The Endless Battle
Matt Cronin
When the ATP Tour was founded in 1972, Jack Kramer, Cliff Drysdale, Arthur Ashe and Raymond Moore likely couldn't have imagined that some 41 years later, the players, tournament directors and Grand Slams would be facing many of the same issues, namely, who is in control of the tour and who should be making how much money.
But that's still the case. The players are still battling with the Grand Slams over increased prize money. But they also are battling with tournament representatives on the ATP Board over the same issue at other tournaments, with Indian Well front and center.
Once again it has become clear that the governing structure of the ATP tour does not work. The board of directors includes three tournament directors, three player representatives, and one largely handcuffed CEO, who inexplicably has abstained in a recent critical vote.
In December the board deadlocked at 3-3 (with CEO Brad Drewett abstaining—see below) over a proposal by Indian Wells to increase its prize money by at least $1.6 million ($800,000 would also go to WTA players), and to distribute most of it to the winners of the first three rounds. Since then the players and tournament reps have been at odds.
The players are for the increase, while according to Raymond Moore, the CEO of Indian Wells, the tournament reps voted against it because they don't want the players to become too powerful. Other sources say that it’s because other Masters Series tournaments – all of which pay out far less than Indian Wells does already – don't want to have to keep upping an ante they can’t afford.
Indian Wells is owned by billionaire Larry Ellison, so that tournament doesn't have to be overly concerned about turning a profit, but even without Ellison it has done incredibly well since the recession ended and has become virtually a Grand Slam on the west coast. Visitors come from all over the country and indeed the world. 370,408 fans can though its gates in 2012, a record and the highest total for any Masters series.
How Much?
This is the umpteenth time that the players and the tournaments have been at odds, even when the going has been good. When the governing structure of the tour was set up, the board seats were divided because clearly there would be many occasions when the two sides would be working at cross purposes.
The players have always wanted to play when and where they want it to. But the tournaments that pay out the most money want to make sure that they are getting the stars. This is why mandatory participation was established.
Now there are nine mandatory events outside of the Grand Slams – Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Madrid, Canada, Cincinnati, Shanghai, Paris and the ATP World Finals--if the player qualifies. The players have largely bought into to competing at those events. But what they have not bought into is how much they should be paid.
The board agreed to a 9% increase annually for the next three years at the Master Series. But no one told Indian Wells, they couldn’t go higher, and Moore’s proposal is for a 20% increase above that what is minimally required.
Indian Wells would like to show off a $1 million dollar winning check. It also wants to make sure that the singles semifinalists are earning more than the doubles winners. But this is something the ATP brass has so far refused to accept.
If that situation is not resolve by the time that the first ball is tossed in the California desert on March 4, then a huge conflict will arise. The tournament would then have to drop its total prize money back to $4.5 million overall.
So instead of Instead of offering $1 million to the singles winners it would be $760,000. As for the first round losers it would be $8,000 instead of $11,000. According to Indian Wells CEO Ray Moore, if this happens, "The players are going to go ballistic and they should."
Moore has put his cards on the table publicly and there are those in the ATP who are furious about it because, like power players in most corporate bureaucracies, they want to solve matters quietly.
But that approach wasn't getting it done for Moore. He was upset with ATP CEO Brad Drewett, who could have broken the 3-3 board deadlock but abstained from the vote in December. Furthermore, Drewett released a statement after the vote essentially opposing the increase and prize money distribution break down, although he refused vote either way.
While on the face of things that looks unusual, it is not in the history of the ATP. Until stars including Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Rafa Nadal became heavily involved in the Players Council, the CEO was hired by and was largely a creature of the tournament directors.
Mark Miles, who was the ATP CEO from 1990-2005, was a master of never casting a deciding vote. The brash Etienne De Villiers, who replaced him, clashed with the players and some tournament directors and only lasted two years. Adam Helfant, next in the job, was considered a marketing genius and a good negotiator, but couldn't cope with being the tour’s public face or the fact that top players as well as important Grand Slam officials were willing to debate issues publicly.
