A tennis tournament in New York. Yes we know, the US Open at Flushing Meadows. Duh, its one of the four biggest tournaments in the tennis world. What, there’s now a New York Open too? Huh.
That was my honest reaction to the news that the ATP will be moving the Memphis Open from its 42-year home to Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
Moving an established and popular tournament to a new venue is always a tough decision, and the Memphis Open was a popular event.
Over its near half a century run it counts a list of true tennis excellence on its personal hall of fame. Past winners include Bjorn Bord, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Andre Agassi, Ivan Lendl, and Jim Courier.
The last ten years have seen the likes of Andy Roddick and Kei Nishikori dominate the event. Memphis always offered a high-quality field and top-class tennis. Yet my biggest issue is not necessarily with moving the tournament on.
My biggest issue lies with the new host. New York. It’s home already to one of the biggest tournaments in the tennis world (and lets not forget the Hall of Fame Championships, a comparative stone’s throw away in Rhode Island.)
New York, yes its a marketing dream, but there are so many currently untapped areas of the United States or North America as a whole. Consider that the Pacific Northwest has one small Challenger tournament in Vancouver, a very popular event for its level. Seattle as a city recently showcased its commitment to tennis with the massive attendance of this year’s exhibition organised by Bill Gates that featured Roger Federer. Or Boston, another city without a high-level men’s event.
Other cities. Phoenix has a climate that could suit an outdoor event, or Chicago, the third most populated city in America. Portland, Oregon has a burgeoning sports market and Nike headquarters nearby. These are all cities that could reasonably feel disconnected from professional tennis in the United States. Yet these are cities with a potentially high-yield return in terms of introducing a region’s youngsters to another sport or entertainment option.
Having another tournament in New York would be easy to sell out, sure. Yet its arguable that any one of the above cities and more could provide just as large arenas and sell them out too. Having another tournament in New York though is unlikely to provide the unique personal identification with locals when such a high-profile neighbour overshadows it.
There are existing successes in London and Paris that prove major cities can arguably sustain two events. However, Queens and Wimbledon run well together, with one the conveniently located tune-up for the other, whilst Paris’ tennis history, and the lack of another major French city without an event allow for Roland Garros and the Paris-Bercy Masters.
This movement of the New York event could be taken even further. Why not have moved it further afield still? The ATP could have looked to inspire a new generation in Africa, and could have capitalised on Kevin Anderson’s recent Grand Slam final appearance by moving the event to his native South Africa.
There are just so many opportunities for tennis to globalise yet further. So it makes moving a tournament from an established area to one with a luxury of existing tennis events a baffling and disappointing decision.
