Professional Tennis Players Association - Opinions?

[Jelenafan]

Wow, Gimelstob and Isner in the PTPA isn't exactly a recruiting pitch as far as I'm concerned. Open mouth, insert mangled, misshapen and stumpy foot.

And yes, unfortunately, Methuselah aka Federer is these days a walking conflict of interest billboard.

 

[Moxie]

This is from last year and is mostly about the ouster of Chris Kermode, but it provides more information and insights into what is going on and what the gripes are than anything else I've been able to find.

Chaos at the ATP Tour! A major split in tennis's governing body sees Novak Djokovic playing a key role - Tennishead

The question of Chris Kermode’s future at ATP has created major splits. Simon Briggs says that Novak Djokovic could hold the key to the ATP’s future

tennishead.net

 

[Moxie]

Wow, Gimelstob and Isner in the PTPA isn't exactly a recruiting pitch as far as I'm concerned. Open mouth, insert mangled, misshapen and stumpy foot.

I'm not sure if Gimelstob is really in the mix, but it doesn't send a good signal that his name is floated, in terms of any notion that the women might be included. But, if the women really ARE to be included, why is it so driven by the men, and some men who have complained about equal pay?

And yes, unfortunately, Methuselah aka Federer is these days a walking conflict of interest billboard.

Honest question: Fed has his company with Tony Godsick, Team8, and they run the Laver Cup, but why do you think his place on the players council is a conflict of interests?

 

[tennisville]

But if this new Player's Association is talking to women about joining, why didn't they wait to complete the deal before announcing? Why come out with this now, particularly?

The negotiations were going on and the players wanted to take a step somewhere against the ATP right. They have now taken the first step and am sure the women are debating amongst themselves to join the group. There is a lot of things going on since ATP and WTA are independent

The fact that the ATP is scared is really a good step in the right direction. Also to those saying 2 separate bodies cannot coexist, unions have been a thing since the 1800s and the world has been perfectly fine. Do not buy the narrative of journalists, they are not unbiased and have a lot of conflict of interests. They are currently scared of this

 

[Moxie]

The negotiations were going on and the players wanted to take a step somewhere against the ATP right. They have now taken the first step and am sure the women are debating amongst themselves to join the group. There is a lot of things going on since ATP and WTA are independent

The fact that the ATP is scared is really a good step in the right direction. Also to those saying 2 separate bodies cannot coexist, unions have been a thing since the 1800s and the world has been perfectly fine. Do not buy the narrative of journalists, they are not unbiased and have a lot of conflict of interests. They are currently scared of this

You seem to have a bead on this, and I feel most of us are in the dark. Why do you think the ATP is scared of this? Also, and sorry if this sounds dumb, but the PTPA is meant to be a separate and freely-negotiating union?

 

[tennisville]

You seem to have a bead on this, and I feel most of us are in the dark. Why do you think the ATP is scared of this? Also, and sorry if this sounds dumb, but the PTPA is meant to be a separate and freely-negotiating union?

To quote why the ATP is scared of this, here is a quote from Noah Rubin "It's 100+ guys just sitting around, not really knowing what's happening," Rubin said. "And then, I was like I gotta know what's happening. So we start listening to Vasek, then Novak starts taking the lead a little bit and halfway through, everybody gets a text on Whatsapp from the ATP. It had six bullet points that basically said 'Beware!'. I mean, the bylaws have not even been written, if a meeting can scare them this much then maybe this could be enticing enough for me. Because this is what I've always wanted"

Source

The reason they are scared of is that change is something they do not like. They are doing really well right now and anything that goes against that is something to be scared of. Players earn like 2% of the revenue generated which is a pittance compared to other sports.

 

[tennisville]

Wow, Gimelstob and Isner in the PTPA isn't exactly a recruiting pitch as far as I'm concerned. Open mouth, insert mangled, misshapen and stumpy foot.

And yes, unfortunately, Methuselah aka Federer is these days a walking conflict of interest billboard.

Pospisil mentioned that Gimelstob is not at all involved with the PTPA and that he hadn't talked to him in a long while..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Pospisil mentioned that Gimelstob is not at all involved with the PTPA and that he hadn't talked to him in a long while..

I read that from Ben Rothenberg,may I say at times Ben likes dramatize situations just to get noticed.,sometimes I take anything Ben writes or says 'with a grain of salt'....I much prefer Christopher Clarey from the NY Times who to me has much more clarity and much more dependable to get the facts correct.

