TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam" Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Feb 12th, 2013 02:00 PM
Caesar1844
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Like the WTA has any say in where the Slam is held. They can move their Slam to Beijing, sure - and lose half their prizemoney.

It will be up to the ATP where the Slam is, because they control the purse strings.
Feb 12th, 2013 01:54 PM
traralgon
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

The WTA must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to make the game more popular in China even if it means moving the least popular slam there. China is the future.
Feb 12th, 2013 01:40 PM
Jajaloo
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post
Secondly, I would like to address attendance.

Attendance in sporting events represents one of the strangest dynamics in all of sports. On one hand for major sporting events, attendance really doesn't have a lot to do with the bottom line. We see this with the Australian Open in that it has spectacular attendance, but is last in revenue among the 4 majors. The WTA has seen increased annual revenue, despite many tournaments at various events being poorly attended. Sometimes the lack of correlation between attendance and revenue can be downright weird. Especially to fans.
The thing with figures like revenue is that you need to define what it takes into account. Revenue figures probably include money from sponsors and television rights. Of course Wimbledon attracts higher television interest and the US Open would be open to more lucrative sponsorship deals for the tournament.

These factors when not accounted for give a distorted figure when you're talking about revenue from attendance alone.

The Australian Open is secure at Melbourne Park until 2030. There's no way the Victorian Government or Tennis Australia would ever allow it be moved anywhere else thereafter. We pay an enormous sum of money to keep the F1 Grand Prix in Melbourne, not because it is profitable, but because of the status the event attracts. And the AO generates a huge amount of money, not only for Tennis Australia, but in tourism as well. If it's location ever came into question, the government would bend over backwards to whatever the ITF wanted. I worked at The Australian Open in January for Tennis Australia and it's an amazing event. As a spectator, the atmosphere is like anything I've ever witnessed before and behind the scenes, everything runs like clockwork.

I don't see why it's status or prestige is ever questioned, it's just as important as any other grand slam.
Feb 12th, 2013 01:31 PM
Caesar1844
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

The Premier and ATP Masters tournaments in Beijing have been complete failures. Dunno why you think moving a Slam there is going to work.
Feb 12th, 2013 01:20 PM
Passierschlag
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

They should move it to China as soon as possible. The WTA needs to increase its popularity in China.
Jan 31st, 2013 05:13 AM
Kerberos.
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Wimbledon/Roland Garros
AO
USO
Jan 30th, 2013 12:05 PM
T-rex
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danii's Law View Post
I think I am starting to understand your point, but it is more than mere nostalgia that should keep the tournament here.

I know that TV ratings are God, but you can see that big tournaments in China, even with the huge population, have poor attendance, at least compared to the Australian Open.

I am just saying as a tennis fan it is a very relevant event and not a MM which I can't believe was even suggested. I refuse to get caught up in the TV ratings game because to me that is less important, and if Australia was in a different time zone, wouldn't even be an issue.

The four Grand Slams are given to the countries with the richest tennis history and that's the way it should stay forever.

I must say I do appreciate having a sound discussion about this as opposed to offensive rants which are often the norm on the forum.

Good post.

I have just a few things I would like to add.





First, as I have written earlier, I think everyone within this forum (myself included) really overrates China. Yes it looks like the future. But some tournaments there have been disappointing. China still has a way to go.




Secondly, I would like to address attendance.

Attendance in sporting events represents one of the strangest dynamics in all of sports. On one hand for major sporting events, attendance really doesn't have a lot to do with the bottom line. We see this with the Australian Open in that it has spectacular attendance, but is last in revenue among the 4 majors. The WTA has seen increased annual revenue, despite many tournaments at various events being poorly attended. Sometimes the lack of correlation between attendance and revenue can be downright weird. Especially to fans.

However at the same time, we all agree that one important measure with regard to the health of a sport is how well they are doing with attendance. Good attendance has a positive impact TV numbers, increases energy, and even the quality of play. It just makes more sense that sporting events that do well have great attendance. So attendance is a factor. It is a very important factor. But it can also be misleading. I for one don't like WTA events with terrible attendance. And of course for smaller tournaments, the importance of attendance rises in value.




Thirdly, I agree the Australian Open isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I have written in support of what organizers are trying to do.

But to call this a complete non-issue is foolhardy.

Clearly over the last few years organizers of the Australian Open were scared into thinking that the Australian Open moving was a real possibility. They said so themselves. This is why they are working hard to build TV contracts in China and attract more business ventures. They understand that hosting a slam in the modern era of the global market has challenges. This is especially true for a small country that is several time zones away from the markets advertisers covet most. its not 1989 anymore. To say that this topic as it currently sits within this thread came completely out of left field is untrue.


Good discussion. And please don't worry about TV ratings. Only nerds like me spend all their time concerned with what the TV number is at a particular event!


Jan 30th, 2013 06:24 AM
Danii's Law
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Quote:
Originally Posted by marshmellow View Post
We should talk about why they don't delete the US Open instead... Absolutely pathetic tournament.
Agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachy View Post
This is just it. There are so many factors that contribute to a country hosting a grand slam tournament and attendance is a big one of those. Are those price figures from before even relative to the population size of each country?

