TW Roadmap Exclusive!

(Okay, I know you want to know what happened at Indian Wells today, but I felt I had to write this very important, exclusive story having to do with the WTA Roadmap for 2010. I'll return to on-the-ground reporting from Indian Wells tomorrow. Pete)

The WTA is scheduled to announce details of its Roadmap 2010 v. 2.0 at the Sony Ericsson Open on Key Biscayne in a little over two weeks. But the real question behind this exercise is one any cartographer ought to understand: where exactly does this Roadmap lead the game at a critical and somewhat chaotic time. Wherever the game ends up, the journey is proving a pretty rough ride. Just how rough should be amply demonstrated by the contents of a memo I recently obtained, which presumably was sent to the WTA by the USTA.

In this document, the USTA very explicitly spells out its immediate concerns with the way the Roadmap is shaping up, but before we get into the details, a little background is in order. Back in the day, before the advent of Open tennis, the Grand Slam events were pre-eminent (as they still are), and most of the rest of the tournaments formed a loosely organized “circuit” built around each of the majors.

With Open tennis, a new frontier every bit as wild as the American West in the mid-to-late 19th Century opened up, and the calendar quickly filled up with a full-menu of tournaments, incorporating the old model but also putting it under some stress as entrepreneurs and sponsors rushed in to take advantage of the boom. This sowed the seeds of today’s chaotic, conflicted, overbooked schedule, on which the most viable (and often most healthy) fixtures remain the ones that serve as tune-ups for majors.

The other great upheaval occurred in tennis politics. Shortly after the dawn of Open tennis, the men formed the ATP Player’s Association, and the women formed their own tour and founded the counterpart to the ATP, the WTA. For most of the 1970s and 80s, the game was governed by a Pro Council, consisting of representatives from the players, the tournaments, and the ITF. The overlord of this 9-member board during its heyday was the PC’s chief administrator, M. Marshall Happer III – the closest thing tennis has ever had to a “commissioner.” The Pro Council was effectively demolished by the ATP revolution of 1988, at which time the players decided to take control of the men’s pro game, forming a partnership with tournaments. This aligned two key interests, but it also meant, in effect, that the ATP pros no longer had a classic player’s union. Since that major makeover, things have chugged along pretty much unchanged.

Now, let’s get to this document. The source of the USTA’s grievance with the emerging Roadmap is that it poses a direct threat to the US Open Series, which in just two years has had a quantifiable, positive impact on the popularity of the game. As Arlen Kantarian, the CEO of the USTA’s pro tennis division, recently told me, “We’re the national governing body of U.S.tennis, so I don’t really see this as an insupportably selfish point of view. I also believe that if tennis grows in the U.S., it also grows, globally. Let’s face it, we do have an impact as a nation.”

This seems undeniable. As much as the U.S is criticized and even reviled these days, there’s a reason that French kids are wandering around in flip-flops and belly jeans, and that the NBA has made huge inroads on the international sporting scene. So it was with tennis: The tennis boom was ignited in the U.S., and the world jumped on the bandwagon. Today, the U.S. is in danger of being eclipsed, and while America-bashers gloat over that, the decline of the game in the U.S. could trigger a domino effect that results in the rest of the world saying, “Tennis isn’t cool, nobody in America cares about it.”

Kantarian likes to point out that back in the 1980s, the women had over 20 tournaments in the U.S, and between 10 and 15 in Europe. The game was going great guns. By his count, in 2006 Europe hosted 25 women’s events while the U.S. had dropped down to 11. The WTA Roadmap (keep in mind that this has been a liquid document) brings the number of viable U.S. events down to as few as 5.

Kantarian feels this amount of shrinkage is unacceptable; among other things, it threatens to wipe out the two spring U.S. clay-court events, which have been popular with women who wanted to do some of their training for Roland Garros in the U.S. before making the trip to Europe. And a fair number of non-U.S. players choose to live and train in the states.

Under the proposed Roadmap, a small group of 9 elite “Global” and 11 “National” tournaments would combine to form a body of “A-level” (think Tier I) events. The top women would have to commit to playing 11 events (two down from the current 13). In a telephone conversation about a week ago, WTA CEO Larry Scott told me that he felt this was a number that would protect the health of the top players, and discourage the withdrawals that have recently plagued the tour. But Global events would be guaranteed an impressive number of top players (7of the Top 10), while National (and lower) ones would have far more restricted access to top talent (2 of the top 6, or 3 of the Top 13).

In addition, lesser events would have to pay to play: in the event that more than the basic, guaranteed number of marquee players decided to enter (that is, if someone like Maria Sharapova  wanted to enter a National event that wasn’t on her original short list of 11 commitments), the tournament would have to pony up an additional $800,000 in prize money on short notice (while being unable to capitalize on Sharapova’s last-minute entry).

The main problem for the USTA is that no USTA-run tournaments applied to become an “A” event, mostly because of the financial burden. And other aspects of the proposed commitment system are seen as presenting further threats to U.S. events. So let’s look at the “Outstanding Issues” the USTA addressed in its letter to Scott (The points are direct lifts from the document; the explanation is my paraphrase).

1 – Restriction on Player Participation. If a top player wants to add a National event to her schedule, the tournament will have to increase its prize money by $800,000 (nearly double). And the Roadmap also demands an additional $1 million for each marquee player in excess of 3. The USTA letter claims that in a conference call, even WTA officials agreed that the formula had “no basis in reality,” meaning that the USTA feels the WTA put it forth knowing that it was financially impossible to implement. But the bottom line is that it also amounts to the WTA telling top players that they can’t play an event they may want to enter because two of the top six players are already on board.

