How much has the ATP changed since 2000, apart from certain names? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How much has the ATP changed since 2000, apart from certain names?

Action Jackson
10-26-2006, 07:19 AM
This was done in 2000, just change the names of Sampras and Rafter and you will see some similarities. It has always been about the Tournament Directors though not in name. I will paste an old excerpt from a Medvedev interview.

Why are the other guys on the tour afraid to speak up and give their opinions?

My opinion is that some of them donít care. If you ask Sampras, heíd say, everything is fine. Iím making my money with the ATP Tour, and Iím happy about that. I was once a representative of the Top 10 players. And when you try to get these guys to work for something, nine out of 10 guys would say, I donít care. Everything is fine. If you explain that this way is better, they reply, we understand, but we donít care. That was at the time of Becker, Edberg, Sampras.

Are there any players who care?

Yeah, I would say Rafter cares. I think Agassi actually cares although he doesnít always show it. He would be willing to step up and do a little revolution and be behind the players and not behind the ATP Tour.

On March 10, 1999 former world No. 1 Thomas Muster told the German newspaper Die Welt: I look at the ATP not so much as a representative of players but as a firm that in marketing even works against the players. I donít like the way tennis is dominated by Americans. The problem is that tennis is governed by the Americans and financed by the Europeans. [ATP Tour CEO] Mark Miles must go, changes must come quickly, and the future of our sport is at stake.

Do you agree with Muster?

I agree with 90 percent of what Muster was saying because in the past the ATP has acted against [the best interests of] the players, and in favour of the tournaments. Thatís a fact. Give me an example of that.

There are plenty of examples, believe me. In Estoril this year, I was to play a semi-final match scheduled not before 2:30, following the women at noon. It rained the whole day until 2:45. Nobody notified me or told me anything. Then rain stopped and 10 minutes later the tour manager tells me, youíre on the court in 10 minutes. I said, Listen, the women have to play first. He says, No, no, we got the TV. You got to go first. So I had no warm-up, no warning. When it was raining, they should have at least said, you guys should warm up, indoors or something, because you might play as soon as the rain stops.

We went on the court cold, and we had to play in a drizzle, and the court became slippery. We talked to the chair umpire, and he said he had orders that we had to continue because we had TV. Now, what if the players got injured? What, instead, if we had striked and refused to go on the court? The ATP doesnít care if somebody breaks his leg. All they care about is the tournament and the TV gets what they want.

The ATP should be defending us because itís an association of tennis professionals, not tournaments. They donít consistently do this. Theyíre becoming better. But when Muster spoke out, it was definitely way in favour of the tournaments.

Action Jackson
10-26-2006, 07:52 AM
Miles was a total muppet and a stooge, but at least he didn't support RR.

MisterQ
10-26-2006, 01:10 PM
Interesting post, GWH. Thanks. :) Medvedev was a good guy, personable and intelligent.

On a side note, it's only been six years, but everyone in that interview is now out of the game. Time flies...

Action Jackson
10-26-2006, 01:13 PM
Well I like to call the ATP the ATD (Association of Tournament Directors) and yes the names are different, but much is still the same.

The game isn't totally run by Americans, but naturally there is going to be some influence.

The main point is that the players don't care, they didn't care then and they don't care now or not enough care.

Gulliver
10-26-2006, 01:32 PM
I haven't been through all the threads, so I might be wrong here, but of the current top 10, is this how they feel (that is, if they have said anything)?

Federer: No to Hawkeye, on court coaching, RR
Nadal: Yes to all
Nalbandian: ?
Ljubicic: Yes to all
Roddick: ?
Davydenko: ?
Gonzalez: ?
Robredo: I think he has said something?
Blake: ?
Berdych: ?

And outside this lot who has made a comment? Somebody, somewhere had some off the record comments.

vogus
10-26-2006, 02:43 PM
Well I like to call the ATP the ATD (Association of Tournament Directors) and yes the names are different, but much is still the same.

The game isn't totally run by Americans, but naturally there is going to be some influence.

The main point is that the players don't care, they didn't care then and they don't care now or not enough care.


it's hard to care when you are making as much money as those guys make/made from their individual appearance deals with the tournament directors. Tennis players worry about their own interests first, even moreso than in other sports. Why should they risk something to make a fuss?

Naranoc
10-26-2006, 02:49 PM
Robredo: I think he has said something?

Would they honestly listen to him though?

Action Jackson
10-26-2006, 02:51 PM
Would they honestly listen to him though?

Fair point, but Federer is one guy that could take some leadership, but it's about the ATD.

dorkino
10-26-2006, 03:15 PM
Pretty much the same . But..
It's where tennis is really dealt with as a profession not a game. I'm not 100% sure, but i think if we take a look around, similar issues 'll be observed for every game association dealing with money & professionals.

MarieS
10-26-2006, 04:15 PM
Pretty much the same . But..
It's where tennis is really dealt with as a profession not a game. I'm not 100% sure, but i think if we take a look around, similar issues 'll be observed for every game association dealing with money & professionals.

No other sports have players associations specifically designed to represent and defend players' rights. Baseball's player association, for example, is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, unions in America. That's what tennis lacks--proper representation of what the players want. The way it's done now, there are way too many interests (players, tournaments, sponsors, TV) clashing, and there is ONE organizion in place to take care of it all. It doesn't make much sense, but then again, what in tennis does? :shrug:

Action Jackson
10-26-2006, 04:20 PM
Pretty much the same . But..
It's where tennis is really dealt with as a profession not a game. I'm not 100% sure, but i think if we take a look around, similar issues 'll be observed for every game association dealing with money & professionals.

It's called the ATP and they broke away to form their own tour. The thing is in reality they only done it name and these players aren't militant enough to stir things up.

Nadal should go with some other players and have something like the Harlem Globetrotters and play gimmick tennis.

scarecrows
10-26-2006, 04:22 PM
^ dude, isnt this an unusual time for u?

Via
10-26-2006, 11:52 PM
No other sports have players associations specifically designed to represent and defend players' rights. Baseball's player association, for example, is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, unions in America. That's what tennis lacks--proper representation of what the players want. The way it's done now, there are way too many interests (players, tournaments, sponsors, TV) clashing, and there is ONE organizion in place to take care of it all. It doesn't make much sense, but then again, what in tennis does? :shrug:

i absolutely agree - to me it's dysfunctional to have one organisation to represent both tournaments and players. you could have that for an organisation to represent the sport/industry, but then it should have 2 member organisations to represent tournaments and players separately, since they may have conflicting interests at times. (well to have a 3rd to represent fans would be nice :p )

since players come and go in a matter of a few years, but tournaments and their directors and executives tend to be around for much longer - you can imagine who have more influence on the organisation, officially called the atp.

GlennMirnyi
10-27-2006, 12:16 AM
Federer is the only hope to keep the sport serious?

NicoFan
10-27-2006, 12:30 AM
The players don't care...I can only think of a few that actually care about the game and the fans - the rest only care about $$$$$ - and lots of it.

As for the top 10, I just know Roger is against it, Rafa and Fernando are for it.

Almost all the guys that I've heard against it are lower ranked. I'm happy to report that Nico is against it. :yeah:

Action Jackson
10-27-2006, 06:44 AM
i absolutely agree - to me it's dysfunctional to have one organisation to represent both tournaments and players. you could have that for an organisation to represent the sport/industry, but then it should have 2 member organisations to represent tournaments and players separately, since they may have conflicting interests at times. (well to have a 3rd to represent fans would be nice :p )

since players come and go in a matter of a few years, but tournaments and their directors and executives tend to be around for much longer - you can imagine who have more influence on the organisation, officially called the atp.

Thanks for the commonsense post and that is what Muster was saying all those years ago and it hasn't changed at all. The ATP or the ATD isn't working as a players group, it's working against them most of the time and benefitting the TD's and the players are just commodities and when their stock has run out, they are discarded for the next cattle intake.

dorkino
10-27-2006, 09:27 AM
Posted by MarieS
No other sports have players associations specifically designed to represent and defend players' rights. Baseball's player association, for example, is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, unions in America. That's what tennis lacks--
I see.Thanks for the info.

Posted by Via
to me it's dysfunctional to have one organisation to represent both tournaments and players. you could have that for an organisation to represent the sport/industry, but then it should have 2 member organisations to represent tournaments and players separately, since they may have conflicting interests at times.
Totally agree. The ATP is now mainly concerned with the money business, organizing tourneys more than the players rights. I'm with 2 member organizations.:)

Posted by GeorgeWHitler
It's called the ATP and they broke away to form their own tour. The thing is in reality they only done it name and these players aren't militant enough to stir things up.
Money talks and perhaps it's a singles game..which makes things difficult to get one opinion from all those players.
More important, is that as long as they can separately stand the pressure, Problems 'll continue i guess.


Posted by GeorgeWHitler
Nadal should go with some other players and have something like the Harlem Globetrotters and play gimmick tennis.
:) Right now, Nadal is having enough problems with all the talks about him burning out soon,Leading the revolution against the ATP system ,imagine the kind of talks that 'll arise and after all so far the guy agrees with the new changes.
But u're right,It's not a -one player mission- to accomplish.And imagining, Federer with his Nike Wimbly jacket and Nadal Hand in Hand with Berdych for a Globetrotters tennis show against the ATP makes u laugh:)

Action Jackson
10-27-2006, 09:32 AM
Totally agree. The ATP is now mainly concerned with the money business, organizing tourneys more than the players rights. I'm with 2 member organizations.:)

Money talks and perhaps it's a singles game..which makes things difficult to get one opinion from all those players.
More important, is that as long as they can separately stand the pressure, Problems 'll continue i guess.

:) Right now, Nadal is having enough problems with all the talks about him burning out soon,Leading the revolution against the ATP system ,imagine the kind of talks that 'll arise and after all so far the guy agrees with the new changes.
But u're right,It's not a -one player mission- to accomplish.And imagining, Federer with his Nike Wimbly jacket and Nadal Hand in Hand with Berdych for a Globetrotters tennis show against the ATP makes u laugh:)

ATP is really the ATD and that is what Muster was saying. They really hate it when a player expresses a view that doesn't toe the party line at all.

Of course money talks and these players know they are only there for a short time, so it just depends on what they as more important.

Nadal is pro ATP and all its gimmicks, yet he complains of playing too much, when he is the one the people want to see.

As for a rebel tour, it would be more the clowns who support the RR format.

Via
10-28-2006, 12:04 AM
Thanks for the commonsense post and that is what Muster was saying all those years ago and it hasn't changed at all. The ATP or the ATD isn't working as a players group, it's working against them most of the time and benefitting the TD's and the players are just commodities and when their stock has run out, they are discarded for the next cattle intake.

wow commodities and stock... you have a way with words :worship:

tournaments are not necessarily :devil: and players :angel: i have to remind myself of that. but somehow, if players, in their self-interest, are allowed to pursue their individual goals and strive to win in fair competition (like the perfect market in economic theory?) then collectively it's a good sport.

they do need to be better represented than now. no player has chosen nadal to represent them btw. i think it shows a great lack of respect for the organisation structure, when atp puts out a media release about important changes, then quotes nadal as a supporter. where's the official player rep ???

since i'd had a good look at the atp in 2000 (a coincidence with your thread title) i have the belief that they need *competition* like a rival tour... and yeah even a globetrotters tennis show would be nice ;)

Action Jackson
10-28-2006, 12:11 AM
wow commodities and stock... you have a way with words :worship:

tournaments are not necessarily :devil: and players :angel: i have to remind myself of that. but somehow, if players, in their self-interest, are allowed to pursue their individual goals and strive to win in fair competition (like the perfect market in economic theory?) then collectively it's a good sport.

they do need to be better represented than now. no player has chosen nadal to represent them btw. i think it shows a great lack of respect for the organisation structure, when atp puts out a media release about important changes, then quotes nadal as a supporter. where's the official player rep ???

since i'd had a good look at the atp in 2000 (a coincidence with your thread title) i have the belief that they need *competition* like a rival tour... and yeah even a globetrotters tennis show would be nice ;)

Or another way of looking at it is that the players are just props and pawns, while TV and the TD's and other assorted pigs are the chess or ringmasters.

They need each other to survive, but one holds a larger balance of power which is why the ATP originally formed cause they weren't happy with the direction of the tour at the time and players have a larger say in what goes on and now through various conflicting interesting groups as you mentioned it goes around and around.

Nadal is the future superstar and they are trying to build it around and him. As for the ATP reps well Ljubo and Blake both support all these changes, so they can use Nadal as the marketing tool for now and then when his use by date is up, he can get lost.

Seriously a breakaway tour would be a good idea, then you see what happens when all those top players at the time are without the others, when they are just playing amongst themselves.

Via
10-28-2006, 12:12 AM
Almost all the guys that I've heard against it are lower ranked. I'm happy to report that Nico is against it. :yeah:

but he's the olympic champion, he plays for glory, not money :worship: :lol:

come to think of it... i went to the sydney olympic tennis in 2000, don't recall any family fun booths, or kids entertainment stuff, but the intense competition just blew you away.

Via
10-28-2006, 12:18 AM
Or another way of looking at it is that the players are just props and pawns, while TV and the TD's and other assorted pigs are the chess or ringmasters.

They need each other to survive, but one holds a larger balance of power which is why the ATP originally formed cause they weren't happy with the direction of the tour at the time and players have a larger say in what goes on and now through various conflicting interesting groups as you mentioned it goes around and around.

