A supposition of facts or An objective assumption ?

I put this to you, imagine a very near future where many of the top players are becoming more and more annoyed/disillusioned with one or two of the slams and begin to feel disconnected with them for a plethora of reasons, some personal, some professional.

Now, since the Barclays WTF event is fast becoming affectionately known as the 5th slam and there are a few countries looking to secure a masters event in their own neighbourhood (a few rich countries that is) how much would it take for those two slams to sit up and realise that they are in a serious position, not just for the historical or prestige nature of their tournament, but for financial reasons and the security of their event in the future.

Fast forward ten years from now, a Kerry Packer type wants to have a touring Slam.
ATM, the WTF tour, based on a 4 yr tenure (correct me if I'm wrong, not too sure on that data) is happy to up root and move to another part of the world, so this is not an impossibility.
Who's to say this Packer fellow, who's realised the financial gains to be had in this venture, doesn't invest a lot of his money and time into securing certain countries around the world, (some who might see this as a great testing ground for their own event and as a viable portal into the ITF's conciousness and promote themselves more easily) and set himself up as a freelance eventer, catering for the players wants and needs.

I say this for two reasons.

Recently the FO decided to stay put and not remove themselves to a bigger ground, therefore stagnating any future progress or expansion beyond the next phase of their development. This may well have a huge impact on their ability to exemplify the other slams, who are building better facilities and more courts. Wimbledon and the AO are ahead in those stakes, the USO though, is fast going to become second cousin to these two.
That is my 2nd reason, their rather strange decision to make it a Monday final, permanently.
This is tantamount to saying they will not redevelop or amend their amenities to facilitate the weather, rather extend the tournament an extra day, et al, till eventually it becomes a Weds final due to the hurricane season extending itself willy nilly.

And how are the players going to react to this ?

Along comes an entrepreneur, invites them to play in his touring tournament, guaranteed playdays, guaranteed prizemoney, guaranteed TV coverage, all the trappings, at a time of the year when the other slams are sleeping.
Along comes a rich nation, same thing, offering huge prizemoney and prestige that the top ten players will find it difficult to say no to.

Question is, what will the ITF do, can they/would they give these new hopefuls Master status, even a lowly 250 to start with ?

That is all they'd need, foot in the door, thank you very much.

Fast forward another ten years or so, see the FO falling way behind in the facility stakes, the USO already a circus act gone wrong, both losing brownie points with gay abandon......KP's touring event takes over as the 5th slam and that little country that has offered so much, it may well replace one of the failing slams that obstinately ignored its growing pains or refused to look ahead and stayed within the bounds of its historical province.

All conjecture I admit, but I feel that something wicked this way comes if both the FO and the USO fail to see the error of their ways, and it wont take a rocket scientist to see that where a gap forms, something will fill the void.

But what do you think ?

Any challenge to host another major in the future is probably going to come from oil rich countries such as Dubai or Oman who will be committed to building state of the art facilities and willing to entice players with huge prize money.

Inevitably, over years, things may well change - but I think it will be a slow evolution. At the moment, unless a tournament was offering huge prize money I don't think the players would willingly accept another 2 week bo5 tournament in the schedule to begin to challenge the four majors, so don't see it within the next few years.

Good post Jubba

A 5th Slam?? Just saying it sounds treason and that it almost feels that tampering with the schedule and the sport just seems so radical.

A part of a player's evolution for me is when they 'accept' their limits. For example look at the British women who have retired early not content with 'scratching' around on challenger events. Low expectations will always lead lower achievements. When you look at the top players and the commitment into making changes and improvements get where they are in the world of tennis through sheer hardwork and determination.

This year saw another 250 event added in Salem in the US before the US Open. The players have expressed their dislike for the current tennis schedule and I think to add to it by offering financial gain as the sole enticement might not get the players that they desire. Look at Cricket when they did that one off 20/20 involving that Stanford Super Series and how that sunk.

I am happy with the current tournaments to be honest. I like the WTF and I do hope London can hold onto it. I think the fact that the Top 4's stock is higher than ever, no doubt rich cities have taken this into account and will want to land such attractions, but they need to be realistic as well. Will paying tennis fans fancy travelling to the middle east? Look at the football World Cup in 2022 which for me will be a flop.

I like to think that if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it.

Ah, but what if someone produces an alternative 500 event, then the players can pick and choose with more variety.

And if that 500 event expands it venue to house a 1000 event and palms enough money into the hands of the ITF for it to be kosher, then who's to say that venue may not become part of a 5th slam touring the world like the WTF ?

Thats all I'm really saying, although, I think in years to come, the FO will eventually have to uproot and settle somewhere there is enough space to expand in the future. And the USO will have to eat humble pie and kick out the existing corporate numpties and get a body of people in who can see the light, well at least two inches in front of their noses.

I am interested in why you think that the US will kick out the corporate numpties Jubba? I do agree that the television company that has the right to broadcast dictates the absurdity of the schedule, but then again raising this events profile with the public dictates the large prize money on offer. It is a sort of Faustian bargain.

I do see what you mean about an event growing from a 500 if it has great facilities and entices the players with a great prize money fund into being able to be a player in making a bid to host a slam. It could happen in the future that another event supplants one of the current majors, but I am not sure which one I would speculate that would be.

I don't think there will be five majors though because of the stresses and strains involved in playing four majors a year. Again it might be an advantage for lower ranked players, but the top four boys would resist pretty strongly methinks.

