The length of the tennis season is one that has always set the standard for debate and tension between the ATP Board and some players. Yet are just causes for concern, and what can be done if that is the case?
The ATP season does admittedly run for a large proportion of the year, and certainly compared to other sports it can seem long, with its eleven month length. January-November is a seriously long time to be pushing oneself to athletic extremes, and travelling thousands of miles across the globe to play in tournaments.
There are key differences with other sports. The Premier League in football finishes in May and does not resume competitive fixtures until mid-August.Other major European leagues enjoy an additional winter break in December/January. Players can suffer injuries, but even then, the players are almost exclusively on fixed contracts. They get paid either way. Match times are fixed at ninety minutes (or maximum one-hundred and twenty). Squad size and the ability to rotate means a player can rest be rested to avoid burnout.
Tennis players are afforded none of these luxuries. Tennis is by nature, an extremely individualistic sport. Even doubles demands a massive amount from the individual. There can be no free-loaders. Tennis players are also at the mercy of their own bodies. Their ability to earn a living relies on staying fit, and winning matches. An injured player cannot play, therefore cannot earn. Some, earn sponsorship from their governments if they are lucky, others by private enterprises if they are deemed a young starlet. A select few at the very top of the game earn significant sponsorships from racket or kit manufacturers.
Beyond their personal reasons, the players also have ATP obligations, where top 30 players must play at least eighteen tournaments, including the Grand Slams eight out of nine Masters, and a minimum of 250s and 500s ( the Masters event that players are exempt from is either Rome or Madrid, as these are back-to-back tournaments). All other players have similar requirements ranking-entry permitting. In reality these rules are only lightly enforced, as players can easily cite an injury or illness to avoid playing specific events.
In examining those who have criticised the Tour length, there is a common denominator. Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Andy Roddick. These are all players who have a some stage of their careers enjoyed a dominance that saw/sees them play many weeks, and go deep into most events they enter. Inevitably exhaustion can and does play a role. These are players whose career earnings and sponsorship deals are such that they are financially secure. There has been some movement, with an extra week added between the French Open and Wimbledon to facilitate rest and acclimatisation for the deep-runners at Roland Garros. This has not led to fewer tournaments though. Stuttgart has swapped from clay to grass, so it is a reorganisation rather than a true shortening of the season. In addition, many top players play lucrative exhibition during the off-season. Nadal, perhaps the most vocal to season length played an exhibition with David Nalbandian in November 2013.
On the other side of the argument are all the other players, who may or may not be secure. These are players who help make the numbers of events, the players who you see play, and occasionally beat the big names in Grand Slams. Michael Russell is now thirty-seven, and this year finally retired. Russell spent years flitting around the Top 100. He first broke it in June 2001, and left it for the last time in June 2014. His career earnings totalled less than two and a half million dollars. A small reward for more than thirteen years grafting on the tour after you consider how much must have gone into travel costs and other expenses. When you consider the gaudy earnings of players who at some points Russell was ranked less than thirty places from, it certainly seems harsh.
Players like Russell rely on the almost permanent availability of tournaments to compete in. If there is not an ATP event, there is a Challenger event. Even for players ranked inside the Top 100 for a consistent period rely on a steady stream of revenue. Tournament availability offers them that. The rest is up to them.
If the length of the season were cut, it might suit the top players but could have a catastrophic effect lower down the tennis pyramid. It is not enough to just cut ATP events and keep the number of Challengers the same. Players in the fifty-one hundred ranking area might drop down to play because they can or need to, it already happens, though not to an unreasonable extent. This would happen at an increasing rate if the number of tournaments were cut. This is, with all due respect, not where they should be competing. They should be competing in ATP events, playing in events that reflect their rankings. But there is a more ominous potential consequence. More top players at Challengers means less draw-space for the players who traditionally fill them. The effect this could have is that players are forced to either play Futures, where the earning potential just is not strong enough for some. Briton Jamie Baker, a veteran of Wimbledon and Australian Open main draws, announced his retirement a few years ago due to what he felt was a lack of financial viability. And he isn’t the only one. it is unlikely that the ATP would significantly add to the prize money at lower levels to compensate. If anything, fewer tournaments on the schedule would mean less exposure for the sport, and less income from sponsors and TV rights deals. They may even be forced to reduce tournament prize money to make up the shortfall, who knows?
But the ultimate factor is better-quality players dropping down. Because this would likely lead to many more premature retirements like that of Baker, forced into pursuing other careers. The depth of professional tennis would be drastically cut.
That is not to say that there is no middle ground, and it is fairly obvious where that middle ground is. Reducing the number of mandatory tournaments would be a good start. Cutting the Davis Cup in a Olympic year would also reduce the strain that extra tournament puts on players. Keep qualification for the Olympic tournament linked to Davis Cup participation to protect Davis Cup integrity. In potential years without Davis Cup, there could be some discussion with players whether simply keeping traditional Davis Cup weeks empty, or alternatively moving the schedule forward to facilitate an earlier end to the season would be more beneficial.
This is an issue that for whatever reason has not had much movement in recent years. Maybe this is because there simply is no need to change too much.