Nadal is the future superstar and they are trying to build it around and him. As for the ATP reps well Ljubo and Blake both support all these changes, so they can use Nadal as the marketing tool for now and then when his use by date is up, he can get lost.

Seriously a breakaway tour would be a good idea, then you see what happens when all those top players at the time are without the others, when they are just playing amongst themselves.

agree with the balance of power (the lack of)... that's what i mean:p

if ljubo and blake are the official reps then they should be quoted and their positions emphasised. that way some players can grumble to the media but that's their individual opinion - if supposedly their reps are working for the common interest.

gwh - btw - do you have any down time from these boards? lol

Via
10-28-2006, 12:24 AM
Seriously a breakaway tour would be a good idea, then you see what happens when all those top players at the time are without the others, when they are just playing amongst themselves.

sorry missed that - what would happen? i'm just thinking that a rival tour could provide more interest and force some inefficient management to shape up. i haven't worked out the logistics lol

Action Jackson
10-28-2006, 12:29 AM
sorry missed that - what would happen? i'm just thinking that a rival tour could provide more interest and force some inefficient management to shape up. i haven't worked out the logistics lol

Well look what happened with the Super League? Those idiots had 1 season apart and there were 2 competitions going on at the same time and they realised it was crappy and were forced to come back together and addressed the problems and had compromises that worked for the overall better of the game.

Also happened with cricket as well and the NHL had a season where there was no hockey. Sometimes it needs some extreme measures for people to get it and a few years ago Jeff Tarango and Wayne Ferreira wanted to start another group, but it didn't quite happen.

Via
10-28-2006, 12:41 AM
Well look what happened with the Super League? Those idiots had 1 season apart and there were 2 competitions going on at the same time and they realised it was crappy and were forced to come back together and addressed the problems and had compromises that worked for the overall better of the game.

Also happened with cricket as well and the NHL had a season where there was no hockey. Sometimes it needs some extreme measures for people to get it and a few years ago Jeff Tarango and Wayne Ferreira wanted to start another group, but it didn't quite happen.

so you want a revolution.... lol

it's hard for me to see tennis going through a super league type of revolution. (not that i paid much attention to rugby i just knew the basics) but it would need huge financial backing to form such an effective rival tour, nothing that guys like tarango and ferreria could pull off, i guess.

i seem to remember becker attempting something like a rival tour? if the germans couldn't do it...

any rival tour less spectaular and the guys won't risk their short earning span for such disruption.

Action Jackson
10-28-2006, 12:47 AM
so you want a revolution.... lol

it's hard for me to see tennis going through a super league type of revolution. (not that i paid much attention to rugby i just knew the basics) but it would need huge financial backing to form such an effective rival tour, nothing that guys like tarango and ferreria could pull off, i guess.

i seem to remember becker attempting something like a rival tour? if the germans couldn't do it...

any rival tour less spectaular and the guys won't risk their short earning span for such disruption.

No, not necessarily a revloution. Seriously Mr Disney just cares for the top players and that is pretty much what has been said with Muster and Medvedev before and it is the same way now.

It would be these top guys who should just go and play among themselves cause everyone wants to see them, so fearless leader says.

*Viva Chile*
10-28-2006, 01:22 AM
I haven't been through all the threads, so I might be wrong here, but of the current top 10, is this how they feel (that is, if they have said anything)?

Federer: No to Hawkeye, on court coaching, RR
Nadal: Yes to all
Nalbandian: ?
Ljubicic: Yes to all
Roddick: ?
Davydenko: ?
Gonzalez: ?
Robredo: I think he has said something?
Blake: ?
Berdych: ?

And outside this lot who has made a comment? Somebody, somewhere had some off the record comments.

Roddick: Yes to Hawkeye, ?? at RR
GonzŠlez; Yes to Hawkeye (he finds it entertaining :cool: ), and not sure about the RR system.
Blake: Yes to haweye, ?? at RR

Action Jackson
05-09-2008, 10:24 AM
I agree with 90 percent of what Muster was saying because in the past the ATP has acted against [the best interests of] the players, and in favour of the tournaments. That’s a fact. Give me an example of that.

Fast forward to 2008 and the ATP calendar bowing to demands of a TV network that prefered to show university basketball and throws the calendar out, so they have 3 TMS events in 4 weeks.

That's truly acting in the players interests.

Johnny Groove
05-09-2008, 02:12 PM
In the 1.5 years since the thread was made, more and more players have voiced their displeasure with the way the sport is being run. I believe 18 of the top 20 signed some petition to get EDV out, if i recall correctly. Only Pico and Baghdatis couldn't sign because they werent there.

