Hey everyone….
• Had a delightful chat with Barbora Krejcikova, who is owning her ambitions.
• Chairman Andrea Gaudenzi was approved for a second term by the ATP board after meetings last week in Monte Carlo.
Onward ...
Most of the mail and social media chatter this week was about the WTA’s decision to return to China. Here’s an audio version on the excellent “Hang Up and Listen” podcast. I’ll try and do a catch-all, raising five points.
a) It’s hard to spin this as anything other than a capitulation. In 2021, a WTA player—known for an admirable propensity to speak up and speak out—offered a lengthy and detailed allegation of sexual assault. The WTA made a demand as a condition for continuing to do business in China that a full investigation of these claims be undertaken. The demand was not met. The WTA is now doing business again in China. Messaging this as, “We weren’t making progress so it didn’t make sense to stick to this strategy,” resides somewhere between illogical and immoral. (Imagine the logical consequences of our decision-making—macro and micro and throughout human history—if stalemates were deemed unacceptable.) Messaging this as a decision made without regard for balance sheets insults us all. (The only reason to capitulate was to ease the economic pain the business faced.) Messaging this as, “we are comfortable with the safety guarantees we have received,” beggars the question “why?”
b) I waver between disappointment at the WTA talking tough and then failing to back it up; and respect that the WTA took a stand, however short-lived it was. Just look at everyone else. With the opportunity to stand with the WTA, the ATP not only declined to do so, but increased its footprint in China. Other sports leagues said all the right things and tweeted all the right messages of support; but did not withdraw their business in China. The IOC was worse than cowardly; going all the way up to Thomas Bach, it was complicit with China’s campaign, ultimately successful, to minimizing Peng Shuai and her allegation, and to isolate the WTA for its response. The WTA might, ultimately, have collapsed like a jack-o’-lantern in November. But at least it had the initial courage.
c) Context is important. When Peng first wrote her essay and then “disappeared,” it was shocking and concerning. You had the standard concerns over China and censorship and its intolerance of dissent. You had this gathering of the WTA in Guadalajara, where there was unanimity that this was a cause worth fighting for. You had the Winter Olympics a few months out, so there was a sense that China was perhaps vulnerable to bad PR that exposed its human rights abuses. You had COVIID-19 raging, so the WTA couldn’t have gone to China even if it had wanted to. ... Since then? Peng resurfaced and—likely, of course, under deep duress—denied ever making the allegation and declined to meet with the WTA. (She also announced her retirement from tennis.) The Olympics came to China and went off without much of a hitch. Russia invaded Ukraine, siphoning so much geopolitical outrage inside and outside of tennis. With its finances collapsing, the WTA “partnered” with CVC, a private equity firm. This is like a barnacle “partnering” with a piling. Private equity firms do not enter these relationships for the sake of placing “principles over profit.” Serena Williams retired. Ash Barty retired. Naomi Osaka retreated. The WTA’s star power (a source of some leverage) dimmed. COVID-19 restrictions passed. Point being: A lot happened in 16 months to undercut the WTA’s position.
Jerry Lai/USA TODAY Sports
d) If we made like an athlete and Monday Morning Quarterbacked this (tennis terms: replayed the match with the benefit of hindsight) it seems to me the WTA’s fatal flaw was demanding the “full and transparent” investigation, and placing that onus on China. China does “transparent” the way Daniil Medvedev does clay. China entertains self-critical analysis that way Wimbledon entertains clay. The idea that China was going to accede to this demand was always absurd. So in making this mandate, the WTA essentially guaranteed either a stalemate or a face-losing retreat. The WTA should have said, “WE will conduct an investigation and we won’t return until WE are satisfied with OUR findings.” That way, if Peng “declined to press charges” so to speak … or if the financial pressures became too burdensome … or the board grew restless … at least the WTA could claim agency in a decision to return. “We conducted an investigation and, while we are still disturbed and condemn sexual assault, we conclude the conditions are suitable to return.” As it stands, the situation plays out like this:
“Son, I demand you do your homework as a condition for our continuing our vacation plans!”
“Whatever, dad.”
Sixteen months later.
“So, what’ll it be, kiddo? Cancun or Disney World? We’re all good, right?”
e) I was speaking to an NBA executive who has strong feelings about China and its appalling human rights record. He made two interesting points. 1) How disturbing is it that the WTA, over 16 months, was never able to establish firsthand, independent contact with Pen, an 18-year veteran? Hard to imagine too many other contexts in which a league cannot connect with a longtime player. “How disturbing is that? And then to go back?” 2) So many corporations, inside and outside of sports, were watching this WTA situation unfold, putting themselves in the position of the WTA. Essentially, Do we hold our noses and continue doing business with China? Or can we stake some moral high ground and withstand the economic pain? Sadly, the WTA blinked. And now others will think twice about a similar staredown.
