This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/sports/tennis/16iht-tennis16.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
More Space and More Clout for the Australian Open At Tennis Oasis, a Storm Is Brewing
(about 1 hour later)
MELBOURNE — A year ago, at their annual meeting in Melbourne, the world’s leading men’s tennis players were angrily discussing the possibility of boycotting the Australian Open. MELBOURNE, Australia — A year ago, at their annual meeting in Melbourne, the leading men’s tennis players were angrily discussing the possibility of boycotting the Australian Open.
At this year’s player meeting, Craig Tiley, the Australian Open’s tournament director, and Steve Wood, Tennis Australia’s chief executive, were the recipients of a standing ovation. At this year’s meeting, Craig Tiley, the tournament director, and Steve Wood, Tennis Australia’s chief executive, received a standing ovation.
“That was a level of appreciation I’ve never seen before from the players toward a Grand Slam,” said Justin Gimelstob, a player representative on the A.T.P.’s board of directors. “You can argue the how and why, but right now, as of this date, this is the only place where the players feel like they are truly heard.” “That was a level of appreciation I’ve never seen before from the players toward a Grand Slam,” said Justin Gimelstob, a player representative on the ATP’s board of directors. “You can argue the how and why, but right now, as of this date, this is the only place where the players feel like they are truly heard.”
It is also a place in the midst of a growth spurt. A new national tennis center with eight indoor hard courts, five outdoor hard courts and eight red clay courts opened last year at the eastern edge of Melbourne Park. It features plunge pools for recovery, an extensive weight room and fitness area and, this week, many impressed players. Melbourne Park, the site of the Australian Open since 1988, is in the midst of its latest growth spurt. It will soon have a third stadium with a retractable roof. Wimbledon has one, and the United States Open and the French Open have none.
“This is the best facility of its kind at any of the Grand Slams,” said Nicolas Mahut of France on Tuesday. Chris Evert, a two-time Australian Open champion who reached the final in 1988, returned for the first time last year.
The center and the expansion of the grounds now under way elsewhere are part of an initial 366 million Australian dollar, or $386 million, redevelopment project financed entirely by the local Victoria government. More redevelopment is in the planning phase, too, all of which underscores the fact that the Australian Open, once the least prestigious of the four Grand Slam tournaments by far, continues to gain acreage and clout. “I was kind of blown away,” she said of the site’s transformation.
Its officials also have been the most openly supportive of the men’s players’ demands for a greater percentage of Grand Slam revenue and have committed much of their increase for 2013 to the early-round losers. A new national tennis center with eight indoor hard courts, five outdoor hard courts and eight red clay courts opened last year at the eastern edge of Melbourne Park. It features plunge pools for recovery, an extensive weight room and fitness area and, this week, a number of positive user reviews.
“I said to the players at the meeting, ‘Why are we doing this? Why are we being aggressive with prize money?”’ Tiley said. “And I said ‘I’m looking at you all in the eye right now. It’s because of your careers.’ “This is the best facility of its kind at any of the Grand Slams,” Nicolas Mahut, a French player, said Tuesday. “The Australian Open is first. Wimbledon is second and then the rest.”
“Some of you in this room are making a good living, and a lot of you in this room and every one of you who is not in this room are not making a living.’ So I said, ‘We will make a promise to you that we will do our part in changing that.”’ The Australians, unlike expansion-minded United States Open officials, have the advantage of full public financing. The local Victorian government has committed $386 million to this initial redevelopment project with more work in the planning phase, all of which underscores the fact that the Australian Open, once by far the least prestigious Grand Slam tournament, continues to gain prestige and clout.
The Australian Open raised prize money by $4 million for this year’s event, and the U.S. Open announced last month that it also would increase total prize money by $4 million for the 2013 event. The French Open and Wimbledon have yet to announce their 2013 purses. Its officials also have been the most openly supportive of the men’s players’ demands for a greater percentage of Grand Slam revenue and more input in decision-making. After consultation with the tours, the tournament has committed much of its prize money increase for 2013 to the early-round losers.
But not all $4 million prize-money increases are equal in the eyes of the players. While they applaud the Australian Open leadership, many remain deeply dissatisfied with the U.S. Open’s announced totals in part — but only in part — because they were packaged with an additional, 15th day of play in the form of a Monday men’s final. “I said to the players at the meeting: ‘Why are we doing this? Why are we being aggressive with prize money?’ ” Tiley said. “And I said: ‘I’m looking at you all in the eye right now. It’s because of your careers. Some of you in this room are making a good living, and a lot of you in this room and every one of you who is not in this room are not making a living.’ So I said, ‘We will make a promise to you that we will do our part in changing that.’ ”
“Even without the Monday final, it still would have been disappointing, that amount of money,” said Gimelstob, who said the players were still intent on pressuring the U.S. Tennis Association, which owns and operates the U.S. Open, to alter its offer for 2013. The Australian Open increased its prize money by $4 million for this year’s event, and the United States Open announced last month that it also would increase total prize money by $4 million for 2013. The French Open and Wimbledon have yet to announce their purses.
