Structure of the ATP

[Bartelby]

According to Wikipedia:

Adam Helfant is the current Executive Chairman and President of ATP with Mark Young as the CEO of Americas. Laurent Delanney is the CEO of Europe while Brad Drewett heads as CEO of the International group.

The 7-member ATP Board of Directors includes Adam Helfant along with tournament representatives, Gavin Forbes, Mark Webster and Graham Pearce. It also includes three player representatives with two-year terms, Giorgio di Palermo as the European representative, David Edges as the International representative and Justin Gimelstob as the Americas representative. The player representatives are elected by the ATP Player Council.

The 10-member ATP Player Council 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 ranked within top 50 in singles (Roger Federer (President), Rafael Nadal (Vice President), Sam Querrey and Fernando González in 2010–2012),[16] two players who are ranked between 51 and 100 in singles (Peter Luczak and Jarkko Nieminen), two top 100 players in doubles (Eric Butorac and Nenad Zimonjić) and two at-large members (Yves Allegro and Ashley Fisher).
[edit]

 

[Bartelby]

The fact is the Board probably represents more the business interests of the ATP as three tournament representatives plus the CEO is a majority.

The Council is really the players' body but it only has advisory powers so the players don't have any real power within the ATP when it comes to the crunch.

 

[Bartelby]

From espn.com 2009:


But a bigger factor going forward could be the increased involvement of the players in the tour's business decisions. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic are now all on the Player Council, which in turn elects three regionally divided player representatives to the 10-person ATP Board. (Three tournament representatives and the ATP Chairman make up the rest of the members.)

Having the world's top three on the player council gives it -- and their board representatives -- a lot more clout at the corporate level and could have a significant effect on the future priorities of the ATP.

Previously, there had also been a feeling that player board reps tended to ignore the players' views. That is less likely to happen now. The European representative is actually a current touring pro, Ivan Ljubicic -- a direct channel of communication between players and administrators. Former pro Justin Gimelstob represents the Americas and former ATP communications director Iggy Jovanovic is listed as the international rep.

 

[Bartelby]

The ATP and the ditching of the ITF:

From 1974 to 1989, the men's circuit was administered by the Men's Tennis Council, made up of representatives of the International Tennis Federation (ITF), the ATP and tournament directors from around the world.

Although the period during which the MTC guided the game was one of tremendous progress and improvement, players began to feel more and more that they should have a greater voice in their sport. Players had realized the time had come for them to take more control over the game.

At the 1988 US Open, ATP CEO Hamilton Jordan (pictured), surrounded by many of the top players in the game, held the now-famous "press conference in the parking lot." The ATP released "Tennis at the Crossroads," outlining the problems and opportunities facing men's tennis. One of the options available to the ATP was the formation of a new circuit, the ATP Tour.

 

[Bartelby]

Morevover, the player representatives on the ATP Board of Directors aren't player representatives in the same sense as the Player Council representatives are.

 

[Bartelby]

In the late 1980s, men's professional tennis was disparate and disjointed. The four Grand Slam events ruled, as they do today. But then, they did so with much more arrogance and disdain for their product, the players.

The ruling group was called the Men's Tennis Council, and it was split into thirds -- a third each to the Grand Slams, tournament directors and players. It basically made an annual schedule that led into the Slams. Tournament directors had no equity in their events, just a date. And the players, without whom there was no game, had a 33% say, or 17% less than they said they wanted.

...

A week later, things got even more interesting. Jordan wanted to make the announcement of the new players' plan during the U.S. Open. He asked to use one of the news conference rooms at the U.S. Tennis Center, but when USTA officials heard what would be announced, they declined. So Jordan did it in the parking lot.

"It was pure genius," Richmond said. "If we'd held it in one of the press rooms in the middle of the tournament, there would have been six reporters showing up.

"But putting it in a parking lot outside the main gate of the U.S. Open, with the former chief of staff of the United States standing there, and the top players in the world standing behind him, meant everybody had to be there to see it."

To generate funds for his new tour, Jordan cut a marketing deal with IMG worth $54 million. He also got a $25,000 application fee from tournaments that wanted to be on the schedule starting in 1990. More than 125 tournaments applied. Now the players had a say in their own game and the tournaments had equity in theirs.

"He built it out of almost nothing," Richmond said. "We were at a point where the Slams could have crushed us, taken us over. He saved that."

 

[El Diablo]

"the FACT is the board PROBABLY represents more the business interests of the ATP".....he writes incoherently. Things that are probable should not be labelled as facts. And what business interests exactly does the board represent? What is the evidence of this? No specifics here.

 

[Bartelby]

Have you ever heard of the two cultures argument?

Have you ever heard of the idea that the reduction of politics to a science is pure fantasy?

Have you ever heard of logical positivism and the refutation of the idea of the atomised fact as the foundation of science?

Have you ever heard of the irreducibly theoretical nature of science such that facts may refute a theory but a theory is never just composed of facts?

Have you ever given a shred of evidence for anything you've ever said?

...


I am entirely happy with the statements I've made and the rudimentary evidence I've found on brief inspection.

"the FACT is the board PROBABLY represents more the business interests of the ATP".....he writes incoherently. Things that are probable should not be labelled as facts. And what business interests exactly does the board represent? What is the evidence of this? No specifics here.

 

[El Diablo]

Yes, and I've heard of narcissistic pedagogy too.

 

[Bartelby]

Is that a fact or mere probability? Do you have any evidence? A degree in psychiatry, perhaps? Credentials of any kind? Do You even watch House? No specifics here.

Yes, and I've heard of narcissistic pedagogy too.