I mean, having just a handful of people flock to the courts to watch if a Chinese isn't playing, in a slam, would just be sad.
Exactly. It should be just as important, if not more so, that the event is patronized. Aus Open always in and has a high ticket price thus I am going out on a limb and saying that attendance wise, it may be the most lucrative Grand Slam.
Jan 30th, 2013 05:41 AM
marshmellow
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

We should talk about why they don't delete the US Open instead... Absolutely pathetic tournament.
Jan 30th, 2013 05:24 AM
dany.p
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

You can all discuss it until your blue in the face, but the Australian open will not be moving to another country. For a long time.

Move the Australian open, and no grandslam is safe, not even Wimbledon.

In the hypothetical situation it does move, what will happen is that you will then have 3 grandslams and another tournament that just happens to offer a lot of prizemoney and ranking points. Not many people will see that tournament as being a grandslam, no matter what official recognition it may have.

Money is so important in life, but there is more to a grandslam then money.
Jan 30th, 2013 05:21 AM
Lachy
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danii's Law View Post
I think I am starting to understand your point, but it is more than mere nostalgia that should keep the tournament here.

I know that TV ratings are God, but you can see that big tournaments in China, even with the huge population, have poor attendance, at least compared to the Australian Open.

I am just saying as a tennis fan it is a very relevant event and not a MM which I can't believe was even suggested. I refuse to get caught up in the TV ratings game because to me that is less important, and if Australia was in a different time zone, wouldn't even be an issue.

The four Grand Slams are given to the countries with the richest tennis history and that's the way it should stay forever.

I must say I do appreciate having a sound discussion about this as opposed to offensive rants which are often the norm on the forum.
This is just it. There are so many factors that contribute to a country hosting a grand slam tournament and attendance is a big one of those. Are those price figures from before even relative to the population size of each country?

I mean, having just a handful of people flock to the courts to watch if a Chinese isn't playing, in a slam, would just be sad.
Jan 30th, 2013 04:51 AM
Danii's Law
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post


As everyone can see based on the article I posted, the Australian Open organizers are working hard to make sure the AO stays in Australia. They are battling to find as many revenue streams as possible to build on the slams marketability. They know they have to improve its ability to compete with the other slams on the schedule. The TV contract in China is a great move. Because as I have said repeatedly, TV ratings is how sports make money. PERIOD. I for one hope they succeed. There is a little nostalgia to having one of the 4 biggest tournaments in the world in a country with just 22 million people.


However, that doesn't mean everyone is suppose to "stick their heads in the sand" and simply ignore the geographic and economic realities the tournament faces. Thank goodness, the organizers of the Australian open deal with reality while trying to come up with solutions to make the tournament better. This is a much better strategy than refusing to accept absolute facts, about the state of their major, simply because they do not like the results. Sadly, the latter is the course taken by too many posters within this thread. And that's too bad.


I think I am starting to understand your point, but it is more than mere nostalgia that should keep the tournament here.

I know that TV ratings are God, but you can see that big tournaments in China, even with the huge population, have poor attendance, at least compared to the Australian Open.

I am just saying as a tennis fan it is a very relevant event and not a MM which I can't believe was even suggested. I refuse to get caught up in the TV ratings game because to me that is less important, and if Australia was in a different time zone, wouldn't even be an issue.

The four Grand Slams are given to the countries with the richest tennis history and that's the way it should stay forever.

I must say I do appreciate having a sound discussion about this as opposed to offensive rants which are often the norm on the forum.
Jan 30th, 2013 04:27 AM
T-rex
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

[QUOTE=Danii's Law;23849705]You just have to stop undermining it. Even if it doesn't make as much as the others, which I am not convinced on by the way, it still makes a shit ton of money.[/QUOTE



You would have to be extraordinarily naive to honestly believe that. At this point, you know the truth.

Here is the ranking of the majors based on revenue and economic importance.

1) US Open

2) Wimbledon

3) French Open

4) Australian Open


PERIOD.


You are correct in that the AO still makes a lot of money. It makes gobs of money. It is a fantastic tournament.


As a tennis fan I personally like it better than the US Open. (With the exception of the 3:30AM thing!)


As everyone can see based on the article I posted, the Australian Open organizers are working hard to make sure the AO stays in Australia. They are battling to find as many revenue streams as possible to build on the slams marketability. They know they have to improve its ability to compete with the other slams on the schedule. The TV contract in China is a great move. Because as I have said repeatedly, TV ratings is how sports make money. PERIOD. I for one hope they succeed. There is a little nostalgia to having one of the 4 biggest tournaments in the world in a country with just 22 million people.


However, that doesn't mean everyone is suppose to "stick their heads in the sand" and simply ignore the geographic and economic realities the tournament faces. Thank goodness, the organizers of the Australian open deal with reality while trying to come up with solutions to make the tournament better. This is a much better strategy than refusing to accept absolute facts, about the state of their major, simply because they do not like the results. Sadly, the latter is the course taken by too many posters within this thread. And that's too bad.


Jan 30th, 2013 03:36 AM
Danii's Law
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-rex View Post


The AO does not generate the revenue that other slams do. Please go ahead and google it! I am begging you too!
You just have to stop undermining it. Even if it doesn't make as much as the others, which I am not convinced on by the way, it still makes a shit ton of money.

Who cares what it makes anyway. It's a slam, all the pros come, all the pros want to win it, all the pros love it and it provides us tennis fans with great entertainment. At least there is no final tie break bullshit, it treats tennis as tennis and not as a cheap thrill like the US Open.
Jan 30th, 2013 03:13 AM
Caesar1844
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

That program was put in place before Shanghai got their Masters 1000 event, which has been a massive flop and has put paid to any ideas of relocating the AO to Asia.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

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