One-On-One With ATP Chairman Andrea Gaudenzi On The State Of Men’s Tennis

With the “Big 3” Era winding down, men’s tennis is at a fascinating crossroads.

With Roger Federer having retired and Rafael Nadal out until 2024 with an injury, Novak Djokovic is the lone member of the “Big 3” playing at the U.S. Open, where he is pursuing his record-tying 24th Grand Slam title. Djokovic and world No. 1 Carlos Alcaraz have started a thrilling new rivalry and could meet again in the U.S. Open final on Sept. 10.

Djokovic’s involvement in the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), which represents a challenge to the established Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), and the role of Saudi Arabia — which launched the LIV Golf Tour and will host the NextGen Finals from 2023-27 — are other hot topics in the men’s game.

I sat down at the U.S. Open for a one-on-one interview with Andrea Gaudenzi, the Executive Chairman of the ATP, to discuss these and other timely topics. (This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.)

I guess just first of all, what's your take on the overall strength of the men's game right now? Obviously, Roger and Rafa are not here, but you've got this really good rivalry with Carlos and Novak going...

Andrea Gaudenzi:

I'm a big believer, and I think I said it many times that the product of tennis, the game of tennis is an incredible product. It's this unique one against one battle with a mix of mental strength, technique, physical skills. It's a little bit like the Gladiator. That format is so great, that goes beyond anything, which is obviously enriched by the personalities, that play the sport and by these great events. But ultimately at the question, are you afraid? Whether post-Novak, Rafa, Roger, are we going to have issues?

We had the same discussion when [Andre] Agassi and [Pete] Sampras retired... I think the long term, I think we're going to be great. Obviously now we have a rivalry of basically three generations, I would say. You have the Alcarazs, [Jannik] Sinners, then you have the [Alexander] Zverez, Daniel [Medvedev], [Stefanos] Tsitsipas, Felix [Auger-Aliassime], and then you still have somebody like Novak. It's like three generations. Now we're having this unique, super young versus Novak. I think it's amazing. The match in Cincinnati, the finals.

I wanted to ask you about Saudi Arabia. Obviously, it's a big topic in all sports. You're going to have the NextGen finals there. They're talking about maybe the Women's WTA finals. What led to the decision to have a tournament in Saudi Arabia? Could there be other events there?

Gaudenzi: Yeah, I think starting from we're a global sport and obviously we want to try to be in as many places as we can. We've been in [the] Middle East since early 90s. We have tournaments in Doha and Dubai. Obviously now Saudi is opening up and very interested in hosting sports events.

They approached us and we have made a deal for Next Gen. And WTA, I know they are in discussions for the finals. Obviously, I can't comment. I think they're discussing this week with their board. I don't know the outcome of that. But generally, we are open even to discuss beyond NextGen as much as we are open to discuss with any other market or any other party which is interested to invest in the sport. It's our duty to basically talk to everyone and that's what we're doing.

I mean, obviously, there are concerns about human rights violations there, whether they're sports-washing their human rights issues. Was that a concern for the ATP at all?

Gaudenzi: Yeah, look, it's always a concern, everything. It's a very sensitive subject and it's very, very difficult. Also, it's really hard to draft a perfect policy of human rights, like who is doing this or that. I think there is also a chance of, What's the future? What's the trend? Is there a willingness to improve things and go in the right direction? Because you could argue not every country has started from the same place...There is a different evolution and we definitely see a willingness to improve. For example, women’s rights. Obviously, we're going to continue monitoring the situation like we do in every part of the world. But yeah, it's a challenging one and we're considering that as well.

There could be other tournaments there [in Saudi Arabia]?.

Gaudenzi: There could be, but not necessarily. We are discussing. So as much as we are discussing with other parties, the complexity is the calendar. It's not going to be easy because it's a very crowded calendar. We have nine masters, four slams, the finals, the 500, the 250. So there is not unlimited space. The land is taken.

We met with Novak and Vasek [Pospisil] the other day. They had a PTPA press conference here for a few reporters. What do you make of what they're doing and their desire to unite the players behind the PTPA?

Gaudenzi: Look, I have sympathy and I have sympathy because I've been a tennis player, so I've been in their shoes. I think we've had discussions during my time here at US Open of an association. We have different issues, obviously. Lots of things have changed. I have sympathy and I recognize obviously that there is no perfect organization, perfect structure. I know for a fact that the ATP, we are trying to do the best and I think we've shown in the last three years what we are doing for the players and the improvements starting from transparency in the economics, the profit sharing, baseline, doubling the prize money at Challengers. We're doing a lot of things and we do the best we can. I do believe in the structure because I understand where they're coming from by saying it's difficult because this is partnership between players and tournaments. It could be conflicting, yes, but also you need the tournaments. So you have to reach a compromise no matter what. Whether you sit and you create two organizations sitting in separate rooms, you still have to come together and reach a compromise.

