Open
Stands are packed for later rounds of majority of tournaments.
The smaller ones i attended they were always sold out no matter who played.
What's lacking is sponsorships and figuring out how to fill up the stands in earlier rounds.
Night time matches might be the solution since people can't get out of work during day and tourists are busy with other things.
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
This seems to be the case, and I agree that night matches would help with attendance in early rounds (to some extent). But what issue does this solve? It provides a little more revenue for the local event organizers (from the ticket revenue), but all these changes seem to be aimed at much loftier goals.
Most of the serious money in sports these days is from TV revenue. So what you really need, rather than a few thousand more people in the stands, is a few hundred thousand more watching on TV. And my argument is that tennis is already doing a great job of generating interest and attention. These proposed changes will not have a significant impact, because there really isn't that much more you can do to maximize the current product (outside of finding the next Federer or Graf, and him or her having a US or British passport).
Most of the serious money in sports these days is from TV revenue. So what you really need, rather than a few thousand more people in the stands, is a few hundred thousand more watching on TV. And my argument is that tennis is already doing a great job of generating interest and attention. These proposed changes will not have a significant impact, because there really isn't that much more you can do to maximize the current product (outside of finding the next Federer or Graf, and him or her having a US or British passport).
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
They need to market young up-and-coming stars more who are ranked between #25-75 in the world and star in many early round matches. We should know the names of all the junior Grand Slam winners when they try to break it onto tour through the ATP’s marketing.
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
I agree with this strategy, although I wouldn't start promoting/hyping juniors until they are on the ATP full time, otherwise it might be a little too much for them to handle.
I think the limitation of this strategy, however, is that it's yet another effort more likely to boost engagement with the hardcore tennis fans (not a bad thing), than the general public, with the latter seeming to be their main focus. Because again we are back to the reality that the average person (non-serious tennis fan) is only paying attention in the very latter stages of slams, and it's virtually impossible to get them watching the 1st or 2nd round of a 250 or 500 event, unless a superstar (read, established slam winner) is playing.
Look at Sinner in Italy. Last year at this time, he was well known among the tennis community, and a pretty big deal in those circles, but the average Italian was not tuning in to his 2nd or 3rd round match at Indian Wells or Miami. Now he's constantly in the sports and general newspapers (and their websites), he's a huge star, and every match he plays is hyped in the media, even first or second round stuff. He was the very definition of a young, up-and-coming star last year, but he still didn't have general public cut-through until he on the precipice of winning a slam.
Again, I think there are some ideas out there (like yours) that are good for growing the sport incrementally. Marginal gains, as they call them in cycling. But I just think it is unrealistic to think there is some way for tennis to take this giant leap in the current sports landscape. It's already doing quite well, and you have all your competitors (Soccer/Football, F1, Basketball, American Football, Cricket, Rugby, Ice Hockey, Baseball...) trying to do exactly the same thing.
Break To Win
Semi-Pro
robyrolfo
Hall of Fame
Just unpopular? Also silly, perhaps?
Similar threads
