Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000... - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 12:56 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Leo_DFP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 6,947
                     
Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

I was reading an old issue of Tennis Magazine, the July/August 2000 edition with Lindsay on the cover. Inside is a great article and it talks about how Lindsay was never afraid to speak her mind to/about opponents and to/about unsatisfactory WTA Tour Management. I loved this one excerpt, and it's really interesting to read today in 2007 because it rings so true. Lindsay was right: injuries have become a crucial part of the game, withdrawals are constant, the top players put out much fewer great matches, and the popularity of women's tennis has definitely declined since 2000 in the US if not throughout the world...

"We have to have someone in the position of leadership besides the players," she says. "I feel like this is how the tour is: A sponsor will come in and we're asking for, say, $5 million. And the sponsor will say, 'I'll give you $2 million.' And the tour goes, 'OK, we'll take that,' instead of going back in there and going, 'Bullshit, we deserve $5 million, and you know what? If you don't give it to us, we're going to walk away.'"

By most measures, women's tennis is booming. TV ratings are up, and attendance and prize money have reached record levels. But Davenport is worried that the WTA Tour isn't maziming its current leverage to build a stronger foundation should things change - as things usually do.

"I was talking to Bart McGuire (then-CEO) in Miami, and I said, 'You really have to take advantage of these last two years. I don't think you've done enough, and it could be over quickly, you never know.' And he said, 'Lindsay, you're really selling yourself and this entire sport short.' And I think, 'No. I think it's a cyclical sport. I think we're very lucky right now. And you guys aren't doing enough.' So he said, 'No. I think we'll be all right for a number of years.' And I was thinking, How naive is that? How naive! It's just a joke.

