PDA

View Full Version : So what would this new men's association mean?


mn73
Mar 17th, 2003, 10:42 PM
If people joined it would they be banned from ATP events?

Would they then have to form their own tour events?

Could this mean that Lleyton Hewitt will no longer play on the ATP Tour?

Anyone know - I'm confused as to what they are trying to achieve!

tenn_ace
Mar 17th, 2003, 10:46 PM
sounded like a Union with more voting rights that it was previously

Nan Cu
Mar 18th, 2003, 02:25 AM
what happened to ATP World?

ico4498
Mar 18th, 2003, 03:10 AM
All involved cite ignorance of the ATP's books as a primary reason. The players suposedly own 50% of the ATP. Its difficult to understand how half owners can claim ignorance of their company's financies.

This is a WTA forum. I'm not gonna get too absorbed in ATP's moneys while the women still play for less than the men. If the ATP goes ahead with this union, the WTA should, at the very least make strong representation for equal pay. That is ,IF, the current crop of players can muster a fraction of the courage the 'original seven' ,who formed the WTA, left them as legacy.

Much vilified Charlie Pasarell, IW tournament organizer, is completely on ball ...

"Q. Unless you get the best players playing in the biggest tournament and the public are made aware of that, people aren't going to tune in and watch TV. Amanda Coetzer versus so-and-so, they would rather see the Williams sisters, Davenport against Capriati.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I think you need that, but that's not all of it. I think it takes a hell of a lot more than that. Look, you can pick the names out there, what kind of ratings you're going to get. Agassi-Sampras, what kind of ratings are you going to get? They don't even get ratings that are by network standards profitable to the networks, not even that, not even the two biggest names in America could not drive the ratings there, by comparison of what other sports get. The point I'm trying to get is, yeah, you have to have the top players playing the events. That's an important part. But it's a hell of a lot more than that. It's about really promoting it. You can have the greatest thing going somewhere, but if you don't get it out there, and you assume everybody should know about this thing, but the truth of the matter is people don't know about it. Again, just to go back to what I said about the film industry, you can have Richard Gere, a well-known actor in a film, they can spend $35 million in doing a film, I guarantee you they're going to spend $35 million promoting Richard Gere and the film, even though everybody knows him. That's my point. You can't just assume that they show up, everybody will show up. It's just not going to happen. It takes a hell of a lot more than that for us to really, really become competitive with other forms of entertainment. We have to compete with other forms of entertainment and sports for air time, newspaper time. I really believe we have to pool our resources and do a coordinated effort. We are spending money, everybody is spending money. We're not saying the Grand Slams are not spending money. We know they're spending money. By God, let's try to figure out how we can do something that's coordinated and we have a clear message to the public that this is a great sport. And it is. The eyeballs tell us. We're not even living up to our potential."

Crazy Canuck
Mar 18th, 2003, 04:32 AM
There is more on this in the ATP forum. We'll know better who is and isn't for it after Miami, because they are having their first meeting there.

Essentially some of the players don't feel that the ATP is looking out for their best interests, and are going to try and do something about it. If it fails, oh well. They are trying, and I think that alone is admirable.