After a long and protracted selection process, Drewett was brought in next as a compromise candidate. A former player who had worked for years in the ATP administration, he was seen as a bridge builder.
But what the tour needs at this time is a figure who isn’t afraid to take a strong stand regardless of consequences. When it comes to solving the Indian Wells issue, he has not been willing to do so.
Tragically he has now been diagnosed with A.L.S and has announced his departure. In the meantime he just might be willing to throw his lot in with one side or another if he can’t forge a compromise.
The eternal dispute between the players and the tournament directors might be solved with a different governing structure, for example, independent candidates running for the board who are not as compromised as the current members. Currently, if you are a player or tournament rep you had best vote as your constituency tells you. But with an equally compromised CEO, far too many big issues end up in stalemates.
NFL Type Money?
But the Indian Wells prize money issue is not the only hot button topic these days. The players and the ATP brass are going all out to try and secure more prize money from the Grand Slams.
They managed to get a historic 15% increase from the 2012 Australian Open, but that was just for starters. Now they are saying that they aren’t satisfied with a similar increase from the 2013 US Open since the Open pulls in more money than Australia.
In fact, there has even been some (though not so serious) talk of a potential Open boycott. The players argue that they should get a bigger piece of the overall revenue pie, as they do in other sports.
On the surface that looks very fair. NFL players get around 47 percent of league revenue, NBA players get around 50 percent and MLB players about the same.
Estimated revenue for the 2013 Australian Open was about $150 million. The Australian Open paid out about $31 million dollars (plus an extra $1,000 to all players, including qualifiers), which put it close to the 20% mark.
But the US Open produces about $250 million. The Open is planning to pay $30 million, but that is only about 12% of gross revenue, or a fourth the percentage of most big time pro sports.
While those percentages are small in comparison to other sport, the overlooked fact is that the Slams fund the grass roots and recreational programs in their countries. They also make substantial contributions to the ITF, which funds grassroots programs world wide.
Without those programs tennis would be all but dead. The players and the ATP (and the WTA) brass want more money but have no answer to this conundrum: if they were drain every possible cent out of the Slams, who would be paying for the 10-and-under programs in US inner city neighborhoods, or in East Africa, Latin America and in Asia? Not the ATP and WTA Charities, which do very little in those departments.
So yes, while it understandable for the players to keep asking for increases, reasonable ones should be acceptable until they can make sure that the development of the sport continues at a grassroots level without being interrupted.
Instead of asking for more than a 15% increase in prize money from the US Open, they could ask the tournament and the other majors to give over say another $5 million each a year to the ITF for developmental programs. This would buttress their argument that the Slams, which earn money off the backs of players from all different nations, shouldn’t just be putting profits back into their host countries.
I bet they would get a warm reception to that proposal. But here’s is a little historical perspective.
In 1968, when Arthur Ashe won the first-ever US Open (it was an amateur sport before then) the prize money for the men’s winner was $14,000.
Using an inflationary scale, $14,000 in 2012 would be worth about $98,000 in 2012 dollars. At the 2012, US Open, the titlists earned $1.9 million a piece, almost 20 times the value of what Ashe earned back in the day. Total prize money in 1968 was $100,000 and in today’s terms that would be only $700,000. So how does $31 million look in historical perspective?
USTA Executive Director Gordon Smith has said the US Open would commit to increasing singles prize money by "75 percent minimum" from 2012 to 2017, which is a huge amount. Who, in this economy, is going to complain about a $40 million purse in 2017? I can’t imagine who, but someone for sure.
Andre Agassi – who had more than his fair share of conflicts with the ATP and USTA over his long career- recently said that he supports the players move for increased prize money as long they understand that when times are tough, that they would have to share in a decrease, too.
That's seems like a very sensible solution: every one should share in the cost of doing business. If the ATP Board of Directors would adopt the same attitude, the sport would be in a much happier place.
