A. Helfant ATP Director will leave his position end of year

A bit of politics here, but for those who are interested in the way tennis is being run, this is an important decision. I did not like him, nor his predecssor, the mickey man, but I don;t expect to like the next one either cause his/her goals will be to make the sport even more profitable at the expense of fair competition. This is what we have seen for the last 6 years or so and I don;t like the way professional tennis has evolved since EDVillier, Mickey man, took over. We have been lucky to have a great embassador of the game and whoever was going to take the job would benefited from Federer's popularity. It might be a much tougher job, once he goes or declines.

I wish the ATP/ITF had done the following:
- forced upon tournament organisers faster conds to counter the added control given by the new string technology. This is vital to reduce doping use, protect players from burning out early in the season and injuries. It would allow smaller tournaments to have more bigger names. We would simply have different ones.
- enforce the rules at all cost...the 20s rule in particular (thx BB).
- Kept MC and Hamburg as TMS.
- Give Hamburg the chance to turn to grass and give it back a TMS status.
- Though I am quite happy to have the masters in London, we should have extended Shanghai for a few more years, instead of killing it as a Tms.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-13/atp-tennis-chief-helfant-to-leave-tour-at-year-end-after-boosting-revenue.html

Very thought provoking post here Tenez

I think that Helfant hasn't really done much to change tennis in a positive light. I think the gap between the ITF & ATP good have been bridged closer in his time and I find it the more frustrating that the governing rules are so far apart that at times the ATP take the p!ss.

However the only thing I disagree with is the Shanghai having the WTF. I just don't think it has done anything to boost the interest of the game in Asia and I think like a World Cup in Football, Rugby or Cricket for that matter has not succeeded in taking the game to places out of reach. I like it in London, but I fear this will become a money spinner and become something that is in a bidding war format, which makes me shudder to think about.

Yes Shanghai was not very busy even when they had the masters there but all it woudl take is a chinese or asian player to get successful at it and the longer it was going to stay there, th emore likely China would have embrassed the game.

They like their pingpong and it was only a question of time before they loved tennis. (though they woudl struggle with the BH grip if they wanted to reproduce their success at pingpong )

Monte Carlo

What is the issue with Richard krajicek as potential atp president. The times article mentions it at a controversial candidate

I missed that article. Does the Times elaborates?

I'd have Safin

He doesn't like "rabbit" style tennis

I haven't either but I think the full article is pasted on the 1~2 year rankin. Not much info there either

Richard Krajicek is pro a rolling two year ranking system I think - Harman obviously against the concept and that is why the Times calls it controversial - given Federer, as most successful player to date, is vehemently against it, I guess it won't be popular with him or some of the other players.

though of course, Federer agreed last year to attend Rotterdam at special request of RK.

time please wrote:Richard Krajicek is pro a rolling two year ranking system I think - Harman obviously against the concept and that is why the Times calls it controversial - given Federer, as most successful player to date, is vehemently against it, I guess it won't be popular with him or some of the other players.

though of course, Federer agreed last year to attend Rotterdam at special request of RK.

Thanks TP! Right I don't want RK either.

I'd vote for Medvedev. I like the guy, his style and knowledge of the game. ...But I doubt he gets offered the job....Or Ljubo!

Ljubo would get my vote despite playing in a weak era

It just dawned on me NOAH!!!!!!!

noleisthebest wrote:It just dawned on me NOAH!!!!!!!

How is the atp structured? Who owns it? Looks like players have very little say in its running

Let's hope they get the right guy for the job - troublesome waters ahead! Harman mentions here that Krajicek is considered by some to be purely motivated by what is best for the tournaments, though he has also been criticised elsewhere for backing the 2 year system. I guess the last plays into those in the top ten who want protected ranking, and the tournaments who want to protect the way through the draws for the marquee names.


From Neil Harman in The Times today:

The dry ice has only just evaporated on the last tournament of the season in London but the economics driving the men’s game are already coming under intense scrutiny. Adam Helfant, the departing executive chairman and president of the ATP World Tour was paid, according to the latest figures, $2.3 million (about £1.5 million) in his final year. Not bad.
At the same time, he admitted that the governing body’s finances had been compromised by exposure to an alleged “Ponzi” scheme of Allen Stanford, the American financier, who secured a $20 million deal in 2008 with the England and Wales Cricket Board for five Twenty20 internationals, but was then arrested for his part in an alleged $8 billion fraud a year later. Stanford is still awaiting trial.
Although Helfant would not put a precise figure on the ATP’s investment, he told Bloomberg that it was a “not insignificant amount” and that the governing body is a creditor. Perhaps it is no wonder that Ian Ritchie, the All England Club chief executive favoured to replace Helfant, preferred not to pursue the job.
When Helfant’s successor is announced — and there is such disquiet in the body elected to do the electing that they may have to employ an outside agency to offer them some more choices — there will be much to get to grips with quickly with a new season only a month away.
Richard Krajicek, the Dutchman, remains the favoured candidate, but there are those who think he is simply a tournament toady who will do the bidding of those with event muscle, so that they can increase their stranglehold on the players who are trying their best to argue for a shortened season.
It is understood that the savvy big-hitters in tennis, especially those in control of the European clay-court tournaments, think that with Krajicek, very much a freshman in political terms in place, they will be in control of a body that maintains a delicate and thus restrictive balance between the tournaments and players with no one able to move much.
The players want more influence but should they determine what is best for the tour? Is that not the duty of the tournament directors? And does what the tournament directors want for their events square with what is best for the leading players and the sport? This is a hornet’s nest of particularly strident vested interests and unwillingness to compromise.
The ATP is on a high with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal around, but even they are at odds over how much tennis is too much and whether the sport should retain its ranking system on an annual basis, as Federer believes, or over two years, which is Nadal’s preference.

Thanks TP for that interesting article. This Neil is a wasted talent on the Times. sorry.

It's very clear to me that the one who woudl probably take the best decisions is actually Federer himself. He seems to have a sense of the business and fairness for all players. The only wrong decision he may have ever taken is about hawkeye and even that is not as clear cut as we might think.

Tournament directors are certainly not best for the job. They want to make money and that means kiling fairplay in favour of a star system. Players will never agree cause being to 10 is very different than being down the ranking so we certainly need to temper all that.

I have no clue who woudl be good for the job...but Kraji would not be too high on my list from what I read.

The trouble is, as well, that with the ATP's finances 'compromised' by the unwise investment in the 'Ponzi scheme', the primary aim of the governing body will be to address the shortfall immediately. It needs someone to be creative enough to reach a balance between the long term interests of ALL the players and the sport, and the pressing need to balance their books.

As Harman says, "Perhaps it is no wonder that Ian Ritchie, the All England Club chief executive favoured to replace Helfant, preferred not to pursue the job"

BTW, I think Federer might be in a few years an excellent person for the job when he has hung up that raquet! He has obviously his experience as a top player, his understanding and appreciation that you need to balance the needs of players of all ranks, an understanding of working with TDs and the need not to lose tournaments, and he has conducted himself with diplomacy addressing issues in his capacity of President (?) of the ATP Players' Council.

Most of all, he clearly loves the sport and wishes the best for it.

Thanks Helfant! You came, you saw and you ruined it!

Federer would be outstanding for all the reasons given, plus he is the biggest name in the sport and would command universal respect.

Anyone know when the official announcement is due on this position..?