WTA Finals Controversy Persists While Coco Gauff Steals the Show at the U.S. Open

Saudi Arabia’s bid to host the year-end event has instigated a heated debate throughout the tennis world.

The same mailbag you know and love…just a day ahead of schedule.

Jon,
Hope you’re enjoying the U.S. Open but a quick question. What happens if the WTA picks Saudi Arabia for the finals and the top 8 lock arms and don’t show up? Should we assume that the players are already on board given how far down the road this seems?

Duane W.

• So for all the gripping early-round action at the 2023 U.S. Open, the real intrigue this week is of the behind-the-scenes variety. Specifically, whether the WTA will relocate its year-end finals to Saudi Arabia. As I write this, the WTA board has yet to sign off, but all signs and all reporting appear that this will be the winning bid. Some scattered thoughts …

1) When the 2019 championships were held in China, Ash Barty won the title and took home $4.4 million. When Caroline Garcia won last year, she took home $1.6 million. Which is to say, the top eight players are unlikely to link arms. Their pay at this big event has been cut dramatically.

Garcia defeated Aryna Sabalenka to win the 2022 WTA Finals :: Susan Mullane/USA TODAY Sports

2) The WTA won rounds of praise and admiration for leaving China. But this moral stance decimated the balance sheets. This unenviable decision about whether to leave China on ethical grounds only to end up in another authoritarian country, one that only recently gave women the right to drive and get a passport without male consent, that removes rainbow-colored toys from stories lest they promote homosexuality? None of this happens if the WTA is in better financial health. Or more charitably, none of this happens if the marketplace rewarded moral courage as one might hope.

3) The event is eight (!) weeks from now, and we are still discussing the location. This is a big problem. Every bid city knows the WTA is negotiating from a position of weakness. The Saudi bid is hardly Kylian Mbappé/LIV money—an above-market rate that accounts for asking athletes to fend off allegations of sportswashing. The Saudis, I’m told, are offering the WTA $14 million to $15 million in prize money, which would make the players whole from China. But there is no great premium here.

4) The lack of time also means that the WTA can’t undertake proper due diligence. How will the players be treated? Will there be restrictions on players’ attire? In a country that criminalizes homosexual relationships, how will the safety of gay players be ascertained? Eight weeks out, there’s very little prep work here.

5) There are other bids for the year-end event. Prague is allegedly offering the women commensurate prize money, if a smaller sanctioning fee. Washington, D.C., has submitted a “share the risk, share the upside” bid that pays less up front but has the potential for back-end gains. There is a Mexican bid as well. One hitch to the Czech bid: uncertainty on whether players from Russia and Belarus will be allowed into the country.

a. The response here: This is not bias or racist national policy, but rather a response to Russia’s barbaric and barbarous invasion in the neighborhood. You’re going to disqualify for an anti-Putin stance, but end up in a country that executed migrants last week?

6) The men and women were supposed to have a joint Next Gen event. Last week came the announcement that the ATP Next Gen event will be held in Jeddah. Wait, what happened to the women? I’m told there was no guarantee of 50-50 prize money so the women walked away from the deal. One might reasonably say, “Wait, Saudi Arabia is not offering equal prize money at a Next Gen event. And now we’re going to park our crown jewel event there?”

7) Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova have been vocal expressing their discomfort in the WTA staging its final in a country with an objectively awful human rights record. Billie Jean King, to the disappointment and surprise of many, has been less idealistic and more … what? Pragmatic? Capitalistic? Complicit? Positive gloss: Maybe it’s a sign of a healthy tour that it can accommodate a diversity of opinion?

8) There are so many issues here. So much hypocrisy. So much unpleasantness. So many lessons about the limits of principle in the face of capitalism. So many valid arguments on both sides. (Why can men—from Cristiano Ronaldo to the ATP—avail themselves of Saudi riches and not women? Why are we selective in our outrage? Won’t bringing women’s tennis and strong female athletes to Saudi Arabia help foment social change?