"I went through periods when we lost Martina Navratilova, we lost Monica Seles, we lost Steffi to injuries, we lost Jennifer Capriati. Five of us could go down in the next two years. Venus is talking about retirement now. And our CEO is like, 'Oh no. You guys will be around forever.' I was like, 'Oh, that's a really smart attitude.'"

~~~~~~~~
"A woman's liberation" by Johnette Howard, Tennis Magazine, July/August 2000


And of course, she was right. All good things come to an end. If only WTA Tour CEOs weren't so damn crappy.
Leo_DFP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 01:10 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,928
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

what a vission.... wow Lindsay is SO smart, really, she is one of the most intelligent players out there. Whenever she speaks her mind, it's for some reason. She doesn't speak just for the sake of it, I think she ought to be heard a lot more than she's actually heard. She's a phenomenal representative for the WTA
joaco is offline  
post #3 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 01:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,395
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

"'Bullshit, we deserve $5 million, and you know what? If you don't give it to us, we're going to walk away.'"

I love her.

Seriously, so few players today would ever speak out like Lindsay does, and even when they do, none of them have her insight. She really is an underappreciated jewel.
dybbuk is offline  
post #4 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 01:15 AM
Don't mess with Texas!
 
Jarrett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 5,716
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

One smart lady there!

"Gee, Quinn... I hope that little foray of yours into Geekland just now is the result of heat exhaustion, and not an unpleasant side effect of all that tutoring. I mean, you're not turning into a brain, are you?" -- Sandi

Jarrett is offline  
post #5 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 01:24 AM
*
 
The Daviator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 22,814
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex. View Post
"'Bullshit, we deserve $5 million, and you know what? If you don't give it to us, we're going to walk away.'"

I love her.

Seriously, so few players today would ever speak out like Lindsay does, and even when they do, none of them have her insight. She really is an underappreciated jewel.


Lindsay for WTA CEO when* she retires

*if

Ivanovic * Kvitova * Serena
The Daviator is offline  
post #6 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 01:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,235
 
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Daviator View Post


Lindsay for WTA CEO when* she retires

*if


she'd be great for that job!
jujufreak is offline  
post #7 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 01:32 AM
Senior Member
 
sammy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 25,413
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

hmmmmmmmmmmm in some ways i agree with her (especialy the bit about trying to get as much sponsorship as possible), but you have to have faith that each generation will have its stars. when she said this its like she thought her generation was the best (and some may argue it is/was), but no one could predict sharapova would come along or henin and ana ivanovic, but the people at the top have to have faith that new stars will keep emerging or we would have a amazing tour for 4/5 years then no tour at all when the 'star' retire and the money runs out. intresting read and thanks for posting.

Anna Chakvetadze Rules

Kim Clijsters - Supporting the comeback!

I have no other faves, I just hate
sammy01 is offline  
post #8 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 02:47 AM
Senior Member
 
OsloErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,659
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy01 View Post
hmmmmmmmmmmm in some ways i agree with her (especialy the bit about trying to get as much sponsorship as possible), but you have to have faith that each generation will have its stars. when she said this its like she thought her generation was the best (and some may argue it is/was), but no one could predict sharapova would come along or henin and ana ivanovic, but the people at the top have to have faith that new stars will keep emerging or we would have a amazing tour for 4/5 years then no tour at all when the 'star' retire and the money runs out. intresting read and thanks for posting.
I think she was spot on that her generation was the most marketable, tennis-wise. If you adjust for inflation, the coverage and money tennis received in 1999-2001 (when Hingis, Williams x2, and Kournikova were all marketing dreams) was unprecedented. The only other time Americans who didn't follow tennis found tennis cool was during the Borg-McEnroe rivalry, and a little bit during the Evert-Navratilova rivalry.

Sharapova isn't the same marketing success that Kournikova was. Kournikova may never have done anything great (she's not going into the hall of fame, for example), but she did wonders for the sport's viewership. I don't think we're going to see that from Sharapova or Ivanovic, at least not in the USA. Henin is barely noticed in the USA, still.

While it's important to have faith in future stars emerging, she was definitely right that the tennis hierarchy folded too quickly in negotiations. The WTA was a force in 2000; it commanded higher viewership than men's tennis matches in the USA. It could have done a lot more for its players, starting with getting more prize money at the lower level tournaments. There's not a huge difference in earnings at the Slams or Masters, but once you go down from there...
OsloErik is offline  
post #9 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 03:08 AM
Senior Member
 
sammy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 25,413
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OsloErik View Post
I think she was spot on that her generation was the most marketable, tennis-wise. If you adjust for inflation, the coverage and money tennis received in 1999-2001 (when Hingis, Williams x2, and Kournikova were all marketing dreams) was unprecedented. The only other time Americans who didn't follow tennis found tennis cool was during the Borg-McEnroe rivalry, and a little bit during the Evert-Navratilova rivalry.

Sharapova isn't the same marketing success that Kournikova was. Kournikova may never have done anything great (she's not going into the hall of fame, for example), but she did wonders for the sport's viewership. I don't think we're going to see that from Sharapova or Ivanovic, at least not in the USA. Henin is barely noticed in the USA, still.

While it's important to have faith in future stars emerging, she was definitely right that the tennis hierarchy folded too quickly in negotiations. The WTA was a force in 2000; it commanded higher viewership than men's tennis matches in the USA. It could have done a lot more for its players, starting with getting more prize money at the lower level tournaments. There's not a huge difference in earnings at the Slams or Masters, but once you go down from there...

i get what your saying but the players you mentioned in '00 and '01 didnt play low level events so why would anyone pump money into them? also this year 3 of the four mentioned players in your list won tier 1 titles or better so why cant the marketing happen now, when they also have henin and sharapova? the only thing we realy miss now on the tour is kournikova, she was the last player to realy transcend the sport and the tour realy does miss her. i think the tour next year could be amazing if we have williams x2, henin, davenport, sharapova, the russians and serbians all playing at least 13 tournaments each. though the added bit of glamour of kournikova will still be missing.

Anna Chakvetadze Rules

Kim Clijsters - Supporting the comeback!

I have no other faves, I just hate
sammy01 is offline  
post #10 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 03:41 AM
Senior Member
 
OsloErik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,659
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy01 View Post
i get what your saying but the players you mentioned in '00 and '01 didnt play low level events so why would anyone pump money into them? also this year 3 of the four mentioned players in your list won tier 1 titles or better so why cant the marketing happen now, when they also have henin and sharapova? the only thing we realy miss now on the tour is kournikova, she was the last player to realy transcend the sport and the tour realy does miss her. i think the tour next year could be amazing if we have williams x2, henin, davenport, sharapova, the russians and serbians all playing at least 13 tournaments each. though the added bit of glamour of kournikova will still be missing.
