In its farewell statement, the ATP stated: "Kermode's vision and leadership since 2014 has been instrumental in the creation of landmark new ATP events such as the award-winning Next Gen ATP Finals in Milan, as well as the upcoming ATP Cup in 2020." The trick words are, of course, "such as", because that's all that changed since... I do not clearly remember when. Could anybody tell me which are the other major ATP events created since 2014? The other trick, used in this delicious quote: "His six-year tenure at the helm of the ATP has seen record prize money and commercial growth for the organisation, while attendance and viewership of the ATP Tour has soared" is to make a causal connection where there is only a temporal one, because, meanwhile, indeed, tennis soared, but, as we can see from the attendance in IW in the last years, e.g., or this year Rotterdam, it is in no relations nor with Chris Kermode, nor with the participation of some well-known players. Tennis is one of the most popular sports the way it is now, and all the experiments the ATP did lately were steps in the wrong direction.
I do not know if Kermode could change things -- he certainly did not manage a lot, although I guess he is an capable man who did honestly what he was paid for. The structure of tournaments remained the same. There are no ATP 1000 tournaments in Latin and South America, although a lot of top players come from there, neither in Australia, where a strong tennis tradition exists. The calendar has not been improved -- something that would have been not too difficult to achieve, little step by little step, in the six years he was in charge.
Nothing has been done for lower ranked players, nor for young players. The ATP showed a strong will to use them when it served the interests of the tournaments, but nothing has been done to allow them a faster ascent to the top of the game. I find a peculiar hypocrisy in the fact that the ATP denied points to ITF tournaments because the ITF sold data to betting houses, at the time when these same betting houses are major sponsors of ATP tournaments. From what I have seen, the behaviour of the ATP was to follow the money since its conception.
David Law asked Jane on Twitter which players supported the action of the players representatives on the ATP board, listing Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Kyrgios against the change, and adding: "Apparently their voices count for nothing." This is the paradox of democracy: the voices of the majority count for more. But here lies the catch: the trend lately was toward an über-gentrification of tennis, a reverse of the process of democratisation that started in the seventies. It is fine when the voices of Pella, Ramos, Cuevas, Djere, Humbert, Chardy, Pospisil, Berankis or Evans count for nothing, players who are in dare need of more tournaments, a better ranking system, and more prize money, but Murray -- who is almost retired and without pecuniary worries -- or Kyrgios, whose exceptional moronity will be soon be included in the Guinness book of records, should be listened. Yes, I know, I know nothing about Kyrgios, but you know what: he knows nothing about me, nor about Nadal or Djokovic, which does not prevent him from making nasty judgements about them.
By itself, the end of Kermode's stay at the head of the ATP should be much ado about nothing -- he earned more in this six years than I did in all my life, and he will not die of starvation: there are plenty of jobs awaiting for him. But it is a step in a change of power: the ATP, who focused for years on the corporate interests of big tournaments and sponsors -- IMG, Nike almost owned the ATP for years, dictating schedules, draws, and prize money (we all remember when Larry Ellison was not allowed to increase IW prize money, or, last year, when the creation of a game-changing player union was stopped under the threat of American law). We have now a concentration of power and of conflicts of interests that threatens to denature the game, a lot of money is in play, and the working class of the tennis world, the players, are on their way to a start a revolution.
And sometimes, revolutions are good things.
P.S.
Jane pointed out cleverly that the situation was exactly the same ten years ago, when the players, led by Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, voted out De Villiers. Here is Nadal statement on the matter:
So much about that cultural divide that pundits keep talking about.
I do not know if Kermode could change things -- he certainly did not manage a lot, although I guess he is an capable man who did honestly what he was paid for. The structure of tournaments remained the same. There are no ATP 1000 tournaments in Latin and South America, although a lot of top players come from there, neither in Australia, where a strong tennis tradition exists. The calendar has not been improved -- something that would have been not too difficult to achieve, little step by little step, in the six years he was in charge.
Nothing has been done for lower ranked players, nor for young players. The ATP showed a strong will to use them when it served the interests of the tournaments, but nothing has been done to allow them a faster ascent to the top of the game. I find a peculiar hypocrisy in the fact that the ATP denied points to ITF tournaments because the ITF sold data to betting houses, at the time when these same betting houses are major sponsors of ATP tournaments. From what I have seen, the behaviour of the ATP was to follow the money since its conception.
David Law asked Jane on Twitter which players supported the action of the players representatives on the ATP board, listing Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Dimitrov, Kyrgios against the change, and adding: "Apparently their voices count for nothing." This is the paradox of democracy: the voices of the majority count for more. But here lies the catch: the trend lately was toward an über-gentrification of tennis, a reverse of the process of democratisation that started in the seventies. It is fine when the voices of Pella, Ramos, Cuevas, Djere, Humbert, Chardy, Pospisil, Berankis or Evans count for nothing, players who are in dare need of more tournaments, a better ranking system, and more prize money, but Murray -- who is almost retired and without pecuniary worries -- or Kyrgios, whose exceptional moronity will be soon be included in the Guinness book of records, should be listened. Yes, I know, I know nothing about Kyrgios, but you know what: he knows nothing about me, nor about Nadal or Djokovic, which does not prevent him from making nasty judgements about them.
By itself, the end of Kermode's stay at the head of the ATP should be much ado about nothing -- he earned more in this six years than I did in all my life, and he will not die of starvation: there are plenty of jobs awaiting for him. But it is a step in a change of power: the ATP, who focused for years on the corporate interests of big tournaments and sponsors -- IMG, Nike almost owned the ATP for years, dictating schedules, draws, and prize money (we all remember when Larry Ellison was not allowed to increase IW prize money, or, last year, when the creation of a game-changing player union was stopped under the threat of American law). We have now a concentration of power and of conflicts of interests that threatens to denature the game, a lot of money is in play, and the working class of the tennis world, the players, are on their way to a start a revolution.
And sometimes, revolutions are good things.
P.S.
Jane pointed out cleverly that the situation was exactly the same ten years ago, when the players, led by Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, voted out De Villiers. Here is Nadal statement on the matter:
So much about that cultural divide that pundits keep talking about.
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire