At a time of significant unrest in tennis, a former professional and experienced Aussie administrator has urged the alphabet of organisations running the sport to seize the moment for the greater good.
A Roland Garros played in stifling weather over the first week began with a protest from the world’s best players regarding revenue sharing, a battle likely to continue at Wimbledon and onto the US Open later this season.
Watch the biggest Aussie sports & the best from overseas LIVE on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
The revolt comes at a time when the unofficial union, the Professional Tennis Players Association, is suing those three grand slams and the tours over a string of measures
Meanwhile, the grand slam organisations are at odds with each other after Tennis Australia split from those fighting the PTPA suit, instead settling to avoid massive legal costs last December, but that has muddied TA’s relationship with the rest.
It is in this environment that the prospect of a boycott was raised, with the world’s best stars instituting a 15-minute maximum on pre-Roland Garros media obligations to signify their displeasure that their share of prize money for the tournament has dipped below 15 per cent of the overall revenue for the French Open.
But Peter Johnston, the ex-Aussie pro who now runs the Kooyong Classic and is a tournament director at award-winning tour events in China and Hong Kong, says the unrest presents an opportunity for tennis.
The former Australian Open deputy tournament director told foxsports.com.au the climate is ideal for innovation with a move to making the sport more sustainable for lower-ranked players, but also more profitable for the majors and the tours.
“No respect!” Novak reacts to boos | 00:21
While organisations are at odds with each other, Johnston said the shared issues should prompt a realisation that greater alignment and collaboration is necessary to build a more sustainable financial model for all.
He believes the grand slams should attempt to find agreement on a common level of prize-money increases over the next five years rather than pursuing an “arms race” that adds to the disparity in the sport.
Other measures where common ground can be found include instituting a policy to contribute 10 per cent of current prize money levels – about A$56 million – annually to a jointly administered “Grand Slam Support Fund”.
This funding would help to support the growth of the secondary tier ATP Challenger and ITF events, along with boosts to player pension funds, maternity provisions and mental health initiatives.
Funding increases that support lower-ranked players, and a boost to the player pension fund, should strengthen the depth of the sport and, in turn, lead to even stronger ATP and WTA Tour events around the world as well.
“This is a chance to turn tension into transformation. The issue in terms of funding isn’t about the top players, it is more about the depth of the sport,” he told Fox Sports Australia.
“A united Grand Slam approach is essential and it requires their involvement across the year round tour. This would shift the conversation from the current discussion surrounding revenue sharing to broader responsibility and reinvestment in the sport.”
As is often the case with player pushes for increased purses in sport, the biggest names of the sport are used to push their case, which can inflame chatter about their greed given those stars are the highest-paid athletes.
But their voice does gather more traction than a competitor battling away in lower-rung events.
The battle, as always, is about the talents ranked beyond 100 who struggle to break even, let alone make a living, despite the necessity to travel and play extensively, along with trying to bolster the broad financial strength of the tour.
Before exiting Roland Garros after a stunning loss, Jannik Sinner said the players were united in their position and disappointed it had taken so long for organisations to respond to their requests.
“We’re all very much together and I think it’s something good, because without us events are not possible to play,” he said.
“As I also said in Rome, it’s about respect. When we have to wait for over a year for just a small response, having the best 10 players (united), it’s not nice.
“At the same time, we’re not only talking about prize money. We’re also talking about pensions, which is a very important topic, because after you’re a tennis player, hopefully we get some pension money.
“Also the decision making, because who decides if they start now. At three grand slams out of four, we start Sunday, but we don’t know if they want to start Saturday or Friday. We would like to have also a small conversation about that. Let’s see where we go and let’s see how other Grand Slams are going to react after here and then we’re going to decide.”
It is not as though there have been previous demands from players or significant increases in prize money in recent years.
As English journalist Simon Cambers reported in The First Serve, the prospect of a player strike led by Roger Federer flared in 2012 at the US Open, with led to prize money almost doubling over the next five years to US$50 million. Last year, it was US$90 (A$125) million.
The other grand slams have increased their purses similarly – Wimbledon has grown from about A$30 million to $100 million over the same period, while the French Open is at a similar level.
But the percentages of revenue are an issue and in decline. It is believed the players are pushing for 22 per cent, which is about what they receive from the ATP and WTA Masters tournaments.
But there is an exception at major level.
In Australia, the prize money versus revenue calculation came in at about 21 per cent, well above the 14.7 per cent at the French Open this year, or the 13 per cent at Wimbledon.
But as Johnston noted, the slams tend to compete with each other in terms of their offerings and also have different business models and responsibilities, which leads to varying results.
Roland Garros tournament director, former world No.1 Amelie Mauresmo, noted this in a pre-tournament press conference.
“We have a model that is very different from what is on the Tours, be it the ATP Tours or the WTA. Even a different model from the other grand slams,” she said.
“We put in place everything we can also in the interest of the players. We are also (improving) our infrastructure, we have prize money that has increased well, doubled in 10 years, and then also increased well in recent times, not only towards the top players, but also towards those who are more qualifiers and the first rounds of the table.”
Johnston said the imbalance outside the top 100 is an issue given a lack of resources in several areas, including mental health initiatives and pension contributions, along with the prize money needed to be able to fund travel and pay for coaching.
The FFT has subsequently met with a group of player agents and special representative Larry Scott as a result of the process and the French organisation has promised to return with proposals related to their concerns within a fortnight of the finals.
It is believed officials from Wimbledon and the US Opens will also meet with players while they are in Paris, with officials from both organisations in the French capital in recent days.
Johnston believes the player group will test each slam individually and that while Australia has a reputation of being “the happy slam” with a decent revenue per prize money split, that would not absolve the tournament from a targeted action.
“Roland Garros has effectively been labelled the ‘naughty slam’ by the players this year and we don’t want the AO heading towards becoming the ‘not so happy slam’ in the future,” he said.
“It is certain Wimbledon will face similar pressure. All eyes will be on their prize money update midway through next month. And the US Open will face a similar challenge as well.
“What is increasingly clear is that a fragmented response weakens the position of all four of the slams. A uniform position and response is essential now. And that is where the Grand Slam Support Fund should be something the majors are considering.”
Should a solution like the Grand Slam Support Fund gain traction, his idea would be for collaboration across the seven main bodies – the four slams, the two tours along with the International Tennis Federation – to try to reduce self-interest.
American star Jessica Pegula, who chairs the WTA’s Tour Architecture Council, is mindful of stressing the importance of strengthening the ecosystem across the tours.
Her parents own the Buffalo Bills and while money is less a consideration for her, she is mindful of just how important it is for those struggling to finance a career and put on the show.
“Of course, the top earners and performers of our sport should be making what they have earned, for sure,“ she said this week.
“But the whole point is to help the ecosystem in the sport. That’s the lower-ranked players and giving them a chance to have a good career, to have chances to break through, and to see more of those stories happen.”
Johnston said the slams were in a testing position given their current fracture and also the fact that in a public relations battle, the players are more likely to come out on top. They have, he said, “the loudest voice”.
But a move to re-establish a stronger collaboration could be beneficial for tennis in several ways, including broadening the global profile and the flow on benefits that come with that.