 

[tennisville]

I read that from Ben Rothenberg,may I say at times Ben likes dramatize situations just to get noticed.,sometimes I take anything Ben writes or says 'with a grain of salt'....I much prefer Christopher Clarey from the NY Times who to me has much more clarity and much more dependable to get the facts correct.

Yeah but this is not something he wrote, he was just quoting the player. Very different scenarios

I also agree that he writes crap but this is not an article but a player quote. So this is what Pospisil said

 

[Moxie]

Yeah but this is not something he wrote, he was just quoting the player. Very different scenarios

I also agree that he writes crap but this is not an article but a player quote. So this is what Pospisil said

I've looked for a quote from Pospisil that Gimelstob is not involved, but cannot find it...unless he said it to you. As I have mentioned, it only came out of one article, and that was the Guardian. Leaving Gimelstob aside, I was listening to Caitlin Thompson on the radio today, and she had some pretty harsh words for the way this has gone down. There seems to be quite a difference of opinion as to whether this in ever meant to include women, or not.

An Unusual US Open | All Of It | WNYC

Caitlin Thompson, co-founder of 'Racquet Magazine,' discusses all things US Open 2020.

www.wnyc.org

I think I can see why the players would want to divorce themselves from an association that represents the interests of the tournaments. They are insisting this is not a "union," because they are independent contractors, but as an independent contractor, myself, I appreciate the notion of the protection in numbers. Essentially, though, this is labor v. management, is it not?

 

[tennisville]

I've looked for a quote from Pospisil that Gimelstob is not involved, but cannot find it...unless he said it to you. As I have mentioned, it only came out of one article, and that was the Guardian. Leaving Gimelstob aside, I was listening to Caitlin Thompson on the radio today, and she had some pretty harsh words for the way this has gone down. There seems to be quite a difference of opinion as to whether this in ever meant to include women, or not.

An Unusual US Open | All Of It | WNYC

Caitlin Thompson, co-founder of 'Racquet Magazine,' discusses all things US Open 2020.

www.wnyc.org

I think I can see why the players would want to divorce themselves from an association that represents the interests of the tournaments. They are insisting this is not a "union," because they are independent contractors, but as an independent contractor, myself, I appreciate the notion of the protection in numbers. Essentially, though, this is labor v. management, is it not?

The source is Twitter

As for the women, discussions are being kept private. We just need to wait and see. This is definitely against the ATP and the players don't need women for that. Having women in it would be great since it would involve improving the lives of every tennis player and can also strengthen negotiations with the slams

I agree that this does seem to be a labor v management. It was required because the labor and the management were represented by 1 organization which as you would know from your own experience is not for the best

 

[Moxie]

The source is Twitter

As for the women, discussions are being kept private. We just need to wait and see. This is definitely against the ATP and the players don't need women for that. Having women in it would be great since it would involve improving the lives of every tennis player and can also strengthen negotiations with the slams

I agree that this does seem to be a labor v management. It was required because the labor and the management were represented by 1 organization which as you would know from your own experience is not for the best

I get why having a separate association from management is a good idea. I still don't understand why this had to happen now, and couldn't wait until it could be created as a proper player association with all the players, women included, if that's what the men really want. Otherwise, it's always destined to look like the men made the move, and finally deigned to let the women join, and will have the sway over who leads it, and how the rules go.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I've looked for a quote from Pospisil that Gimelstob is not involved, but cannot find it...unless he said it to you. As I have mentioned, it only came out of one article, and that was the Guardian. Leaving Gimelstob aside, I was listening to Caitlin Thompson on the radio today, and she had some pretty harsh words for the way this has gone down. There seems to be quite a difference of opinion as to whether this in ever meant to include women, or not.

An Unusual US Open | All Of It | WNYC

Caitlin Thompson, co-founder of 'Racquet Magazine,' discusses all things US Open 2020.

www.wnyc.org

I think I can see why the players would want to divorce themselves from an association that represents the interests of the tournaments. They are insisting this is not a "union," because they are independent contractors, but as an independent contractor, myself, I appreciate the notion of the protection in numbers. Essentially, though, this is labor v. management, is it not?

I read an article from Jon Weitheim from SP earlier today citing that Gimelstob had some part in this.....though for some reason my computer could not print the article here.
Richard Evans did an article on tennis.com who brought up some interesting facts in this new union.A good read.

 

[Moxie]

I read an article from Jon Weitheim from SP earlier today citing that Gimelstob had some part in this.....though for some reason my computer could not print the article here.
Richard Evans did an article on tennis.com who brought up some interesting facts in this new union.A good read.