9) More micro than macro, but here’s one angle that troubles me: There are so many middlemen (emphasis on men) and consultants and former IMG types and crisis managers who stand to make fees and paydays here. Yet it is the women, the eight players at the top of the sport, who will take the incoming salvos. They have to answer the unpleasant questions about sportswashing and selling out. They have to play in front of sparse crowds, the Saudi sports fandom yet to catch up to its resources. They have to go to a country where they may not feel comfortable. There’s no perfect solution here. But as so often happens in this sport, the suits get fat and the players—well paid as they are—bear the brunt.

As for actual tennis …

---

Hello Jon,

The U.S. hard-court season is rolling along nicely with several delightful developments; Gaël Monfils and Tommy Paul being but two of them. I’ve enjoyed seeing them do well, especially Gaël who I’ve always appreciated. He’s more deliberate and less showy these days; it has served his game well.

The revelation so far for me, has been Coco Gauff. She looks like she did when she first burst on the scene: fleet, fearless and formidable. Putting Brad Gilbert in her coaching corner and leaving her parents at home clearly has had a positive effect. (Disclosure statement: I have always liked Brad Gilbert. I feel he’s one of the sharpest tennis brains out there and I love his unbridled enthusiasm for the game.)

There is always so much focus on players. Can you think of other coaching changes that have had such an immediate impact on a player’s game?

I’m SO looking forward to the U.S. Open. It’s going to be a fun one!

Best, Jenny

• Someone asked me about the two biggest stories to emerge from Wimbledon. I suppose the Cincy final and the solidification of a Novak Djokovic–Carlos Alcaraz rivalry is my item for the men’s side. As for women, the emergence of Gauff tops my list. She left Wimbledon a work in regress, her career having seemingly plateaued. There was all sorts of hand-wringing about her forehand, discussions about whether she needed to take off the rest of her season to work on her grip and retool a fundamental stroke. Now? She comes to the U.S. Open having won two of her last three tournaments and is the third betting favorite.

It’s hard not to correlate this success with her coaching change, her willingness to shift the dynamic and summon Brad Gilbert. Like Jenny, I am fond of Brad as well. From Andre Agassi to Andy Roddick to Andy Murray, the data (much like Brad) speaks vociferously for itself. He clearly is an effective coach. And whether he is innovating or simply communicating effectively, his coaching bona fides are not up for debate.

Here’s what is problematic: attributing too much credit to the coach. The player is the one who has to execute the plan. Who has to summon courage and suppress doubt. Who has to sweat and fight through physical pain. So let’s praise both coach and player. But keep proportion in mind.

Gauff defeated Laura Siegemund in three sets to advance to the second round at the U.S. Open :: Geoff Burke/USA TODAY Sports

---

Seriously, this could be the greatest rivalry ever. For a year.

James B., Portland

• This, of course, is a reference to Alcaraz-Djokovic. And captures it nicely. We have two guys ranked No. 1 and No. 2 and no one is close. They have won the last five majors. They have played at the past two majors (and a spellbinding best-of-three match). And one is 36 years old, while the other is 20. Enjoy this while it lasts.

---

Jon, One of the most intriguing things about this women’s draw is that you have only one past champion, Sloane Stephens, between Iga and Venus participating with 2 recent champions out due to injury and two others on pregnancy leave, however you then have a part of the draw that looks like 2010 with Venus and runner-ups Azarenka, Wozniacki and Zvonareva in the draw. This more pronounced than in the past. Will the comings and going be a more regular part of the WTA in the future?

Bob Richter

• And by Monday afternoon, Sloane Stephens was no more.

---

Hi Jon,

Can you explain the differences in the Mikael Ymer and [Jenson] Brooksby missed drug test cases, and the different punishments? Both players missed three “where about” tests, both contested the findings, and Ymer got an 18-month suspension, while Brooksby received only a provisional suspension. Ymer was initially cleared by an independent board, but that decision was appealed by the ITF. Why didn’t they accept the independent tribunal’s decision? Now Ymer has announced his retirement from the sport at 24 years of age. Something is not right. Can you shed some light on this?

