The Ouster of Chris Kermode and what's up with ATP Politics

[GameSetAndMath]

View attachment 2053

As we can see from his own article in January, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/...scuss-removing-chief-executive-chris-kermode/

View attachment 2054

I agree that there is basic problem in the structure of ATP. It is an organization that simultaneously represents players' interests and tournament organizers' interests. These two are often in conflict and so the structure of ATP is fundamentally flawed.

Under the flawed structure, I believe Kermode did a great job.

I don't think another guy could have done any better than what Kermode did during his years.

The solution is not finding a new chief, but finding a new structure.

 

[tented]

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal voice concerns over decision to remove ATP president Chris Kermode

 

[tented]

I agree that there is basic problem in the structure of ATP. It is an organization that simultaneously represents players' interests and tournament organizers' interests. These two are often in conflict and so the structure of ATP is fundamentally flawed.

Under the flawed structure, I believe Kermode did a great job.

I don't think another guy could have done any better than what Kermode did during his years.

The solution is not finding a new chief, but finding a new structure.

I agree, and that’s why the multiple descriptions of behind-closed-doors maneuvering, involving Novak and a few others, make it seem like something personal was the true motivation. Otherwise, why would Novak be avoiding talking about it when asked? If he genuinely thought this was for the good of all players, then why not say so, and openly defend the process?

 

[tennisville]

I agree, and that’s why the multiple descriptions of behind-closed-doors maneuvering, involving Novak and a few others, make it seem like something personal was the true motivation. Otherwise, why would Novak be avoiding talking about it when asked? If he genuinely thought this was for the good of all players, then why not say so, and openly defend the process?

Maybe because he is legally not allowed to discuss it in public. Thats what he mentioned in his presser. He is the last person to want Kermode to go since he made the most money during this period

 

[tennisville]

You can see both from various sources (not just a British paper) that during the period of Kermode, the prize money in various tourney increased substantially. It looks like players want more and more. They may be justified in asking that also. However, simply saying Kermode was the problem is wrong.

I don't say Kermode was the problem, I believe its time to get a new perspective. What does it tell you about the man if the tournaments are sad that he is leaving? Its because he was quite a pushover. That's what Pospisil mentioned in his letter, the tournaments have made a lot of money in the past few years but have not shared it well with the players. Many players wanted him to leave, its strange that the players who are supporting Kermode are the players who made money in the past few years

 

[tennisville]

For those of you who have not read Pospisil's letter

https://i.redd.it/7lkg3mteiy921.jpg

Majority of the players wanted him to leave and I completely agree with Novak. He represents the entire Players Body and if they want him to leave, he has to enforce it

 

[britbox]

For those of you who have not read Pospisil's letter

https://i.redd.it/7lkg3mteiy921.jpg

Majority of the players wanted him to leave and I completely agree with Novak. He represents the entire Players Body and if they want him to leave, he has to enforce it

I'm a tad cynical about Pospisil's letter. I don't think creating a global sport with broad appeal was really his aspiration when he first picked up a racquet. The bottom line is that all parties basically want the biggest slice of the pie that they can get.

 

[Moxie]

I'm a tad cynical about Pospisil's letter. I don't think creating a global sport with broad appeal was really his aspiration when he first picked up a racquet. The bottom line is that all parties basically want the biggest slice of the pie that they can get.

But you have to admit: the ATP was created as a players association. Now it runs the tours, so there IS a conflict between players' interests and tournaments' interests. It almost seems unfair that the players would have to consider breaking off to a separate union, to take care of their own interests, when they created the ATP, in the beginning. Think about that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Even if there were a separate players union and a separate organizers union, they would still be at loggerheads and so someone is needed to make peace between them. May be a tennis commissioner? Then who decides who will be the tennis commissioner. Logical choice would be that tennis commissioner must be voted to be so by a board consisting of equal number of players reps and organizers reps.

……………. That is exactly how the question of who is the ATP chief gets decided. Also, doing the peace making is certainly one of the jobs, if not the most important job, of ATP Chief.

 

[Moxie]

Even if there were a separate players union and a separate organizers union, they would still be at loggerheads and so someone is needed to make peace between them. May be a tennis commissioner? Then who decides who will be the tennis commissioner. Logical choice would be that tennis commissioner must be voted to be so by a board consisting of equal number of players reps and organizers reps.

……………. That is exactly how the question of who is the ATP chief gets decided. Also, doing the peace making is certainly one of the jobs, if not the most important job, of ATP Chief.

Normally there is no need for a neutral party in between a union and management, unless there's a strike. I just find it ironic that the players feel the need for a union, (though I support that, if it's what they want,) when they originally started the ATP to take care of players' needs. I still don't understand what the issues are and where are the points of contention. That's what I'd like to hear.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Normally there is no need for a neutral party in between a union and management, unless there's a strike. I just find it ironic that the players feel the need for a union, (though I support that, if it's what they want,) when they originally started the ATP to take care of players' needs. I still don't understand what the issues are and where are the points of contention. That's what I'd like to hear.

The issues are simple. Even though the money the players make has been increasing steadily, the players collectively still get a small share of the total money made by the tourneys. So, they want more. The organizers, being businessmen, obviously want to give as little as they could get away with.

 

[Moxie]

The issues are simple. Even though the money the players make has been increasing steadily, the players collectively still get a small share of the total money made by the tourneys. So, they want more. The organizers, being businessmen, obviously want to give as little as they could get away with.

Personally, I doubt it's as simple as that, or there wouldn't be so much backroom talk going on.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Personally, I doubt it's as simple as that, or there wouldn't be so much backroom talk going on.

Oh yes, there are other things involved. Generically speaking that was the main issue. Apparently, there is some sort of bad blood between Novak and Kermode. I don't know as to what is the personal dispute between them.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As is already said in many articles linked in the posts of this thread, almost every issue of contention is decided by the board. The board has 3 player reps, 3 tourney reps and the ATP Chief. Whenever, there is a deadlock, basically Kermode's vote decides how the issue is settled. Apparently, the players felt that Kermode took the side of Tourney organizers more frequently.

When it comes to his own reappointment, the other six members of the board vote and he gets to continue if he gets four votes and ousted otherwise. So, if either one of the two parties remain united, they can always throw away the Chief. It is a difficult position to be in.

 

[10isfan]

Andy Murray would be a good ATP Chief. I hope not Gimelstob.

 

[tennisville]

Player Board Message

 

[tennisville]

Andy Murray would be a good ATP Chief. I hope not Gimelstob.

Anyone but Gimelstob

 

[Moxie]

Andy Murray would be a good ATP Chief. I hope not Gimelstob.

Someone else mentioned Gimelstob, I think, and also in the negative. What is your objection to him, that you don't like him as a commentator? Obviously, this is a different job. While I agree he can be annoying, I think he's a smart guy. Just curious why a few people took against him.

 

[tented]

Roger Federer: Novak Djokovic had no time to speak with me

 

[Ricardo]

Andy Murray would be a good ATP Chief. I hope not Gimelstob.

A soft cock as chief? He wouldn’t last 5 seconds there.