I can't find that. But this from Wertheim:

 

[Moxie]

I read an article from Jon Weitheim from SP earlier today citing that Gimelstob had some part in this.....though for some reason my computer could not print the article here.
Richard Evans did an article on tennis.com who brought up some interesting facts in this new union.A good read.

Here's the Richard Evans one. I'm not saying that any of this is all true, or exactly right, but these various articles at least she more light than most do.

Evans—With the PTPA, history and unity aren't on Novak Djokovic's side | Tennis.com

The No. 1 rules the court, but he may be biting off more than he can chew outside of it.

www.tennis.com

 

[tennisville]

Here's the Richard Evans one. I'm not saying that any of this is all true, or exactly right, but these various articles at least she more light than most do.

Evans—With the PTPA, history and unity aren't on Novak Djokovic's side | Tennis.com

The No. 1 rules the court, but he may be biting off more than he can chew outside of it.

www.tennis.com

These are nice articles. The issue I have with this article is that it simplifies a lot of things and completely misses the point in others. The structure of the tournaments and the players in the same body leads to a lot of conflict of issues and the players alone have no say in firing the representatives from the tournaments. The fact that they mention this does not make any sense

It is united since 150 players have actually signed the document now in a couple of days. That's almost all the players who were present in the US Open. Tennis does not revolve around Federer and Nadal thankfully and has so many other players. 150 players signing a document in 2 days sows tremendous unity. Even the article mentions 68 of 70 players signing. That is a lot of unity

The third point it raises about the increase of prize money caused by the participation of the big 4 back in 2013. What it does not mention is that Federer and Nadal are currently in business with slam CEOs and will be resistant to change. There is a huge conflict of interest that the union wants to oppose. It is quite natural that the 2 of them would be against it

The most important point is that tennis.com itself is in business with the ATP. This union is directly against the ATP and it is very natural that they wont like the union at all. Very surprising that this article in tennis.com fails to mention this connection. It might seem that they are only showing 1 side of the story I think

Dont you all agree

 

[tennisville]

I get why having a separate association from management is a good idea. I still don't understand why this had to happen now, and couldn't wait until it could be created as a proper player association with all the players, women included, if that's what the men really want. Otherwise, it's always destined to look like the men made the move, and finally deigned to let the women join, and will have the sway over who leads it, and how the rules go.

Again its int he infancy and it had to start somewhere right. This union was mainly formed to oppose the ATP and its current structure. There is a huge conflict of interest there with Federer and Nadal actually doing business with the slam CEOs and how the tour badly managed the players during the pandemic. Djokovic mentioned that this discussion was going on since the early days of the pandemic. The bubble helped since all players were in the same place and discussions moved forward

I think its fine that they did not wait for the women because the women are managed by the WTA. I feel the players should not hold their hands and they should be the ones to first leave the WTA and then join this. The men should not force the women to oppose the WTA. Let's just say that this move shows intent and the women will be more interested in the discussions. Serena Williams herself mentioned that Djokovic did the right thing and she is in team Djokovic

 

[Moxie]

These are nice articles. The issue I have with this article is that it simplifies a lot of things and completely misses the point in others. The structure of the tournaments and the players in the same body leads to a lot of conflict of issues and the players alone have no say in firing the representatives from the tournaments. The fact that they mention this does not make any sense

It is united since 150 players have actually signed the document now in a couple of days. That's almost all the players who were present in the US Open. Tennis does not revolve around Federer and Nadal thankfully and has so many other players. 150 players signing a document in 2 days sows tremendous unity. Even the article mentions 68 of 70 players signing. That is a lot of unity

The third point it raises about the increase of prize money caused by the participation of the big 4 back in 2013. What it does not mention is that Federer and Nadal are currently in business with slam CEOs and will be resistant to change. There is a huge conflict of interest that the union wants to oppose. It is quite natural that the 2 of them would be against it

The most important point is that tennis.com itself is in business with the ATP. This union is directly against the ATP and it is very natural that they wont like the union at all. Very surprising that this article in tennis.com fails to mention this connection. It might seem that they are only showing 1 side of the story I think

Dont you all agree

You seem to have a very deep hook-up into this information. It sounds like you are actually at the BJKTC, or are talking to someone who is. You have a lot of intel that I can't find on google, twitter, etc. Some people around here can be BS, but I don't think you are. For example, how many players have actually signed on to the PTPA. That has not been reported, that I can find.

I did not know about tennis.com being in business with the ATP, but, since we ever started this forum on tennis.com, there are plenty of us here that were privy to the inside machinations of Tennis Magazine, etc., and we fully know them to be conservative, pro the status quo and not adaptable to change, so I hear you on that as not being an especially unbiased source.

