The late Gene Scott, who was the editor and publisher of the now defunct Tennis Week magazine, was one of our sport’s biggest critics. He loved the game, and it was his passion that fueled his Tennis Week columns, which were acerbic, often insightful, and at times highly critical of tennis’ leadership. If you were looking for inside-the-beltway type stuff, Scott was your man. And while I never met him, I can’t help but think that if he were alive he’d be blasting the lack of leadership in professional tennis.
 | Michael Heiman/Getty Images
Larry Scott left the WTA to become commissioner of the Pac-10 conference. |
|
Who’s the face of our sport? For that matter, who’s the face of the ATP, WTA or USTA? There’s a leadership problem in tennis—and it’s the fact that there are no visionaries to steer our wonderful sport in a global economy where the rules of marketing, sponsorship and broadcast rights are changing at a rapid pace. What’s more, many tournaments below the Masters and Premier level are struggling mightily in this tough economy. Where are the person(s) to iron out a battle plan and galvanize public opinion?Let’s start, in no particular order, with the ATP. After the much-maligned Etienne de Villiers stepped down as executive chairman and president last year, with the players helping push him out the door, Adam Helfant was appointed to the top post. De Villiers wanted to shake things up a bit and promote the sport in new ways. His most celebrated, and ultimately failed, experiment was the round-robin fiasco, but he was a man with a plan. What about Helfant? His credentials are impressive, but since taking over the reigns of the men’s tour he’s kept such a low profile that you could be forgiven for thinking he’s in the witness protection program instead of occupying one of our sport’s most important positions.
Perhaps Helfant is busy working behind the scenes to merge the men’s and women’s tours, a long-time wish of many journalists and insiders, so the pro game can leverage its assets in a cohesive brand strategy. Maybe he has formulated a cutting-edge broadcast plan or new ways to help cut down on player injuries and burnout. Or perhaps Helfant is plotting to take over the world. We wouldn’t know. The guy hasn’t exactly been out in the public eye trying to promote a message. True, he needs time to get up to speed on tennis since he comes from outside of the industry, but it’s seven months and counting.
On the women’s side, the WTA just announced the appointment of Stacey Allaster, the tour's president since 1996, as its new chairman and CEO. In the weeks and months ahead, we'll hopefully learn about her plans. Will she try to close the loophole in the Road Map to get players to really commit to tournaments? Will she simply stay the course of her predecessor, Larry Scott, which was a pragmatic game plan at best? Or will she bring something new, and savvy, to the table?
Fact is, tennis has had one visionary over the last decade, Arlen Kantarian. As the head of professional tennis for the USTA, Kantarian was a force for positive change and growth. He brought us the U.S. Open Series and a more cohesive television schedule so fans could be dialed into the summer hardcourt season. The U.S. Open is a full-fledged sporting event, thanks to Kantarian’s marketing manifesto of blending sports and entertainment. The guy even promoted tennis’ long ignored and undervalued jewel, Davis Cup, though he was never able to bring it to the prominence it deserves, in part because of the intransigence of tennis’ other governing federations.
Like any forceful personality, Kantarian could be a divisive force—it was his way or nothing, according to many. But at least he had a logical plan. You knew where he stood, and you could react to it. There was debate on the future of tennis and a sense of excitement that things were happening.
And now? Crickets. The USTA has decided not to replace Kantarian, at least for the time being.
And it’s not like the organization that oversees the other Slams, the International Tennis Federation, and its president, Francesco Ricci Bitti, have been agents of change.
All of this leaves the game in a vulnerable position. Tennis, like any professional sport, needs a central figure to thrive, rally the troops, expand and, when required, act as a lightning rod in the face of opposition. Baseball has this in Bud Selig, for example. I’m not making the tired argument for a commissioner of tennis—the sport is way too fractured to ever get there, at least anytime soon. But it would be reassuring to see someone step up, as they say, to make sure tennis comes out of this global recession stronger, not weaker.
Right now, I get the sense that all anyone wants to do is send out press releases about how they’re going to “monitize” their online operations. All well and good, of course, as everyone needs to make a buck. But the road to moving our sport forward isn’t paved with page impressions on individual sites. Rather, it’s about finding ways to work together (in marketing parlance, “aggregating our content and distribution”) so we can engage the tennis enthusiast with a straightforward, yet comprehensive approach.
Of course, it’s better to lack leadership than have an Alexander Haig-type character running amok. And there’s still hope that Helfant will come out of his shell and show us what he’s got, or the WTA will hire an energetic person full of ideas.
Regardless of what happens at the top, the sport will chug along. It’s not as if the U.S. Open, or any other major, is going to be canceled.
But where’s the vision? Where’s the plan? Who’s in charge here?
James Martin is Editor in Chief of TENNIS.
Posts
