WTA tour shines during tough economic times

[Topaz]

We repeatedly read on this forum that 'the women's tour is in trouble', yet never really see anyone come up with any facts behind those dire proclamations.

Turns out, the women's tour is doing just fine financially. They lost only one title sponsor in the recent economic crisis.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The women's tennis circuit lost only one title sponsor in 2009 despite the woes of the global economy, WTA Tour chief executive Stacey Allaster said on Monday.
Allaster, head of the 36-year-old organization that runs the professional women's tour, also said that three new tournaments have been added for 2010.
"Our players are delivering, the fans and sponsors, and what a time for it to come particularly during these tough economic times," Allaster told reporters at the U.S. Open.

Women's Tour Shines During Tough Economic Times

********

Also interesting to read in the article that player withdrawals were down 36% since the implementation of the 'roadmap'. Maybe the men's tour should take notice? And I say that most seriously...we had 3 big retirements due to injury in the last two days at the Open. Maybe if the ATP reorganized the calendar/schedule/player commitments in similar fashion to the 'roadmap', then the players would stay healthier.

 

[David_Is_Right]

Another baseless TT myth exploded. Nice!

 

[sureshs]

Good to see that San Diego is getting a tourney back (the LA one). SD lost the Acura. I wonder if it will be played at the same venue as the Acura (Carlsbad).

Copenhagen and KL are the two additions.

As I suspected, the growth is because of globalization. I suspect that the finances of each tourney will still be precarious though.

Women's sports is just coming into its own in several parts of Asia. There is tremendous scope for growth there, which will be fueled by demographics (more young people).

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Another baseless TT myth exploded. Nice!

Who claimed that the WTA was in danger of bankruptcy?

 

[Topaz]

Who claimed that the WTA was in danger of bankruptcy?

Oh, it has been tossed around this forum for at least the last year. Usually by the same people who make all the basher threads.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Oh, it has been tossed around this forum for at least the last year. Usually by the same people who make all the basher threads.

And those people have no more of a logical point than you do.

 

[Topaz]

And those people have no more of a logical point than you do.

Uh, how do you figure? My point is clearly stated in the title of this thread. I even introduce a second point in my original post.

Again, the idea of the WTA tour being in financial trouble has been bandied about, without any facts backing it up, for a long time. I'm providing some actual *facts* that say otherwise. How is that not logical? I came across the article, thought it was interesting, and certainly more postworthy than the majority (unfortunately) of the crap we see around here. You don't think so...then feel free to *not* post.

Or do you not like the idea of the WTA tour actually making money and having fans?

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Uh, how do you figure? My point is clearly stated in the title of this thread. I even introduce a second point in my original post.

Again, the idea of the WTA tour being in financial trouble has been bandied about, without any facts backing it up, for a long time. I'm providing some actual *facts* that say otherwise. How is that not logical? I came across the article, thought it was interesting, and certainly more postworthy than the majority (unfortunately) of the crap we see around here. You don't think so...then feel free to *not* post.

Or do you not like the idea of the WTA tour actually making money and having fans?

The defensiveness of your post is rather amusing.

Your second point is where you are wrong. It's true the WTA is doing quite alright financially. It has absolutely zero relevance to the ATP. Attempting to make this a WTA vs. ATP argument because the WTA is doing alright financially is a pretty dubious argument at best.

Worse, in another thread, you attempted to use this piece to justify the equal pay of WTA players to ATP players, which is entirely misleading because it says nothing about the WTA's revenue compared to the ATP's revenue at analogous events.

 

[Topaz]

********

Also interesting to read in the article that player withdrawals were down 36% since the implementation of the 'roadmap'. Maybe the men's tour should take notice? And I say that most seriously...we had 3 big retirements due to injury in the last two days at the Open. Maybe if the ATP reorganized the calendar/schedule/player commitments in similar fashion to the 'roadmap', then the players would stay healthier.

The above is what I said about the ATP (or in reference to the ATP). It didn't really have anything to do with the financial stuff...more about the withdrawals and the idea of re-doing the schedule. If it proved effective in the WTA, then why not try something like that in the ATP, where players are continually voicing their frustration over the long season?

The defensiveness of your post is rather amusing.

Your second point is where you are wrong. It's true the WTA is doing quite alright financially. It has absolutely zero relevance to the ATP. Attempting to make this a WTA vs. ATP argument because the WTA is doing alright financially is a pretty dubious argument at best.

Worse, in another thread, you attempted to use this piece to justify the equal pay of WTA players to ATP players, which is entirely misleading because it says nothing about the WTA's revenue compared to the ATP's revenue at analogous events.

