It’s Easy to Root for Wimbledon Breakout Christopher Eubanks

The 27-year-old American has already downed No. 12 Cam Norrie and No. 5 Stefanos Tsitsipas on his way to the quarterfinals.

I’m marveling that the two breakout stars of Wimbledon 2023 have been a 27-year-old, 6'8" male from Atlanta who played at Georgia Tech; and a winsome 16-year-old Russian who plays with fury but might not be able to board at Six Flags. We speak, of course, of Chris Eubanks and Mirra Andreeva. Tennis has its issues but its diversity—biodiversity, ethnic diversity, path diversity—is really something to behold. Yay, tennis.

Let’s start the column with Eubanks, as we had a number of questions about him. Having started the year outside the top 100—known as much for his Tennis Channel commentary as his tennis—he is the tournament’s revelation. As I write this, he is in prepping for the quarterfinals, having knocked off four players including No. 12 Cam Norrie and No. 5 Stefanos Tsitsipas. He will finish this event deep inside the top 30, guaranteeing himself entry into every event and a seeding at the U.S. Open.

American Christopher Eubanks is having a surprising run at Wimbledon :: Susan Mullane/USA TODAY Sports

Someone asked what impressed me most. There are a lot of choices. But I’m struck by Eubanks’ ability to reset, such a byproduct of being a self-possessed 27-year-old. But it’s a real feat for someone who is having success like this for the first time. What do I mean? Two weeks ago, Eubanks won his first ATP title in Mallorca. That’s a transformational moment. But he did not have a victory lap; 48 hours later, he was playing (and winning) here. He beat Norrie, taking out a Brit on a showcourt. There was no letdown. After reaching the fourth round, he smelled the proverbial roses for an hour or two before getting back to work. Even within matches, he will play a soft game and then recover to break back.

“No rooting in the press box,” we’re instructed, But it’s hard when the player is a colleague. And harder when he’s such a good dude. And virtually impossible when you know the backstory, the context for this magical breakthrough and the struggles that preceded it.

---

Sorry to say that the women's game has descended again into "who's this? vs. who's this?" Can anyone name the top 3 players? Anonymity has returned.

Dominic Ciafardini

• This, sadly, is a sentiment you hear too often, especially among casual fans and non-fans. I’d say it’s too harsh by an order of magnitude. There is a player who is barely 22 and has already won four Majors. Since 2022: Serena Williams retired; a reigning No.1 (Ash Barty) retired; Naomi Osaka is pregnant; as is another multi-Major winner, Angie Kerber; a surprise, multi-ethnic star (Emma Raducanu) can’t stay healthy; Garbine Muguruza is a on a mental health hiatus; another multi-Major winner, Simona Halep, is facing a doping ban. That is a lot of lost star wattage.

Still, my concern for women’s tennis as a product is minimal. My concern for the WTA as a business is broad. It’s a far less sexy topic than Tsitsi-dosa or who wears what attire or even scheduling gripes … and yes, this is deep inside baseball, but the WTA—and I would love to be wrong here—appears to be headed for crisis:

1. This CVC deal is baffling. Earlier this year, for $150 million on a $750 valuation—less than the Ottawa Senators, by the way—CVC got 20% equity in the WTA. Two-thirds of the $150 million equity stake (loan?) is going to fund equal prize money. Sidestepping the semantic question (is it really equal prize money if it is so artificially created?), one wonders: really? You take on venture capital largely to fund more prize money? This is great for the players (and their agents) and for optics, but is this really a long-term strategic growth plan? This is really going to build the business? This is really going to shore up the tour’s balance sheets? How exactly? And what happens when the ATP avail themselves the funding dangled by the Saudi Private Investment Fund. Their purses will skyrocket. How then will the WTA shortfall be covered to ensure this “equality" remains?
   
   
2. The WTA is actively shopping for a home for the Year-End Finals, historically the tour’s single biggest source of revenue. Wait, wait, wait … what? Wasn’t this the entire reason the WTA reversed course, capitulated morally and returned to China after its much-publicized stance? You’re going back to China, but not holding your lucrative year-end event there? You didn’t lock that in before your announcement? This is like someone separating from their spouse, disparaging (justifiably, in this case) the spouse publicly to the world, demanding an independent investigation into their spouse’s alleged infelicities … and then deciding to reunite and move back in … but failing to first consult with their partner and, you know, make sure reconciliation was still on the table as an option. The WTA lost face and crawled back to China bouquet in hand—“Here honey, I bought you these”—only to realize the locks had been changed and honey had moved on.
   
   
3. How do you spurn China on the grounds “its values don’t comport with ours” only to engage with Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is criminalized, men can access wife-tracking apps, democracy is non-existent and the brave soul who successfully spearheaded the women-should-be-able-to-drive campaign was arrested and is currently forbidden from leaving the country? Is Saudi Arabia progressing culturally? Probably. Is the presence of the WTA a force of good and progress and Westernization? Yes. Is the Saudi Federation led by a woman? It is. But is this a curious landing space for the WTA after such vocal and unified moral condemnation of China barely a year ago? 100%.
   
   
4. When a universally-adored broadcaster noted that “Rybakina is Russian, came from Russia, and moved to Kasatkina,” everyone had a good chuckle. But there was something revealing there. With zero disrespect for the players or their homelands, we are not in an era of well-known stars, nor of players from commercially ideal countries. In the last 18 months (with Williams, Barty, Raducanu, and Osaka retired or missing) the WTA lost anchors in the U.S., Australia, Japan and U.K. The current “Big Three” represent Poland, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Commercially—I stress: commercially; this is no way a dig at the players, who are awesome, or their nations of origin—the top of the sport is not ideally positioned right now for a business heading into the global marketplace.
   