In particular, Nadal. He used to be mad shy about this, but now he is speaking out against EDV and the schedule every chance he gets. Especially in his press conference after he lost to JCF, basically saying that EDV is a mug and he never wants to talk to him.

Action Jackson
05-09-2008, 02:19 PM
It's like a pressure cooker, there is only so much water will hold until it boils over.

Johnny Groove
05-09-2008, 02:22 PM
Oh, it has boiled over and it is flooding.

The only thing now is when we replace it

Action Jackson
05-09-2008, 02:25 PM
The problems will still remain, that the structure has to be reformed and that the ATP is actually a players union, not what it is now.

Only thing they seem unified in, is that EDV has to go.

Johnny Groove
05-09-2008, 02:29 PM
But who to bring in after him?

I wasnt that into tennis during the Mark Miles era, but apparently the same problems then still remain today.

It seems that the problem is more within the core structure of the ATP itself and not the mug that is calling the shots.

Action Jackson
05-09-2008, 02:41 PM
It's a combination of both and if you read through the thread, you will see what problems have been raised by the ones in here.

It's too biased to the tournament directors and has been for ages, but there are competent admins around, there are still big problems and de Villiers is one of them. Miles was only there initially to stabilise the ATP and to make sure it got off the ground and was able to do that, but had no interest in further development.

Johnny Groove
05-09-2008, 02:44 PM
Apart from the massive schedule changed needed and the tour caring more about the player's concerns than the TD's making $$, what other problems are there?

Or are all the problems due to the above two?

Action Jackson
05-09-2008, 02:49 PM
They are all inter related, then there the vested interest groups as well.

There needs to be a global TV rights deal, knowing their market. I mean I am no golf fan, but I can watch a live golf event for every weekend, if I chose to do so.

Johnny Groove
05-09-2008, 02:51 PM
They are all inter related, then there the vested interest groups as well.

There needs to be a global TV rights deal, knowing their market. I mean I am no golf fan, but I can watch a live golf event for every weekend, if I chose to do so.

The TV rights is a huge problem, every week on here we are searching for some low quality live stream for the matches :o

Or at the least something like ATP masters series TV (a brilliant idea, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn) for every tournament.

Merton
05-09-2008, 08:35 PM
Well, fundamentally it is a classic problem of collective action for the players, that is if they campaigning for their common interests is costly individually, so they need some sort of union to campaign on their behalf. The ATP was originally conceived as a partnership between tournament directors and players, it worked well at the beginning with the establishment of the masters series, but we are now at a point when it is not obvious at all that such a partnership is good for the sport at large. It is just time for the players to break ATP and create their own union, then bargain with tournament directors and the ITF.

Action Jackson
05-09-2008, 08:49 PM
Well, fundamentally it is a classic problem of collective action for the players, that is if they campaigning for their common interests is costly individually, so they need some sort of union to campaign on their behalf. The ATP was originally conceived as a partnership between tournament directors and players, it worked well at the beginning with the establishment of the masters series, but we are now at a point when it is not obvious at all that such a partnership is good for the sport at large. It is just time for the players to break ATP and create their own union, then bargain with tournament directors and the ITF.

They definitely need a strong players union, headed by an ex-player preferably. The original goals have been compromised over the time, this is not just about the top brass either, they aren't going to be around forever.

The examples Muster and Medvedev used are still true.

kafemotor
05-10-2008, 04:11 AM
The problems will still remain, that the structure has to be reformed and that the ATP is actually a players union, not what it is now.

Only thing they seem unified in, is that EDV has to go.

Well, fundamentally it is a classic problem of collective action for the players, that is if they campaigning for their common interests is costly individually, so they need some sort of union to campaign on their behalf. The ATP was originally conceived as a partnership between tournament directors and players, it worked well at the beginning with the establishment of the masters series, but we are now at a point when it is not obvious at all that such a partnership is good for the sport at large. It is just time for the players to break ATP and create their own union, then bargain with tournament directors and the ITF.

I agree with the notion about three separated organizations but working closely. Association for players, tournament directors/promoters, and regulatory tennis association. In motorsport, for example F1, there is driver association concerning driver interest, mainly on safety issues, beside Bernie as promoter along with tournament directors, and FIA as regulator. There is also constructors association that best represents team or principal interest.
Since each player work individually, no need to team association. Player association is mandatory and any decision regarding player and rules of the game must be an agreement between the three above-mentioned bodies...