U.S. Open officials argue that their approach is both generous and temporary. Gordon Smith, chief executive of the U.S.T.A., said by telephone that the tournament found itself in a financial predicament this year. But while the players applauded the Australian Open’s leadership, many remain dissatisfied with the United States Open’s announced plans in part because they were packaged with a 15th day of play in the form of a Monday men’s final.
Smith said the tournament was committed to scheduling a day of rest between the men’s semifinals and final to bring itself in line with the other major tournaments and to acknowledge the increased physicality of the men’s game. To do so, the tournament needed not only to alter its long-established schedule but to renegotiate its existing agreement with the American network CBS. The United States Open has finished on a Monday the past five years because of rain, but several leading players, above all Roger Federer, had made it clear that they were against an official Monday finish.
According to Smith, the cost to the tournament in 2013 for switching the men’s semifinals to Friday and keeping the final in its Sunday slot would have been about $10 million, while the cost of keeping the men’s semifinals on Saturday and scheduling the final on Monday was considerably less, at $1.5 million. “Even without the Monday final, it still would have been disappointing, that amount of money,” Gimelstob said.
That is also because switching the semifinals to Friday would have required a loss of two ticketed sessions. United States Open officials argue that their approach is generous and temporary. Gordon Smith, the United States Tennis Association executive director, said by telephone that the tournament found itself in a financial predicament this year.
“I have great respect for the players,” Smith said. “But I don’t think it’s reasonable to say, ‘Increase your prize money by millions of dollars and take a $10 million hit to give us a day of rest.”’ The tournament was committed to scheduling a day of rest between the men’s semifinals and final. To do so, it needed not only to alter its long-established schedule but to renegotiate its existing agreement with CBS, which runs through 2014.
The U.S. Open has finished on a Monday the past five years because of rain, but the final was still officially scheduled for Sunday during those years. According to Smith, the cost to the tournament in 2013 for switching the men’s semifinals to Friday and keeping the final in its Sunday slot would have been about $10 million, while the cost of keeping the men’s semifinals on Saturday and scheduling the final on Monday was considerably less, at $1.5 million. Switching the semifinals to Friday would have required a loss of two ticketed sessions.
“We’ve only committed to this Monday final for one year,” Smith said. “We are in the midst of renegotiating our television rights agreements in this calendar year, and it is our preference moving forward to negotiate a rights deal that will, one, allow us to have a Sunday final and, two, will be a deal that will allow us to continue to increase prize money. That’s our perfect world.” “I have great respect for the players,” Smith said. “But I don’t think it’s reasonable to say, ‘Increase your prize money by millions of dollars and take a $10 million hit to give us a day of rest.’ ”
The U.S.T.A.’s current contract with CBS runs through 2014, but Smith did not rule out maintaining the Monday final if economics dictate, even if a Sunday final and a 14-day event remained the U.S.T.A.’s preference. Smith said a $10 million shortfall would have forced the U.S.T.A. to cut numerous jobs and programs and financing for more than 90 minor league professional events.
“We’ve certainly tried to explain this in every form we can that we’re not doing a land grab for Monday, and that it’s an interim, one-year thing,” Smith said. “We’ve only committed to this Monday final for one year,” said Smith, who added that the Open would not consider starting on a Sunday as the French Open does. “We are in the midst of renegotiating our television rights agreements in this calendar year, and it is our preference moving forward to negotiate a rights deal that will, one, allow us to have a Sunday final and, two, will be a deal that will allow us to continue to increase prize money. That’s our perfect world.”
It is unclear whether further negotiations with the A.T.P. will be impacted by the announcement Tuesday by the A.T.P. chief executive, Brad Drewett, that he will soon be stepping down because he has been diagnosed with A.L.S., also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Drewett, an Australian, has been one of the principal negotiators for the players, as has Roger Federer, who is president of the A.T.P. Player Council. It is unclear whether further negotiations with the ATP will be affected by the announcement Tuesday by its chief executive, Brad Drewett, that he would soon be stepping down because he has been diagnosed with A.L.S., also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Drewett has been one of the principal negotiators for the players, as has Federer, who is the president of the ATP Player Council.
“It’s been very hard to see him not doing so well, so we wish him the best, of course,” Federer said. “Can only thank him for everything he’s done already and more. I’m sure he’s going to stay on for a bit more and do more work, so we thank him for that.” Federer and the other players know that their leverage is currently strong, with the men’s game in a particularly attractive phase and its stars unified and engaged.
