PTPA lawsuit

9vicman · Satellite level

RE: PTPA lawsuit

9vicman · Satellite level

Sheddie wrote:
I hope that it leads to a few changes - adjusting a few of the court surfaces would be great to get a bit more variety back in the game. I'm sure we'd all be happy to see some tournaments with speedy courts and balls, shorter rallies and perhaps a few different names coming into the mix.

Am not sure a 163-page expensive law suit is needed to change a few of the court surfaces. And I think that's the problem with the suit: there's so many different elements that I don't see what and how a jury is meant to determine.

And the PTPA needs to decide whether it's looking to help the top players or all players, most of whom don't want a shortened circuit or more exhibition opportunities.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

I think the lawsuit does include an awful lot of stuff in it, some of which doesnt really work - the ranking system challenge is a strange one and they have left it out - the idea that things outside the tour (ATP, WTA, ITF,) could be included makes no sense - I guess they are trying to liken it to golf where all sorts of effectively exhibition events get included and allocated points, but in tennis this would be open to a lot of abuse. The ranking system isnt perfect but by including it in there suit, it muddies the water.

The real issues needing fixing for me are:

1) Grand slam prizemoney allocation and share to the players

2) allowing tournies that want to set their own prizemoney to do so - like IW wanted to - why should the employers limit what the players can earn; if an event is profitable enough, let it pay - if another event cant keep up, then so be it, let it dwindle and get replaced if needs be.

3) calendar - generally needs fixing and organising better but mainly the LONG season needs sorting - post the US Open, it shouldnt be as long as it, end October for me would be a fine cut off for Tour Finals and team events to have been completed and finished. Get rid of the clutter and/or demote the lesser events to challenger status.

4) late finishes - nothing should finish in the early hours; it is abuse of the players, should be a fixed late finish time of something like 11pm or midnight latest. Start earlier if it is a big problem - golfers are on the course at 7 am, tennis players could surely cope with earlier starts than 11 am if needed

The court surfaces and balls could be changed but I dont see this as something to really focus on in a lawsuit; some other players want more consistency to save their wrists etc, so that is one of those that I am not so convinced about; the ranking points thing is misleading.

I cant remember what else is in it to be honest, but those 4 are the big ones for me, in the order they appear above

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Mind you, at least tennis doesnt have stuff like this going on:

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/articles/c9vywppdr1no

£6.9m for 4 players to mess around in some computer game tournament. It really is silly. What I dont understand is, is the golf market that much more economically successful than tennis or is it that the tours in tennis are just creaming off so much more?!

christ · Futures level

JonH comes home wrote:
2) allowing tournies that want to set their own prizemoney to do so - like IW wanted to - why should the employers limit what the players can earn; if an event is profitable enough, let it pay - if another event cant keep up, then so be it, let it dwindle and get replaced if needs be.

The trouble with this is that it is open to abuse: someone (like IMG, maybe) can drive other tournaments out of business whilst favouring their players in the tournaments that they fund.

... and it sort of conflicts with 1), in that it continues to concentrate even more money on to the topmost players.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
2) allowing tournies that want to set their own prizemoney to do so - like IW wanted to - why should the employers limit what the players can earn; if an event is profitable enough, let it pay - if another event cant keep up, then so be it, let it dwindle and get replaced if needs be.
The trouble with this is that it is open to abuse: someone (like IMG, maybe) can drive other tournaments out of business whilst favouring their players in the tournaments that they fund.
... and it sort of conflicts with 1), in that it continues to concentrate even more money on to the topmost players.

which raises another issue around the huge conflicts of interest in the governance of the tour (the make up of the ATP, players and tournie directors owning it together) and agencies like IMG being able to own tournaments and represent players as agents (and giving large swathes of wildcards to IMG clients at places like Miami). Some of that needs unravelling, ideally, but probably is too complex to unravel.