Look at what I said above. My two points were #1 - hey, the WTA is ok financially, and #2 - hey, maybe the ATP should try this 'roadmap' idea.

Nowhere in this thread have I said anything about equal pay of ATP and WTA players. Nowhere in this thread have I made it a WTA vs. ATP thing. I generally don't do that. I leave that up to the bashers. I am a fan of *both* tours.

I quoted this in the other thread in answer to the person who brought up popularity, plus I had just posted this thread, so it was fresh in my mind. The WTA is doing well financially because of many reasons, one of those reasons being the FANS. That IS mentioned in this article. The people in that other thread can't seem to believe that women's tennis actually has fans.

One of which you are not, I'm gathering.

 

[jelle v]

Oh, it has been tossed around this forum for at least the last year. Usually by the same people who make all the basher threads.

Quotes please... cause i have actually never read on this board what you claim to be posted about bankruptcy. You make it sound as if this is an ongoing rage about the WTA.

I have read here though (posted by a lot of posters), that the level of play on the WTA Tour has dropped significantly. That's what all the fuzz is about wen everybody is complaining about the WTA Tour, not about an eventual bankruptcy.

 

[NamRanger]

No one cares about how the WTA tour is doing financially. What people care is the level of play which has significantly dropped so far that a 17 year old (although very talented, still) can out will 3 slam contenders on the biggest stage.

 

[David_Is_Right]

That and the WTA is close to bankruptcy.

The WTA are the ones crying as they are the ones having a hard times staying afloat and once the Williams sisters leave (the only reasons left for anyone to care about the sad sack WTA) they will go bankrupt and be gone altogether unless some players of actual talent emerge.

there is a greater chance of the WTA going bankrupt and ceasing to exist altogether which is my ultimate wish.

That is what everyone does with the current WTA, just laughs at it. Perhaps they need some new coaches at the acedemy before the sinking womens game goes bankrupt altogether (particularly when their only saviors left, the great Williams sisters retire).

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

So when did the Williams sisters retire and how come I don't know about it?

Look at what I said above. My two points were #1 - hey, the WTA is ok financially, and #2 - hey, maybe the ATP should try this 'roadmap' idea.

Nowhere in this thread have I said anything about equal pay of ATP and WTA players. Nowhere in this thread have I made it a WTA vs. ATP thing. I generally don't do that. I leave that up to the bashers. I am a fan of *both* tours.

I quoted this in the other thread in answer to the person who brought up popularity, plus I had just posted this thread, so it was fresh in my mind. The WTA is doing well financially because of many reasons, one of those reasons being the FANS. That IS mentioned in this article. The people in that other thread can't seem to believe that women's tennis actually has fans.

One of which you are not, I'm gathering.

I watch the WTA for certain players, but haven't been a big fan since Henin retired.

You say a lot more than merely the words you write. The context of your argument says just as much. If you always hurry to the defense of player X, it's probably safe to assume you're a big fan of player X even if you don't say so explicitly.

You made a stab against the ATP, asserting that they 'should' adopt the roadmap. What's your justification for why they should adopt a roadmap? Is the ATP struggling financially compared to the WTA? If not, how is this article, which makes no reference to the ATP, relevant to the ATP at all? The ATP seems to be doing just fine to me, withdrawals and all.

You also decided to spontaneously post this article (in "neener-neener-neener" style, no less) in the thread about WTA vs ATP pay even when no one asserted that the WTA is a defunct/bankrupt entity. Again, why would you do that if you have no intention of asserting that it's fair for the WTA to have the same pay as the ATP?

 

[jelle v]

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

That's two people.. so where are all the other thousands/hundreds of posts? Besides, the article that you refer to actually tells very little about tha financial state of the WTA. All we can conclude from the article is that only one title sponsor has left the WTA.

The major point that everybody is complaining about is the level of play. If it stays this low (with only a few exceptions), interest in the WTA will decline steadily I think, in the mid-term to long term. And no, I don't expect the WTA to disappear. I heard a Dutch commentator (Jacco Eltingh I believe) say, not so long ago, that the women's tournaments sell out much less than the men's tournaments. If that is true, it is a big sign on the wall...