Federer and the other players are well aware that their leverage is currently at a high with the men’s game in a particularly attractive phase and with the stars generally unified and engaged. The negotiations have been about prize money but also about a philosophical approach, with Smith and other Grand Slam leaders arguing that they have an obligation to finance the game at the grass-roots level in their countries and to finance lower-level pro circuits.
“Things will go forward,” said Gimelstob, who expressed confidence that the French Open and Wimbledon would produce prize-money proposals that would prove satisfactory to the players at least for this year. The players, while recognizing that obligation, maintain that this should not keep the U.S.T.A. and the other Grand Slam leaders from rewarding their players at a rate similar to the rate in regular ATP events. Some players also question why their star power should be used, indirectly, to help finance player development in the Grand Slam countries, putting their own nations at a competitive disadvantage.
The negotiations have been about prize money but also about a philosophical approach, with Smith and other Grand Slam leaders arguing that they have an obligation to finance the game at the grass-roots level in their countries and to finance lower-level professional circuits. In general, the percentage of gross revenue devoted to prize money at ATP events ranges from 20 to 30 percent. Estimated revenue for the Australian Open this year is about $150 million, and about $200 million for the French Open. At Wimbledon, where revenue is difficult to estimate because the event is run by a private club, it is believed to be in excess of $200 million. The United States Open produces about $250 million.
The players, while recognizing that obligation, maintain that this should not keep the U.S.T.A. and the other Grand Slam leaders from rewarding their players at a rate similar to the rate in regular A.T.P. events. Tiley said that with the favorable exchange rate, the Australian Open will pay out about $31 million dollars — a record — in combined men’s and women’s prize money this year, which would put it close to the 20 percent mark. The Australian Open also provided an extra $1,000 to all players, including those in the qualifying, to help with expenses.
They view the current state of remuneration as a historical inequity that needs to be corrected and argue that several regular tour events are also run by national federations that have developmental responsibilities. The United States Open, which will pay $30 million — up $6 million from 2011 — is still at about 12 percent of gross revenue.
In general, the percentage of gross revenue applied at A.T.P. events ranges from 20 percent to 30 percent. Estimated revenue for the Australian Open this year is about $150 million, and for the French Open the estimate is $200 million. Wimbledon, whose revenue is the most difficult of the four to estimate because it is run by a private club, is believed to be somewhat in excess of $200 million, with the U.S. Open at about $250 million. Smith said that he told the players that the U.S.T.A. would commit to increasing singles prize money by “75 percent minimum” from 2012 to 2017.
Tiley said that with the favorable exchange rate, the Australian Open will pay out about $31 million U.S. dollars in combined men’s and women’s prize money this year, which would put it close to the 20 percent mark. “Our point that we want to make is that we are addressing their concerns in a proactive and a substantial way, but we are the biggest tennis market in the world still,” Smith said. “We need to make sure we promote the game in this country so that the game remains popular, people play it, people are fans, and people are interested in it.”
The Australian Open also has provided an extra $1,000 this year to all players, including those in the qualifying, to help with expenses. Gimelstob expressed doubt that the players would accept the announced prize-money proposal and schedule without a fight, even if the U.S.T.A. tried to emphasize that it was only a one-year solution.
The U.S. Open, which will pay $30 million — up $6 million from 2011 — is still at about 12 percent of gross revenue. “I love the U.S. Open, but if the U.S.T.A. truly believes they can wait it out and hope they can weather the storm this year, there could be catastrophic consequences for both sides, and that is what I truly hope doesn’t happen,” he said.
But though Smith and the Grand Slam leaders generally reject the linkage to revenue, Smith said he had told the players that from 2012 to 2017 the U.S.T.A. would commit to increasing singles prize money by “75 percent minimum.”
“Depending on the rights agreements and depending on other things it could be more,” he said.
“Our point that we want to make is that we are addressing their concerns in a proactive and a substantial way but we are the biggest tennis market in the world still,” he said. “We need to make sure we promote the game in this country so that the game remains popular, people play it, people are fans, and people are interested in it. And we need to do the prize-money increase in a rational way that does not take away our ability to promote the game, promote our summer U.S. Open series and to market that and market the game. Because that’s to everyone’s benefit, the players and everyone else.”
Gimelstob said that the U.S.T.A. had communicated well but that did not mean the players agreed with the message. And he expressed doubt that the players would accept the announced prize-money proposal and schedule without a fight, even if the U.S.T.A. tried to emphasize that this was only a one-year solution.
“I love the U.S. Open, but if the U.S.T.A. truly believes they can wait it out and hope they can weather the storm this year, there could be catastrophic consequences for both sides, and that is what I truly hope doesn’t happen,” he said. “If it comes down to a game of chicken and ego and stubbornness, there’s a lot to lose for a lot of people in this sport.”