When is Nadal no longer the favorite at Roland Garros? He recently missed Monte Carlo and hasn't played since Australia. When is it too late for him to get into top form to defend at RG?
Kevin Kane, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
To pay homage to Nadal and use his favorite construction: “Both alternatives seem absurd, no?”
a) Nadal turns 37 during the tournament. He is injured. He is outside the top 10. He hasn’t won an event in nearly a year. In what verkakte universe is he the favorite?
b) Nadal has won this event 14 times. Repeat: He has won as many French Opens as Pete Sampras—king of the hill 14 years ago— has won total majors. And Nadal is the defending champion (having beaten Djokovic in the process in 2022). Ranking schmanking. Injury, Schminjury. Age, schmage. In what verkakte universe is he NOT the favorite?
I’m inclined to chose “B.” Fourteen is a lot of data points. He is the favorite until he’s not. Even in, say, 2070, if he decided to put down his Bingo, pop in his dentures, sneak away from the Mallorca Retirement Casa, finagle a wild card and enter Roland Garros, you’d have to consider him a dangerous floater.
Any updates on the Jay Kaspian Kang 30 for 30 on Michael Chang? Announced in September, no word since.
@3gamestolove
Per my moles: It’s premiering at Tribeca and then will be released at some point this summer to coincide with peak American tennis season.
Jon, the U.S. Open asked: “Who is one player who you'd like to see resurrect their career?” Curious how you would answer that.
Marlo T.
General statement: The received wisdom in sports media is that those who cover sports start out in awe of the athletes. You’re the same age. There’s the novelty of seeing celebrity up close. Your friends are working desk jobs and conducting due diligence or sleep-deprived medical residencies; and you’re at the Super Bowl or The Masters. Then, the sports coverer grows … what? if not resentful then detached, as chronically late prima donnas arrive only to serve up room-temperature cliches. All as your peers are buying boats.
For what it’s worth, my experience runs counter to this. Speaking only for myself, the longer I cover sports, the more impressed I am by the soul of the athlete. Their work ethic. Their sacrifice. Their risk threshold. Their exposure. The fragility of it all. The knowledge that when they retire—at age 30 or 35—odds are good they will never again be as good at anything else in their life. The shaky finances that befall all but a few select players. Sports excellence is really something quite extraordinary. At least in tennis, the “jaded factor” comes not from the athletes, but from the flawed structure, the rotten conflicts of interest, the self-dealing, the ineffective suits who fail up, the recycled “leaders” who flame out in one organization and find safe harbor at another.
All of which is to say, all players—cheaters notwithstanding—should be entitled to career resurrection. Dominic Thiem. Bianca Andreescu. Sonya Kenin. Garbiñe Muguruza. May they all win additional majors. May they all play until they are 100. Which ethically challenged VP of pencil pushing or disgraced tour board member or struggling agent ought to be entitled to a resurrection? That’s a question to ponder.
Jon, I think I understand the point you made on “Hang Up and Listen” about American women versus Amercan men. But I’m not sure I got it. Care to explain?
E.E.W.
The “debate” much as it was, focused on what holds a greater likelihood: an American male winning a Major or an American female. Let’s make it the first question next week.
Quick shots:
• Here’s Jonathon Braden, in praise of mixed events.
• Haier, the number one brand globally in major appliances, has today become the Official Home Appliances Partner and Gold Partner of the ATP Tour.
• Reagan McClymonds of Los Angeles take us out…
Jon,
Re: “Tennis has a real attendance problem. – April 6, 2023). In tennis’ defense, the reserved-seat tickets sold at a tennis tournament grant access for 6-8 hours of matches which is asking a lot for the average fan to occupy consecutively (for the TV screen optics). This is in contrast to tennis’ “competition” where the action generally lasts no longer than 3 hours.
However, the larger issue is that the tournaments are run horribly from a ticketing and crowd management standpoint. The market has clearly spoken on this front and tennis fans are either 1) not willing to pay the price for a reserved seat OR 2) not interested in actually attending the matches (at any price). The simple solution, of course, is expanding the general admission/ground pass seating areas OR allowing anyone to sit in any seat subject to removal if the ticket holder shows up at the match/seat. However, the ushers are granted no discretion on this front OR use no common sense and blindly stick with “the policy” to the grave detriment of the atmosphere on most tennis courts. Add it all up, and the inescapable fact is that the people running these tournaments are not acting in the best interest of the game.
It also doesn’t help matters when the tennis illuminati will continues to hype Indian Wells as “the 5th major” or gush over the “night atmosphere at Ashe Stadium” when the sparse attendance at these events warrant no such considerations.
(All my personal experience/observation with a combined 20-plus visits to Indian Wells and New York. Weekly reader of the mailbag).
