Tweet
An online discussion between two ATP players about aborted attempts to reschedule BNP Indian Wells both gives us insights into how the process works and into the apparent disconnect between a vocal minority of ATP players and the reality of their business.
American ATP player Steve Johnson opened the kimono by disclosing that Larry Ellison proposed new dates for Indian Wells' postponed tournament including paying 100% of original prize money. Johnson claimed (without evidence) that this proposal was rejected because other tournaments want to keep paying reduced prize money to fatten their profits. Further, Johnson claimed that the ATP allowing the French Open to reschedule but not IW shows their motivations.
John Millman, a Australian player, told Johnson he is wrong on all accounts. The IW proposal was rejected because Ellison insisted on one, specific week and wouldn't consider any alternatives. That week would have disrupted several long-standing events.
Millman also explained politely that the ATP doesn't control the French Open, as one of the majors, or 'Slam events, it is organized under the ITF, not the ATP.
The new ATP CEO and ATP Chairman Andrea Gaudenzi has explained the losses repeatedly, including this: "ATP events are losing more than 50% of their overall revenues, and these are events that operate on very small profit margins. That quickly means you have to reduce costs in order to operate, which unfortunately means reductions in prize money."
filedata/fetch?id=93402&d=1618420654&type=thumb
American ATP player Steve Johnson opened the kimono by disclosing that Larry Ellison proposed new dates for Indian Wells' postponed tournament including paying 100% of original prize money. Johnson claimed (without evidence) that this proposal was rejected because other tournaments want to keep paying reduced prize money to fatten their profits. Further, Johnson claimed that the ATP allowing the French Open to reschedule but not IW shows their motivations.
John Millman, a Australian player, told Johnson he is wrong on all accounts. The IW proposal was rejected because Ellison insisted on one, specific week and wouldn't consider any alternatives. That week would have disrupted several long-standing events.
Millman also explained politely that the ATP doesn't control the French Open, as one of the majors, or 'Slam events, it is organized under the ITF, not the ATP.
The new ATP CEO and ATP Chairman Andrea Gaudenzi has explained the losses repeatedly, including this: "ATP events are losing more than 50% of their overall revenues, and these are events that operate on very small profit margins. That quickly means you have to reduce costs in order to operate, which unfortunately means reductions in prize money."
filedata/fetch?id=93402&d=1618420654&type=thumb