My argument always has been to them that nothing can be decided without the players in our structure. I do understand that Slams is different. For example, Slams are fully independent and I do get it. That's an issue for the player. But in regards to ATP, we can't do anything without consulting with the Player Council and without having the player reps approval. Also to that I'd like to add that what my vision is, is One Vision, is basically to try to get together with tennis in ideally a unified governance, one commercial company that basically interacts with the fans. Because we have one set of fan base and it is dealt by six different organizations. It's a little bit like we're part of the same story, but we sell different chapters of the books in different bookstores and there's different people who are writing the story. It's a bit complicated. Ideally, I'm 100% for unity, creating an association I don't think it's bad in itself, but it's just to create even more fragmentation. It's more seats at the table. While in reality, in my opinion, we have to have less seats at the table and converge into somebody that thinks for the interest of the sport.

What would your vision [for the future of tennis] look like then?

Gaudenzi: My vision would technically look like a similar structure as the ATP and WTA, but men and women together, including Slams. So you have 50% of the representation with the slams as well. So you have 50% of player representation. Out of that half is women, half of that is men. The other 50% is tournaments, including Grand Slams, Masters, and all the other categories. That governance basically makes the best decision in terms of men and women, tennis players and tournaments. Because only if you have the entirety under your responsibility, can do the best job.

I think you just answered this, but Novak is saying more players should be able to make a living from tennis, the 150th, 200th player in the world. Do you agree with that and how do we get there?

Gaudenzi: I mean, in principle, I do agree with that. The question is, what's the plan to do that? Because the reality of the market is that tennis is a very star-driven sport. At the moment the interest from a fan's perspective, but also sponsors, broadcasters. So the people who actually pay and even the people who pay tickets, they focus on the premium in the top 10, 20, top 30 player. When you go to a challenger, the struggle is selling tickets, finding sponsors and broadcasters who want to show it. So the problem, that level needs to be subsidized, which is what we are doing. So if you can generate enough money on the top. So for me, how you solve that solution is because if we unite, we also have cost synergies and economies of scales. We are stronger in the marketplace because at the moment I live in France or the UK, you need five subscriptions to watch tennis. Something is on Eurosport, something is a Canal Plus. We can't even sell it properly because everybody, even the four slams, they go to market separately. So if we were to unite, we would have better economics. So we would grow the pie, less cost that produces more value. Once you have more value, you can trickle down the value to the lower tiers, futures, challenge and so on. At the moment we do the best we can, but always there are limits, which are financial limits.

Yeah. How likely is this to happen, do you think?

Gaudenzi: I'm an optimistic and I believe in it because ultimately, I believe that it makes a lot of sense and everybody will be better off. It's not easy because obviously different entities don't like to lose the independence that they have now. Everybody, I think, recognizes the value. Nobody thought that we could achieve phase one of our strategic plan when I started. It was about convincing the tournament to let go, giving transparency and the visibility of the economics to the players for the profit-sharing. A lot of things that we have done nobody believed we could achieve. I can't really put a percentage number to it, but I would say there is a chance. It's going to take time, it's not going to take a month. We're having very good conversations with the Grand Slams and WTA. I would say there is maybe 50-50, 60-40, I don't know.

Do you want to just touch on [the ATP initiatives of] profit sharing and the bonus pool?

Just on profit sharing. For me it's important to get that message across. I started playing the tour in 1990 when the tour was born. I stopped in 2003. For 30 years the players never had access to the financial determinants. When I stepped in there were these divisive fights and I always told the tournament, They're right [the players]. They are right. Why? If you and I have a business and we're 50-50 and I pay you $100 at the end of the year and you ask me, How much money have you made? I can't say, How do you feel? The partnership cannot work that way.

So we fixed that. Now the players have full visibility. We just ended our process of the 2022 numbers. Player reps, they have full visibility and our members are going to share the profit equally on top of the prize money, which is guaranteed. So you could argue it's a very fair partnership. The tournament's guarantee the base prize money and the profit is shared. Meaning all the risks are on the tournament's side because even if there is no profit, they're still going to pay prize money. So that's a different pattern. And we see the difference in the discussion in the board meeting because now you align the interests between players and tournaments.

And what about Baseline?

That to me is a very important step. Baseline is also an evolution of the fact that we now have more resources because we went to market with the data rights. For example, every time I started the year when I was a player - I'm very number controlling. My dad is an engineer and he taught me to control my finances. I started out, ‘okay, here are my costs’. Coach, traveling expenses, minus $400,000. Revenue, zero. I was that type of player that didn't have huge endorsements. Besides the top 10, I was like, Okay, I get some endorsements, but they're always linked to the ranking. More like a bonus. So it's like, Revenue, zero. I'm down 400 January first. If I get injured, that's a bad feeling.