 

[grafselesfan]

I didnt say it was bankrupt now. I said it would be once the great Williams sisters are gone and it probably will be. I said that before Clijsters's return and the rumoured of Henin's return and they could also add something and hopefully 1 or both will be on tour when the Williams retire also to give it some kind of star (or hopefully Oudin develops well). Basically though the Williams are the only things keeping the WTA afloat now. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The WTA would go bankrupt at the snap of a finger if it was only Barfina, Demented one, Kuznetsova, Jankovic, Ivanovic, and the other hackers of the present field left holding it up. Serena and Venus to some degree for a long time but the last year and a half especialy are the tour. They are not only amazing champions and players, but they transcend the tennis world to the general public, and thus appeal to the non serious tennis fan, which is needed now as the womens game on its own certainly isnt going to appeal to many serious tennis fans. That is why they seem to make their own rules, the WTA has no choice but to allow them to as at this point they need the Williams presence to even keep the tour going.

Yeah so the womens game isnt bankrupt yet, that is nice. The TV ratings have still fallen well below the men all over the World. Even just in the U.S less are now watching the great Williams play each other in the final, by far the most appealing stars of the womens game in the U.S especialy, than watch a mens final between two Europeans. So just imagine what the TV ratings will be in the U.S for non Williams finals vs a Federer-Nadal final or a final with Roddick in it.

 

[nfor304]

People seem to quickly forget that at the end of the 90's it was the ATP that was struggling for relevance and an audience while the WTA was flourishing and full of exciting personalities and drama. For a while there the WTA was attracting bigger crowds and ratings than the ATP

 

[grafselesfan]

People seem to quickly forget that at the end of the 90's it was the ATP that was struggling for relevance and an audience while the WTA was flourishing and full of exciting personalities and drama. For a while there the WTA was attracting bigger crowds and ratings than the ATP

The 90s was certainly the Golden Era for womens tennis. With exciting superstars like Graf, Seles, Navralova, Sanchez Vicario, and a young Hingis (even though I dont like her), great rivalries, contrasting playing styles including some S/Vers, contrasting personalities, and a deep field with many contenders the womens game was indeed flourishing. Even in the early part of this decade the womens game really had alot to offer. Sadly it has been diminished to what it is now. Like I said thank god for the great Williams sisters and hopefully Clijsters comeback will go well and Oudin will give the game a new American star/hopeful. Still the overall picture looks bleak at the moment.

 

[West Coast Ace]

The defensiveness of your post is rather amusing.

Your second point is where you are wrong. It's true the WTA is doing quite alright financially. It has absolutely zero relevance to the ATP. Attempting to make this a WTA vs. ATP argument because the WTA is doing alright financially is a pretty dubious argument at best.

Worse, in another thread, you attempted to use this piece to justify the equal pay of WTA players to ATP players, which is entirely misleading because it says nothing about the WTA's revenue compared to the ATP's revenue at analogous events.

I think you're Troll Feeding at this point. You crushed her/him. Game over. The apologists will always spew some drivel - the Truth hurts...

 

[LDVTennis]

We repeatedly read on this forum that 'the women's tour is in trouble', yet never really see anyone come up with any facts behind those dire proclamations.

Turns out, the women's tour is doing just fine financially. They lost only one title sponsor in the recent economic crisis.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The women's tennis circuit lost only one title sponsor in 2009 despite the woes of the global economy, WTA Tour chief executive Stacey Allaster said on Monday.
Allaster, head of the 36-year-old organization that runs the professional women's tour, also said that three new tournaments have been added for 2010.
"Our players are delivering, the fans and sponsors, and what a time for it to come particularly during these tough economic times," Allaster told reporters at the U.S. Open.

Women's Tour Shines During Tough Economic Times

********

Also interesting to read in the article that player withdrawals were down 36% since the implementation of the 'roadmap'. Maybe the men's tour should take notice? And I say that most seriously...we had 3 big retirements due to injury in the last two days at the Open. Maybe if the ATP reorganized the calendar/schedule/player commitments in similar fashion to the 'roadmap', then the players would stay healthier.

Let's read between the lines, shall we.

In that article, the WTA tour exec states that withdrawals were down by 36 percent. She presents that as evidence of a better product. The reality is that while withdrawals were technically down, more top players figured out that they could just show up at a mandatory event, lose in the first round, and therefore achieve the same outcome as a withdrawal. See S. Williams, V. Williams, E. Dementieva, etc.. Heck, in the presser after her early round loss at Indian Wells (a mandatory event), Dementieva suggested that she lost her match because she really didn't want to be there. Quality product, indeed.