Great post. May I suggest Bernie Ecclestone as a model - if you haven't read it already I strongly recommend "No Angel" by Tom Bower, the biography of Bernie. It's brilliant.

Well the American circuit is riddled with tournaments during the US Open Series. I think Washington and now Salem fall during the same week. It is too much of a gamble to add 'new' tournaments because of trying to establish them over tried and tested tournaments. Yes I think the middle east could prosper as it is a tax-free haven, but again I am not so sure players would like to clock up such air-miles for such events.

For new events to work I think geographically too they would need to fit around the Slams schedule for it work and attract the players. For example when the WTF leaves London as a venue, will the O2 be considered as a venue for a Masters 1000 event similar to Shanghai and Paris? I know when it was in Texas, I think they have a 250 event on Clay?

This is why I am hoping that WTF can leave a legacy for the UK to be considered for other events despite the shafting in tax laws.

TP. I would like to think that someone with some clout will see that delaying the final to a Monday is just papering over the cracks and does not solve anything. Murray and Nadal starting on a weds is a big crack and there are others and more forming.
The whole thing could fall down, weakened by their own corporate haggling (mainly from the media) and internal backstabbing.
That statement about a later finish shows complete disregard for the player IMO.
I dont expect them to be sacked, but I hope they do, as this is not the way to run a slam event.

Also I suppose, any event starting off as say a 250, if it is build in an area where it can expand easily, then with the right backing and a proven track record, there is no reason why it can't elevate itself to a higher ranking event some years later. And the Middle East is quite a good starting point, as we have seen in Quatar. We may also find that in ten years time, the sport has mushroomed and there are more pros about, fighting it out on the tours. They may need more venues.

More venues does not mean more tournaments to be played, only more choice.

As for a 5th slam, they dont seem to mind the WTF atm, in its present state, but given the extra slam would mean 1 less tournament elsewhere, it might not put too much strain on them. Who knows ?

BB, strangely enough, I think your BE example is better than the KP one of mine. Bernie does have the ability to sweet talk protesting parties which bodes well if he would want to do something like this.

Jubbahey wrote:TP. I would like to think that someone with some clout will see that delaying the final to a Monday is just papering over the cracks and does not solve anything. Murray and Nadal starting on a weds is a big crack and there are others and more forming.
The whole thing could fall down, weakened by their own corporate haggling (mainly from the media) and internal backstabbing.
That statement about a later finish shows complete disregard for the player IMO.
I dont expect them to be sacked, but I hope they do, as this is not the way to run a slam event.

Also I suppose, any event starting off as say a 250, if it is build in an area where it can expand easily, then with the right backing and a proven track record, there is no reason why it can't elevate itself to a higher ranking event some years later. And the Middle East is quite a good starting point, as we have seen in Quatar. We may also find that in ten years time, the sport has mushroomed and there are more pros about, fighting it out on the tours. They may need more venues.

More venues does not mean more tournaments to be played, only more choice.

As for a 5th slam, they dont seem to mind the WTF atm, in its present state, but given the extra slam would mean 1 less tournament elsewhere, it might not put too much strain on them. Who knows ?

Well the Monday finish is slightly absurd I agree Jubbahey - not least because you have lost a lot of your captive audience - this isn't for a few years though I think? What is absurd about the USO final is that it is played the day after the semis, with one player having drawn short straw of last semi before final - how impressive that Fed won it from that position of second semi finalist finishing late on Sat more than once? It is an insane schedule and MacEnroe complained that the second semi had cost him one final. I guess the argument hasn't been helped by TMF winning 5 in a row with at least 2, if not more, second semi appearances.

IMO they need to start the tournament earlier - I don't know why they don't begin on a Sunday a la RG, or start with seeds 1 and 3 on Mon, and seeds 2 and 4 on Tues. This year they actually managed to create a day of little interest to casual tennis fans because there wasn't a big name on court on was it first Mon or Tues?

This is the slam that I think the players should actually really sit down and make their case for a different schedule very strongly indeed to the organisers and ITF.

I don't disagree with you that things may well evolve and that there is an opportunity for a rich country to begin to present their case to host a major. I just don't think we will see a situation where 5 majors develop before shedding one for four - not with everything the players have said recently, though a huge purse might just tempt them away from one to play another - but then you get into the whole mandatory debate.

Anyway great post as others have said - interesting to see everyone's opinions, and I think you have some very inventive suggestions - there may be a job in Flushing Meadows

Legend, my thoughts exactly, which was the catalyst for my way of thinking.

If the WTF can tour, lets say once a year for arguments sake, and it has been moved, changed, renamed, remastered, rebadged for the last 40 yrs, then why not another.

Again, its all down to choice. But in the end, the eventual winner may well be something akin to a psuedo 5th slam. Taken to 3rd world countries, (in tennis terms) changing venues once a year, throwing up all kinds of stadiums/sport centres vying for the chance to house it, the thing could go ballistic if there were enough countries with the monetary clout putting their bids in and getting caught up in the frenzy of it all.

With the state of play in France and New York, the players getting despondent with it all, we may find that those two slams might lose a lot of credibility compared to Australia and Wimbledon, who are making inroads to expand their tournaments and make their facilities mirror their intent to improve. If that happens, I envisage a point when an entrepreneur could come along and seize the moment and take away the initiative from the FO or the USO.