One thing the article says is: "if they break away from the ATP Board, they just strengthen the hand of the tournament directors who will form their own association.” Um, yes. I agree that if the players form their own union, the tournament directors will form their own association. As we said above, that's just a separation of labor and management, and I'm not clear why that's a bad thing. I'm also not clear why that strengthens the hand of the tournaments, as the article states. The tournaments are nothing without the players. Sure, it costs them a lot to run them, but without players, and not just the top ones, they can't bank the big sponsors. I learned this in my own field, but, if you don't have a depth of talent, you are reducing the value of your "product." There is a great and bankable depth in players now, but if you don't have a fascinating undercard, which tennis does, then you still have nothing, especially when the your stars retire.

As you can see, I am trying to work my way to understanding what the PTPA wants to be, and why its valuable.

 

[Moxie]

Again its int he infancy and it had to start somewhere right. This union was mainly formed to oppose the ATP and its current structure. There is a huge conflict of interest there with Federer and Nadal actually doing business with the slam CEOs and how the tour badly managed the players during the pandemic. Djokovic mentioned that this discussion was going on since the early days of the pandemic. The bubble helped since all players were in the same place and discussions moved forward

I think its fine that they did not wait for the women because the women are managed by the WTA. I feel the players should not hold their hands and they should be the ones to first leave the WTA and then join this. The men should not force the women to oppose the WTA. Let's just say that this move shows intent and the women will be more interested in the discussions. Serena Williams herself mentioned that Djokovic did the right thing and she is in team Djokovic

I don't see that the tour poorly managed the pandemic. Players who can't play are getting money, from Wimbledon, and for those who couldn't play qualifiers at the USO. I'd be interested for you to illuminate that further.

One thing I think we are not going to agree on is that they didn't wait to make a proper Tennis Players Association with the women involved from the beginning. All the men keep saying that "It's about the ATP" and "the women are governed by the WTA." Why is that a game changer? I've asked you before why this was the moment when men's tennis couldn't stand it one more minute, and they couldn't wait to get the women on board? I don't think there's a good answer to that. And I do think there is an argument that there is a lot going on in the world, and no one gives a hill of beans that tennis needs to restructure itself at this specific moment. Not waiting to involve the women from the beginning has clearly been a bad look, and I think that was a misstep.

 

[tennisville]

You seem to have a very deep hook-up into this information. It sounds like you are actually at the BJKTC, or are talking to someone who is. You have a lot of intel that I can't find on google, twitter, etc. Some people around here can be BS, but I don't think you are. For example, how many players have actually signed on to the PTPA. That has not been reported, that I can find.

I did not know about tennis.com being in business with the ATP, but, since we ever started this forum on tennis.com, there are plenty of us here that were privy to the inside machinations of Tennis Magazine, etc., and we fully know them to be conservative, pro the status quo and not adaptable to change, so I hear you on that as not being an especially unbiased source.

One thing the article says is: "if they break away from the ATP Board, they just strengthen the hand of the tournament directors who will form their own association.” Um, yes. I agree that if the players form their own union, the tournament directors will form their own association. As we said above, that's just a separation of labor and management, and I'm not clear why that's a bad thing. I'm also not clear why that strengthens the hand of the tournaments, as the article states. The tournaments are nothing without the players. Sure, it costs them a lot to run them, but without players, and not just the top ones, they can't bank the big sponsors. I learned this in my own field, but, if you don't have a depth of talent, you are reducing the value of your "product." There is a great and bankable depth in players now, but if you don't have a fascinating undercard, which tennis does, then you still have nothing, especially when the your stars retire.

As you can see, I am trying to work my way to understanding what the PTPA wants to be, and why its valuable.

Haha thanks but not really. I just follow a lot of people on Twitter. I follow many journalists who are not in favour with this to get 1 side of the view. I also follow people who provide alternative views as well. 1 good source to hear pro-PTPA news is actually a twitter user called @CristinaNcl. She is a Djokovic fan but posts lots of articles which shows the view of other players etc. Most of my information is from that

The source for 150 players is actually link. Djokovic also explains the reasoning behind forming the PTPA. Yeah, the conflict of interest is a huge problem in the current structure of the ATP. Tennis Channel and Tennis.com are owned by Sinclair broadcasting group which has television rights to ATP tournaments and Laver Cup (where ATP is part of the board). It is very well known and I think Clarey wrote an article in the NYTimes about it a few months back

I agree that the article cannot be trusted due to the conflict of interest present. A seperation of labor and management as you point out is perfectly fine