Cheers, Franklyn

• Brooksby was provisionally suspended, meaning his hearing is pending. As I understand it, his arbitration with the ITIA (which oversees doping cases in tennis) is on the books for next month. Note that he has employed the services of Howard Jacobs—the sort of go-to defense lawyer on all matters sports doping—that Simona Halep has retained as well.

I’m of two minds here. In such a transient, unpredictable sport, I sympathize with athletes being asked to provide this GPS info. It’s so easy to see how signals get crossed or travel woes (delayed flights, opened draw spots, lines at border patrols) mess with scheduling. At the time, if we want a credible, rigorous doping protocol—and we know timing is critical and banned substances eventually leave the body—it’s essential testers can locate the athletes.

---

Venus Williams is in the main draw of the U.S. Open, last winning the Grand Slam in 2001 :: Cincinnati Enquirer/USA TODAY Sports

Jon,

As always, I appreciate it when you decide to answer and publish one of my questions. Let me say, I will respectfully agree to disagree with you. Seriously, are you trying to tell me with names like Alcaraz, Djokovic, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, Światek, Pegula, Sabalenka, Jabeur and Gauff that people are going to buy a ticket in Cincy because Venus Williams got a WC to play. People bought a ticket last year because Serena Williams was playing her last tournaments not only because she was a legend but people still believed she still had a possible chance to win a tournament. Serena was still good enough to get into tournaments without a WC. People could see Venus play if she entered the qualifying tournament and won matches to be in the main draw. Like I said, I have respect for her career, which is why I said I had no problem with giving her WC for Wimbledon and U.S. Open since she is a former champion.

You are correct with the WC system being unfair, I don't see that changing sadly. Until tennis has a commissioner in charge of the sport this will continue to happen. Once again, thanks for your response.

Bob Diepold

• We should hold this up as an example of civil disagreement. Thanks for that. Again., I think wild-card cards are deeply problematic. I also think that tournaments and the tours need a mechanism for getting certain players into draws. (Caroline Wozniacki? Yes. A Juan Martín del Potro return? Yes. A player who misses an entry deadline? Yes. Venus Williams, pioneer and seven-time major champ? Yes. A player’s girlfriend? No. His brother? No. Eight players who happen to hail from the country hosting a major? No. Swapping wild cards among majors? No.)

Sure, some of this is about selling tickets. (By the way, I can imagine casual fans saying, “I wasn’t going to go to Cincy, but the chance to see Venus Williams perhaps for the last time has me reconsidering.”) But this is also about feeding chum to the media partners. And social engagement. And general buzz. If we are going to hold our noses and permit wild cards, this seems like a classic example.

---

I started avidly following tennis in the ’80s. When other little boys obsessed over ERAs and RBI stats, I would inhale tennis stats courtesy of Tennis magazine’s annual yearbook and of course the brilliant Greg Sharko.

Sharko was, is, and always be to tennis stats what Bud Collins was, is, and always will be to tennis colour commentary (and truthfully colour-everything).

Please tell me Sharko will be eligible for HOF enshrinement after the mandatory waiting period postretirement. He certainly deserves it.

Rod, Toronto, Canada

• Sharko is the best, and the next outfit will be lucky to have him.

---

Hi Jon, hope you are well.

Can you talk about the new ATP reg that requires players named Max to serve and volley?

Thanks,
DSF, California

• Well played, a nod to Maxes Cressy and Purcell.

---

The Grinning Misanthrope firmly believes that the word “ironically” in your recent sentence “Ferrero once rose to No. 1 in the ATP rankings and won the 2003 French Open (ironically, within weeks of Alcaraz’s birth).“ should, in fact, be “coincidentally,” and The Grinning Misanthrope stands steadfast in this claim.

Regards,
The Grinning Misanthrope

• As Alanis Morissette put it: “Isn’t it coincidental? Dontcha think?” (You are correct.)

ENJOY WEEK ONE, EVERYONE!