So what the Baseline program does is it guarantees a baseline, guaranteed in case of poor performances, in case of injuries, and it helps the younger players. Because not every young player has a very strong federation or parents that when they break into the 125, they can plan their career and their future a bit better. I think that gives a little bit more security, but it's coming out of this concept... The tournaments are now more open to help the players as well. We want them to be part of this because we're now partners. Before it was more like you're the talent, we're the promoters.

I'm a basketball guy. So in the NBA, Anthony Davis is going to make $60 million a year for three years. I think the Players Union in the NBA and some of the other sports has an impact on the salaries these guys are making. But tennis doesn't have that, right?

Gaudenzi: That's an interesting analogy because that's a team sport, first of all. One market and they are employed. Technically, those players are employees. Tennis players are independent contractors and they're completely free-to-play whatever they want, to make their own endorsements, to do whatever they want. This is a discussion I had with some of the players even before coming on board. You enjoy that freedom. There are advantages to having that freedom, that independence. There are also some disadvantages. Maybe by being employed there's also more security, but there are also an NBA player cannot decide to go and play an exhibition or to do his own endorsement deals. I think the comparison sometimes is misleading because the NBA overall makes more money than tennis. So they're looking at the numbers and say, Oh, they're doing better. They're doing better because it's a team sport that makes more money because there is more fan interest. You can't compare soccer in Europe. I was always frustrated as a tennis player, an Italian tennis player, number one in Italy, top 20 in the world. I was making less than a second league soccer player in Italy and I was going crazy. I'm top 20 of the world. This guy is second league on a national league. But you know what? The stadiums on the weekend, it was 60,000 people watching them play.

So in the end, you can't compare the fan bases, especially in team sport, because they have an entire city behind. In Los Angeles, everybody's behind the Lakers. You have in Rome, they go in Milan, AC Milan, in Paris, Paris Saint-Germain. So the fan base and the sport, the team, it generates a different level of revenues. It's like this.

So if you were to structure tennis in a similar way, you're probably going to have 30, 50 players making that money because everybody wants to watch only the top players playing against the best of the best in the premium events. So I think the analogies are a little bit misleading simply because their business is a lot bigger. That's why they make more money, not because of the structure, not because the player association does a better job. Because the media rights on the NBA are close to 10 billion. NFL, I think is 20. [NFL media rights are actually worth about $110 billion] We, tennis as a whole, is about 700 million. So that's the difference.

That’s total media revenue?

Yeah, the whole media revenue. The entire tennis, let's call it the T7, Grand Slam, ATP - WTA is around $2.2 billion of revenue total. Can we do better? Yes, for the reason I just told you. We could maybe go to three, but we're not going to get to 20, 25. We're not going to get where the NFL is. We're not going to... That's the way it is.

They’re bigger, more popular.

We'll never be where soccer is, unfortunately. There is no individual sport that's ever even got close to that. The two most popular individual sports are golf and tennis. You compare us to golf, we have very similar issues and we have very similar structure. And you could argue, Look at golf. They're 100 % player association. So players makes all the decision. Mainly why? Because there is less infrastructure requirement in golf. You don't need to build this [Arthur Ashe Stadium] to have a golf event. This is billions of dollars of investments, lands, masters. They say we can be fully controlled. Did that solve the issues with LIV Golf? No. Everybody left, then yeah.

Well, you mentioned LIV. I was going to say, are you is there any concern that a LIV type thing could happen in tennis?

Look, we're always conscious and we monitor the situation and all that. I'm a strong believer that one tour, one narrative, one ranking is a better product for the fans. The moment you create different tours with different formats, I think you confuse the fans. It's difficult. You see why the Grand Slam is so successful? Best players, men and women, beautiful venues, it works. The moment you start splitting, okay, you play here, here and here, different rules, different name, different players, I think fans move away and golf has seen that issue. That's why in the end, what happened there, they're trying to get back together again and sort it out because they realized no matter what you do, if you lose the fans, you lose the sponsors, you lose the media, you lose ticket and then you die. So ultimately everybody knows that is not the direction. Are we conscious that? Yes, but obviously we're trying to be ahead of the curve and preventing it with our conversation we're having with everyone. You're never 100 % safe and we operate in a competitive environment and that's okay. That pushes us to do better. The best way to fend off competition is to do better. Create scale advantages, create better events, attract more sponsors, provide more values to players and tournaments. That's the best way we can do. We can't stop competition to arise. We don't want that, by the way. I think competition drives innovation, growth, and great things happen only at the end of the comfort zone like this. All right, keeps us on our toes.