Here's more. In that same article, we learn that the Los Angeles event has moved to San Diego. If I were the WTA tour exec, this would not be a completely happy development. This was an event run by the AEG Group. They are a major, worldwide sports and entertainment promoter, the masterminds behind the Staples Center and O2. We're not talking rank amateurs or country club types. If they are throwing in the towel on women's tennis, that's not a good sign. They had the financial resources to continue to run this event without a title sponsor. They chose not to, just like they gave up on the WTA Tour Championships at Staples a number of years back.

Add to that this sad reality. San Diego won't be getting back the event they lost. The new event won't be a premiere event like Indian Wells. It will be a much lower tier event, with a much lower player commitment than it had in its first incarnation. It is a way of saving face for the WTA.

Here's more to that story: Before the WTA decided to buy back San Diego's original sanction for a WTA tour event from the event's promoters, it had an offer on the table from the promoters behind the Indian Wells event to take over the San Diego event. When San Diego returns next year, the folks at Indian Wells won't be running it. The folks at Octagan will be. They've hired the tournament director of the old San Diego event to be the point person. Probably, the best decision they made. But, what does it say that the folks at Indian Wells didn't renew their offer. Given the trouble they've had with the WTA at their flagship tournament, and Indian Wells is a premier event, perhaps, the folks at Indian Wells decided they had enough exposure to the WTA.

 

[Topaz]

Let's read between the lines, shall we.

In that article, the WTA tour exec states that withdrawals were down by 36 percent. She presents that as evidence of a better product. .

Actually, I don't read it that way at all...it is being mentioned as a positive result of the retooled schedule and roadmap. I mean, wouldn't less player withdrawals be a *good* thing? Especially for the fans who spend money to buy tickets???

 

[Topaz]

I think you're Troll Feeding at this point. You crushed her/him. Game over. The apologists will always spew some drivel - the Truth hurts...

Really? And what 'truth' are you spewing?

Look up my posts...I don't troll. Chance Encounter is the one who followed me over here from another thread.

*shrug*

Whatever. It is impossible to have an objective conversation regarding women's tennis on this forum...too many 'big men' who need to bash others to feel better about themselves.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

I think you're Troll Feeding at this point. You crushed her/him. Game over. The apologists will always spew some drivel - the Truth hurts...

Probably. It's rather unfortunate too.

One of these days, a troll will actually be good enough to defend themselves with rational points. That's when the real fun will start. Until then, I'll have to dish out these one-sided 'arguments'.

Really? And what 'truth' are you spewing?

Look up my posts...I don't troll. Chance Encounter is the one who followed me over here from another thread.

*shrug*

Whatever. It is impossible to have an objective conversation regarding women's tennis on this forum...too many 'big men' who need to bash others to feel better about themselves.

This is exactly your problem. You feel the need to play "the victim." Why wouldn't I follow you into this thread when you so bombastically posted the link to this thread as 'evidence' in the other thread? Do you expect to puff up your chest and spew insults before hiding behind the teacher's dress, and have no one call you out on such immature behavior? That's rather low of you.

And further, it would be one thing if you used it as proper evidence. Instead, all the article basically asserts is that the WTA is not in danger of going bankrupt (something that very few rational people claimed) and that withdrawals are down since the roadmap (and not necessarily because of the roadmap, that's just inference). How in any way does this suggest that the WTA has a superior product, or that it justifies equal pay? Or that the WTA is more popular than the ATP?

Then, when you get your ass thoroughly kicked on the subject, you decide to once again roll over and claim that it's the "big men" who are bashing others. Who is bashing anyone? You're the one that claims that everyone who disagrees with you is a "big man who needs to bash others to feel better about himself."

Can you spell hypocrisy?

 

[sureshs]

Sounds like the men who lose to 11 year old girls in spite of their 120 mph kick serves are busy in this thread.

 

[David_Is_Right]

Can you spell hypocrisy?

Evidently you can spell it. However, I think you need to learn its real meaning.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Evidently you can spell it. However, I think you need to learn its real meaning.

Coming from someone who ran away from the last debate, doesn't even know or follow logical principles, and came back into thread just to launch a half-assed quip, this is comedy gold.

So what part of someone who bashes others while claiming everyone bashes her (and condemning them for it) isn't hypocrisy, hmm?

You would make quite the comedian, kid. For all the wrong reasons, unfortunately.

 

[chris]

i just talked to a former pro player today who was at the us open and said the womens game is just horrible the only one that seemed okay was serena

 

[lacoster]

Ok, can someone explain the WTA's Year End Championships? There is the "Road to Bali" where only the top 12 players qualify for this year-end event in Indonesia. The week before, they have the WTA Championships in Doha where only the top 8 players qualify. Isn't this somewhat redundant?