2 – Failure to Deliver Player Commitment. While the WTA wants to charge a National event $800,000 for receiving one additional top player, the liability on the WTA’s part if it fails to deliver one of the players it promised is a piddling $25,000. The USTA feels the penalty is inadequate, and makes a statement about the WTA’s confidence in its own system.

3 – Restrictions on Players Unable to Play in Global Tournaments. The USTA supports withdrawal penalties (Scott told me that those penalties will increase dramatically under the Roadmap), but it isn’t comfortable with proposed punitive action that would prevent players from entering subsequent tournaments (in effect, the WTA is proposing short-term suspensions). The USTA is concerned that the new punitive system might throw the baby of player participation out with the bathwater of broken commitment.

4 –*Draw Sizes.* The USTA does not believe that New Haven, which is played the week before the U.S. Open, can have a 32 or 56 draw, as that would demand a marquee player to play 5 singles matches in 6 days, right before the main event at Flushing Meadow. This means players will skip the event or quit before the end of the event. The USTA wants New Haven to have a draw of 28 (eliminating a round, with byes, from the 32 draw format).

The organization also believes that 56-draw events, while creating more jobs, contribute to player fatigue. Kantarian believes that the most attractive and viable format for tennis is combined (men and women), 32-draw, one-week events. It is also the one television broadcasters like best and, like it or not, in the present era television is the main driver of any sport’s popularity.

5 – Summer Combined Tournaments. The USTA is aggressively promoting combined events, and it wants the 2009 (and beyond) calendar to offer a definite, three-year schedule featuring additional combined events. The document says: “Combined tournaments are important to the growth of tennis in the United State and they appeal to broadcasters, sponsors, players and the media. . . Without this certainty (a three-year calendar), our partners (sponsors and television) have little basis for continuing their investment in our tournaments.”

6 – U.S. Clay Court Season. While Charleston has been assured a calendar slot, the USTA feels that it must promote two significant clay-court events, something that the Roadmap has no provisions for at the moment.

7 – Economically Viable Tournaments/Prize Money Levels. The USTA believes that the Roadmap calls for significant prize money increases that cannot be supported without additional revenue from the WTA. For instance, the WTA wants Indian Wells to increase its women’s prize money by $1.9 million (to $4.5 million, to match the prize money proposed by the ATP).The USTA feels that the WTA should make a commensurate contribution (in the way of sponsorship, television rights, etc.). Backstory: tournaments feel they have inadequate ownership “rights” – i.e., the WTA is taking too little risk, making too many demands, and taking too much money.

Okay, so what does all this mean?

Well, right now, nobody knows who will end up being part of the elite A level. The biggest concern is that the events will go to those who make the WTA the best offer. But let’s take the overview, keeping in mind the background. Tennis is currently in the midst of one of those  “the more things change, the more they remain the same” scenarios. That is, the USTA and its allies are moving very close to embracing and promoting the original tennis model, based on combined events and circuits build around the Grand Slam events.

However you feel about the issues, the old complaint that the Lords of Tennis (the executives at the Grand Slams) care only about their own, blue-chip properties has been shattered. Kantarian, that NFL veteran and television-conscious, hard-charging administrator is far more old school than he may know. The U.S. Open Series has shown that a rising tide lifts all boats, and this isn't just a pro-American viewpoint. There’s nothing wrong with the French Open Series (aka, clay-court circuit) either.

Maybe it’s time for the women to think less about going it on their own and more about creating a closer partnership with the ATP and Grand Slams. The 1970s are over. There appears to be only one major obstacle for the men and women working together again, and it isn’t prize-money equality. It’s the increasing power and importance of the tour sponsor. The most serious criticism you can level at the WTA is that the it’s chasing the money, perhaps under pressure to please its partner (currently, Sony-Ericsson), rather than taking the long view of growing the game.

Here’s a concrete example of why this is dangerous: A company that wants to achieve, say, 2 per cent penetration of an emerging market in, say, China, knows that sponsoring a big tennis tournament featuring Sharapova-grade celebrity/players is a can’t miss investment. Television is a lock, so is deep media coverage, if only in that market – which happens to be the only market the sponsor cares about.
Keep in mind that the company has not nearly the same guarantee in a developed, media-saturated market, or in one that, for any number of reasons, isn’t on the company’s radar. If you’re more interested in selling computers in New Zealand than cell phones in the U.S., it only makes sense that you would pour your sponsorship dollars into New Zealand.

But marketing needs are ever shifting, and sponsors have no vested interest in tennis per se. Depending on the market, tennis is either a sponsorship bargain or a tough sell. It’s easier to chase the money; there’s no doubt about that.

Many years ago, I traveled to China with Michael Chang, where he was playing in the first-ever ATP Tour event in Beijing (sponsored by Salem cigarettes). The tournament set-up and facilities were crude and the local people were unable to afford tickets, even though Chang had demi-god status. The event was televised in Asia. It was a great personal moment for Chang, and a great investment by the makers of Salem. But did it represent a net gain for tennis?  The model was both unsustainable and, ultimately, of little long-term interest to Salem. However, it did at least have some proportionality: It was a minor, fall event – a decent vehicle for trying to cultivate a new tennis audience.

The biggest concern about the Roadmap is that it will divert important resources from the places where tennis has established a track record for popularity and accessibility, or simply price those places out of the market, as the WTA sells the game to the highest bidder. The WTA should think less about the needs of its title sponsor than the emerging opportunity to strike new partnerships with the ATP and the Grand Slam events, for the long-term reconstruction of a game built around the Grand Slams and combined events.

Any politician can tell you what happens when you ignore the base, but more importantly, a rising tide lifts all the boats, no matter where they are moored, or whose flags they fly under.