I'll grant you the first point, but I do think the WTA could have used its leverage a little more; the events bring profits to the sponsors, if the WTA had said "well screw you, we can find somebody else" they could have gotten better financial agreements.

As for the 2nd, It's primarily because they aren't as public as they were in '00. Back then, the Williams were ballsy and it was big news, beyond sports. Now, they're more mellow. Hingis was a celebrity in the late 90's and early 00's. This year, she was nowhere near the star she was. I really do think Kournikova was the ingredient that set everything off. Hingis, Venus, Serena, Ivanovic, Sharapova...they're attractive, but they wouldn't be making money off their looks if they weren't tennis players. Kournikova was downright hot in a transcendent manor. The general consensus among my friends, most of whom don't follow tennis, is that Sharapova is pretty and all, but why should we pay attention to her in the SI swimsuit edition when there are 15 more attractive models right there? Henin isn't a marketable player, really, and neither is Davenport. Personality only goes so far.

I'm sounding a little mulish now, so I'll stop, but suffice it to say I don't think the tour is anywhere near the level of public consciousness as it was back then, and the WTA could have taken more steps to keep it there, but didn't. So I'll agree to disagree.
OsloErik is offline  
post #11 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 03:53 AM
Senior Member
 
sammy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 25,413
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OsloErik View Post
I'll grant you the first point, but I do think the WTA could have used its leverage a little more; the events bring profits to the sponsors, if the WTA had said "well screw you, we can find somebody else" they could have gotten better financial agreements.

As for the 2nd, It's primarily because they aren't as public as they were in '00. Back then, the Williams were ballsy and it was big news, beyond sports. Now, they're more mellow. Hingis was a celebrity in the late 90's and early 00's. This year, she was nowhere near the star she was. I really do think Kournikova was the ingredient that set everything off. Hingis, Venus, Serena, Ivanovic, Sharapova...they're attractive, but they wouldn't be making money off their looks if they weren't tennis players. Kournikova was downright hot in a transcendent manor. The general consensus among my friends, most of whom don't follow tennis, is that Sharapova is pretty and all, but why should we pay attention to her in the SI swimsuit edition when there are 15 more attractive models right there? Henin isn't a marketable player, really, and neither is Davenport. Personality only goes so far.

I'm sounding a little mulish now, so I'll stop, but suffice it to say I don't think the tour is anywhere near the level of public consciousness as it was back then, and the WTA could have taken more steps to keep it there, but didn't. So I'll agree to disagree.
cool cool i think we will have to agree to disagree as i think the tours as strong as ever, the players just aren't marketed enough or properly. though i think we both agree the tour needs a new kournikova soon.

Anna Chakvetadze Rules

Kim Clijsters - Supporting the comeback!

I have no other faves, I just hate
sammy01 is offline  
post #12 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 04:12 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Leo_DFP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 6,947
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

I really agree with Oslo. Back in 2000, the Williams Sisters were brash, cocky, and fresh. The public liked their Compton streets/black athletic sisters/Richard Williams is a nut package that they presented and wanted to see if they could walk the walk to match the talk. Hingis was also much cockier and known for verbal catfights vs. Venus and Serena, which also got the public interested. Then there was Davenport, the All-American, So. Cal, girl next door; Monica Seles, the amazing comeback story; in 1999 for a while there was also Steffi Graf, the all-time great, featured in some amazing matches against Hingis and the sisters; plus Mary Pierce (practically American) and Jennifer Capriati making strides towards the top as well, and the public was always ready to accept JCap back into their hearts. And to top it all off, like the delicious cherry atop a giant ice cream sundae, was Anna Kournikova. No one will ever transcend the sport more while achieving so little on the court. Kournikova was raw sex, and both guys and girls couldn't help but watch.

Sharapova doesn't have anything like the persona or star power of Kournikova, despite the titles. Commentators in the US, esp. Mary Joe and Pam, like to advertise Maria as this amazingly popular sports figure and model, but the truth is no one in America knows her name. Everyone knew Kournikova's name, and could refer to her simply as "Anna," or sometimes Pornikova. And I've seen Sharapova at the practice courts at the US Open, and she's not so well-liked. The public was not eating her up, and they were not afraid to boo her when she wouldn't sign. Serena attracted a much bigger crowd.

So no, the "product" right now doesn't compare to what the WTA Tour had in 2000. The players aren't as marketable. Having said that, of course the WTA can do a much better job. It's a shame they're all idiots. But Davenport was right - the WTA has an opportunity in 2000 to take a bolder step and pump up the money, the sponsorships, the tournament prize money, the TV coverage, the popularity in the US, etc. but it didn't fully capitalize.
Leo_DFP is offline  
post #13 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 04:26 AM
Senior Member
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 10,201
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

Wow.. did she have a crystal ball or something??

Davenport is amazing and this just reminds me why I love her so much. We need more leaders like Davenport and Venus. Also more people who speak their mind like Hingis and Serena.

Henin is the only one in a position to assume this position right now and I hope she takes this opportunity. However, since she is not nearly as marketable as that select group was back in 2000, I dont know how much weight she will have.

I always wanted to be somebody. If I made it, it's half because I was game enough to take a lot of punishment along the way and half because there were a lot of people who cared enough to help me.
-Althea Gibson


Quote:
Originally Posted by darrinbaker00 View Post
When will you learn that "pushers" never make it past the club level, let alone #1 on the WTA computer? Will it be too late?
AcesHigh is offline  
post #14 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 11:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,928
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

I agree with some of what you guys are saying... but I think tennis wise 2000-2001 was a much more entertaining sport. We'd have Hingis and Davenport agreeing to do everything in their power to beat the Williamses. We had the rise of Venus and Serena which I believe the sport had never encountered. In Slams (where people watch more matches than anywhere else) we'd had AMAZING matches (Not like this year where the scores where 6-1, 6-2; 6-1, 6-3, 6-4 6-1, 6-1, 6-3). We had classic Venus-Martina SF in GS, Capriati claiming an incredible Australian Open, 12-10 in the third of the French Open, new players (like REALLY good players) emerging.

I don't think there is much of that left today. Everyone is older (at least the great players), everyone is more respectful, back in the days people would talk their mind out, sometimes creating lots of controversies. I think nowadays the tour has grown a lot, but it isn't taken very seriously.
joaco is offline  
post #15 of 26 (permalink) Old Nov 30th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Senior Member
 
spiceboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 51,092
                     
Re: Smart Davenport Wasn't Taking WTA Tour's Huge Success for Granted in 2000...

What a thread

Is this really GM?

But I, being poor, have only my dreams
I have spread my dreams under your feet
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams
spiceboy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome