It's come as a shock to many people here that I'm not, in real life, an actual practicing journalist (when they offer the secret handshake I look a bit sheepish and try to high five, which gives the game away). My business card ("Manager, Planning & Economics") confused the heck out of a photographer I gave it to this morning.
One of the pleasures of my day job is preparing Senior Management for presentations to stock analysts. This usually takes about three months (no kidding!) and involves a Powerpoint deck of slides and comebacks to all the possible questions the analysts might ask. There are lots of practice sessions, then you listen to a conference call hoping that the CEO is going to handle the question about Abu Dhabi with aplomb.
This morning, it was Larry Scott's turn to host a round-table for journalists here at Indian Wells. About 20 journalists and one economist dude showed up for a 45 minute discussion of the state of the game. After about five minutes, I realized that I was back in a familiar world. Larry was talking about modeling ranking points and running sensitivities. Of course, I thought, he's a numbers guy.
The questions started with a discussion of the tour structure. The tours aren't quite aligned, but it seems like they're drawing closer, and there's a lot of back and forth dialogue about prize money and ranking points. There are equal grand totals of prize money at multiple tournaments, although the ATP apparently changed its prize distribution on a round by round basis after the Australian Open this year, something that took the WTA by surprise. The number of ranking points for a tournament winner is the same here at IW, but confusingly the WTA curve of points per round is equivalent to the older, flatter ATP curve, which seems odd to me.
The credit crisis/recession/financial meltdown is a topic dear to every business person's heart, but Larry Scott thought the WTA circuit was in good financial shape. They're expecting slightly lower revenues this year, although not necessarily lower attendance (IW attendance appears to be holding up well). This is likely to come from reduced spend per person at the events - those oversized autograph tennis balls, etc. There's a financial survey being sent to all the tour events to get a read on the stresses on individual tournaments. I know, it could be CNBC.
Then we began to get into tennis related, rather than business related, discussions. First off, it hadn't escaped the eagle-eyed journalists' notice that the Williams sisters had skipped the very first mandatory tournament under the new structure.
Larry's division chiefs had prepared him well in advance for this question. He was disappointed that they weren't here - there had been many hours of conversations with the two players, their family and advisors. This tournament deserved to have the top players on tour here, compromises had been put in place about injury, health and personal issues around the mandatory events, and there were significant sanctions - zero ranking points and the loss of a potential bonus pool worth $300 000 to Serena and $150 000 to Venus. The tournament would receive some compensation for their absence, and for Sharapova's from the singles. He hoped that in the future they might play at the event (I have a feeling his hopes aren't very high).
Then the questions turned to Dubai, and all of a sudden the conversation intensity picked up - we'd been on well worn turf up to now, but this was a topic many people in the room clearly felt strongly about. Scott said he wouldn't have believed Dubai would have acted as they did - sport is part of the Emirates' larger strategy for raising its profile, including potential bids for the soccer World Cup, and the international repurcussions of the Peer affair were substantial. Dubai had a track record of delivering on all its promises in the last fifteen years, so the WTA was blindsided by the late decision to refuse a visa.
The $300 000 fine imposed isn't much to a country as wealthy as Dubai, but is twice as large as the previous largest fine - which seems to have been an important consideration. They could have imposed a seven figure fine, but this wouldn't necessarily have imposed any more real pain, and might have seemed like grandstanding after the event.
Scott was asked if he thought downgrading the event's status would have had more impact, and I thought his reply made a lot of sense. He said they were focussed on getting the policy changed, and getting guarantees that this wouldn't happen again. If Dubai couldn't accept the conditions they wouldn't be on the tour. The WTA wasn't looking for an eye for an eye, but they wanted to make sure this didn't happen again. So the message was one more strike and you're outta there.
Someone wanted to know the CEO's view of WTA players appearing in the Swimsuit Edition of Sports Illustrated. The WTA is currently promoting the game with a "Looking for a Hero?" campaign (looking for a heroine?) which, I learned, is an attempt to market athleticism and a classy version of off court glamor. The SI swimsuit edition is a sought-after gig for some celebrities, and if he wasn't promoting it, he didn't run it down. And yes, the obvious follow up question was asked, and no, the WTA definitely wasn't promoting Ashley Harklerod's, um, career diversification strategy.
In the end, it'll be up to the players and the fans to decide whether the WTA is a long term buy or is headed into a bear market. There's only so much a CEO can do to boost a stock, and although no-one asked the question, I'm pretty sure Larry Scott isn't on the receiving end of an AIG sized bonus. Whatever your thoughts on the state of the womens' game right now, at least it isn't a leading player in the destruction of western civilization as we know it.