   
5. Credible sources tell me that Wimbledon would have been interested in making the $150 million investment in the WTA. And would have done so with terms favorable to those offered by CVC. Saudi Arabia would have done a similar deal as well. This is just a series of misplayed hands, and the WTA’s own hand weakens.
   
   
6. Private equity is the financial equivalent of the honey badger. It don’t care. For all the flowery press releases, and positioning as a “strategic partnership,” this CVC investment was not made for reasons of altruism or nobility or for a belief in Title IX and the spirit of Billie Jean King. CVC saw a distressed enterprise and went into predator mode. Assuming this is set up like most private equity deals, CVC, in addition to its equity stake, gets a guaranteed annual return on its investment. Where’s that return coming from? Not the $100 million devoted to equal prize money. Not the WTA Finals, which in mid-July, still lack a home. When CVC doesn’t get its premium, it will simply dig in its talons.
   
   
7. John Adams: “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation: One is by the sword. The other is by debt.”
   
   
8. Maybe Saudi Arabia saves the day, and it (over)bids to host the year-end event. Or it buys off CVC at a multiple, and takes over that 20% equity stake. Or comes up with a new entity, LIV-golf style. But if you care about women’s tennis and want to see it succeed (we plead guilty) I don’t know how you could look at this fact pattern objectively, and not come away deeply concerned.
   

---

Jon, I'm guessing your mailbag has a number of letters about Wimbledon scheduling. Sorry to add to their weight … Surely the players don't like being at the mercy of the organizers. Is there anything they are doing to push for more equity?

Thank you,

D&S, California

• Yes, I was thinking that in France, the bulk of the mail was about an incident in the mixed doubles. Here, the bulk of the mail/passion/chatter has been about scheduling. I waver between whether it speaks well of tennis that fans have this level of interest in the ancillary. Or is it concerning that the superior play of Djokovic and Swiatek or the emergence of Eubanks and Andreeva takes a backseat to logistics.

Part of the problem was rain. Nothing to do about that. Part of the problem is the 1:30 start time (and the long on-court interviews between matches). Start the Centre Court matches at noon. County Djokovic about the supporters of this idea. Problem solved. Next case!

---

Andy Murray is like The Stones. It’s awesome that you’re still out there, but what are you doing?

JB, Portland

• Probably not dissimilar: I may not be in my prime but I can still justify being out here. Even compromised, I have considerable talent. I enjoy performing. (It beats sitting at home.) I still find fulfillment from touring. I still derive pleasure from this. Long as that’s the case, why stop?

---

Jon,

I just saw a bit of Swiatek-Sorribes Tormo and the Royal Box was as empty as a Benoit Paire trophy case. What’s the deal? So the royals don’t want to watch the best women’s player on the planet. They can’t give the tickets to the royal clock setter? The official crown polisher can’t be spared for a day? What about that guy with the ravens at the Tower of London? He could bring his ravens. Or Mr. Bean—he would be good for some laughs. Anyway, an empty royal box is quite an eyesore.

P.

• Three points:

1. Mean and snarky as it was, a concession that your first sentence made me laugh.
2. Vacant prime seats are a tennis-wide problem. The optics are terrible. They perpetuate the (false) stereotype of tennis-as-elitist. They beg the question: if no one cares to watch courtside, why would I want to watch from home?
3. The Royal Box is a rich tennis tradition. But you have to dress up. You can’t use your phone. You’re expected to take tea between matches, while bland cucumber sandwiches (redundant?). Lots of celebrities—Bon Jovi, Katy Perry, Orlando Bloom, Hugh Jackman, Lindsay Vonn—attended last week and avoided the Royal Box, simply coming with a standard pass.

---

I love your work on many levels!

But ... I hope you can clarify the matches being televised on the Tennis Channel this year? NO Americans! OK, so Coco lost the first round. Since then all Europeans. Who I don’t want to watch. Earlier in the week, we missed seeing Fritz, Paul saw a bit of Tiafoe. I check to see who is playing, then turn to another channel. I’ll probably stop paying for the TC.

Thanks for listening.

Sincerely, Barbara

• If I started explaining tennis broadcast set-ups—all the nuances and embargoes and carve outs and live versus tape—both of our heads would hurt. (And, honestly, I still don’t understand it all completely.) But basically, here, ESPN has the primary broadcast rights. Tennis Channel has certain secondary rights—including an on-site studio, happily—and then a window to live-to-tape once ESPN is off the air. Bottom line: if you’re tuned to TC and not seeing a Wimbledon match you want/expect to see it’s because TC can’t broadcast it, not because it chose otherwise.

---

Bless Wimbledon for always putting the winner of the match in the thumbnail of the Youtube match highlights video. Heaven forbid that we watch the video without already knowing who won. Other majors do this too. Is this an unforced error or am I missing something?

Kevin Kane, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

• The French like suspense?

---

Hi, Jon:

Life is better when it's as surprising as tennis. I never thought I would connect the novel 1984 to the sport. There I was watching Bianca Andreescu trying to close out her second round match. It was the third set. Andreescu was up 9-3 in the tie-break. Wait a second. With "short" format, the tie-break continues at 9-3 when with the "long" format it would have ended at 7-3? Yes, that is the case. What is long has actually become short … and vice-versa. Let's think positive. I am happy with Andreescu's victory. 

Regards, L. Pereira (BC, Canada)

• Excellent reference. Thought you were going to go with Minister of Truth. Apropos of nothing—zero to do with tennis—I just finished a book I cannot recommend enthusiastically enough: Homeland Elegies by Ayad Aktar.

ENJOY WEEK TWO EVERYONE!