Category: Tennis

Where is the Tennis Industry Really Headed?

horvath Leave a comment

Spin is essential in the sport of tennis, both on and off the court.

For the past two months, the Tennis Industry Association (TIA) has been releasing information from the most recent annual TIA/USTA industry study. Like most sectors of the economy, the tennis industry felt the pain of the Great Recession. Unfortunately, the recovery has closely resembled the bounce of a dead tennis ball on a cold day.

The tennis industry has been in a mature stage since the end of the short-lived 1975 tennis boom.  Given the tradition of the sport and its global appeal, it seems reasonable to expect participation in the sport grow at a rate equal to or slightly greater than changes in the population.

Between 1999 and 2012 the tennis population expanded at a slower rate than the overall population. This would infer that Initiatives to generate interest in the sport may have prevented a decline or slower rate of growth; however, they have clearly failed to “grow the game” at or above the rate of population growth.

The tennis industry closely follows the Pareto Principle. Frequent players, those who play 21 times a year or more, account for about 70% of total spending and 17% to 25% of all players. Since 1999, this segment of the tennis population has declined, a sign that long-term efforts to “grow the game” in this critical area have not been successful.

Regular/casual players are responsible for about 30% of the total spending. Since 1999 this group has made up 75% to 83% of total players. Initiatives to generate interest in regular/casual players have had a minimal impact on long-term net increases in participation.

The growth of the tennis industry, as measured by the TEII, has been about half that of Nominal Personal Consumption and GDP for the period 2003 to 2012. The volatility of the global economy has created a challenging environment for the sport’s manufacturers and service providers.

It seems so simple looking on from the outside. Industry leaders need to develop strategies to effectively fix the problem in four areas:

  1. Retain and increase the number of frequent players. This is the easy part – Frequent players already know the merits of tennis. They simply have to be given compelling reasons to keep doing what they love to do.
  2. Convert regular player into frequent players. Again, regular players have a passion for the game. Teaching professionals should create reasons to keep them engaged. Like the age-old bumper sticker said, “Think Globally, Act Locally.”
  3. Create enough excitement about the sport that casual players turn into regular players. The onus for making this happen lies with the tennis professionals.
  4. Strategically introduce players to the game.

For a full review of the latest TIA data, without the spin, read, “Where is the Tennis Industry Really Headed?“

The Educational and Health Benefits of Tennis

horvath Leave a comment

There is more great news about the value that sports has on American youth. This past week a report of high school students nationwide, USTA Serves Special Report, More Than a Sport: Tennis, Education and Health, was released that analyzes the educational, behavioral, and health benefits to adolescents who participate in tennis.

Results from the study show that, when compared to non-athletes and participants in many other sports, young people who participate in tennis get better grades, devote more hours to studying, think more about their future, aspire to attend and graduate from college, and have lower suspension and expulsion rates.

A press release for the report identified the following key findings from the report as:
• Tennis is a unique catalyst for educational advantage.
• Tennis players had significantly lower rates of suspension from school and other disciplinary measures than participants in other sports and non-athletes.
• Educational advantages among tennis players occurred across all socioeconomic levels.
• Adolescent tennis players are well-rounded.
• Tennis contributes to adolescent health.
• Adolescent participation in tennis varies by race/ethnicity and gender, as well as across geographic regions.

The report used data from Monitoring the Future, a federally-funded survey, in order to compare the education and health profiles of tennis players with other high school athletes, as well as with high school students who do not participate in sports.  USTA Serves is the national charitable foundation of the United States Tennis Association.

College Tennis in Jeopardy?

horvath 1 Comment

On the heels of a report by the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and the Tennis Industry Association (TIA), the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) released an update on the number of programs that have been dropped in college tennis.

The ITA report stated, “During the first decade of our research study (1970-1980), we have record of 6 programs being dropped. In the next decade (1981-1991), the rate of elimination increased ten-fold, with 60 known programs dropped. In the next decade (1992-2002), the rate of program elimination almost quadrupled, with 209 known programs dropped and more than 40% of these programs (92) dropped in the last three years of the decade. In addition, 175 programs were dropped over two decades (1981-2002), with precise years unknown. The trend of dropped programs appears to be continuing, with 120 programs known to have been dropped during the past eight years.”

College tennis is essential to the tennis industry. Many teaching professionals are former college players and a few even go on to play of the circuit. In many areas, college players coach in community and recreation programs and add to the quality of play in local tournaments during the offseason.

The ITA has provided a list of schools that have dropped programs, added them, and programs that are in jeopardy. It is UGLY!

On a positive note, the ITA is seeking advocates to speak out on behalf of college tennis. If you care about the sport then go to the ITA website and complete a form indicating your willingness to support their efforts.

http://www.itatennis.com/AboutITA/Advocacy.htm

 

TIA Study Shows That Industry Lost Market Share, but Participation Trends Upwards

horvath Leave a comment

In December 2012 the TIA and USTA released its annual survey showing that tennis participation topped 28 million in 2012 for the first time since 2009. On the bright side, the sport appears to be making a comeback. On the down side, the sport lost market share in a big way. In 2009 the U.S. population was 306.8 million and in 2012 it had grown to 313.9 million, an increase of 7.1 million people.

There is good news when you look at different market segments.

Efforts to promote junior tennis appear to have paid off. Players in the 6 to 11 age category increased by 13% compared to 2011. Wholesale shipments of the red, orange, and green tennis balls (junior balls) were up significantly in 2012.

Hopefully, 2013 will be the year the USTA finally gets it right regarding 10U tennis.  Currently, the sport’s governing body mandates that 10U players cannot play in higher age divisions and they are required to play on the smaller courts with the lighter balls. On one hand the industry is taking steps to engage junior players in the game, while on the other hand the ego-driven policies of the USTA are taking steps to kill that growth.

On a positive note, there was an uptick in the number of “frequent” tennis players to 5.3 million in 2012, the same as in 2007.
2007 5.3 million players
2008 5.6 million players
2009 5.4 million players
2010 4.8 million players
2011 4.8 million players
2012 5.3 million players.
Industry experts have indicated that this group of players accounts for about 70% of total spending in the industry.

Finally, the TIA reported strong growth in both the rejoining and continuing players.

Like most industries, tennis was hit hard by the Great Recession. While it is great news that the sport is rebounding, it is frustrating to realize that that sport continues to lose market share overall.

 

Performance of U.S. Men and Boys at Australian Open was (You Fill in the Blank)

horvath Leave a comment

Ho hum! The Men’s bracket of the Australian Open was just another win by the Big Three.

In 2003 Roger Federer won Wimbledon and Andy Roddick won the U.S. Open, this was Federer’s first Grand Slam title and the last time an American man won a Grand Slam. Since then Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have won 9 of 10 Australian Opens, 8 of 9 French Opens, 10 of 10 Wimbledons, and 7 of 10 U.S. Opens – combined they have won 34 of the last 39 Grand Slams.

The performance by the American men and junior boys was (you fill in the blank).

Men’s Open

Overall the 8 American men were 6-8 at the Australian Open.

First Round

Ryan Harrison, Sam Querry, Brian Baker, Tim Smyczek, and Rajeev Ram won their first round matches.

Michael Russell, Steve Johnson, and Rhyne Williams lost in the first round.

Second Round

Sam Querry won his second round match.

Ryan Harrison, Brian Baker, Tim Smyczek, and Rajeev Ram lost their second round matches.

Third Round

Sam Querry lost his third round match.

The age and world ranking of the American men who participated in the Australian Open are listed below (source: Australian Open website).

  • Sam Querry, 26, ranked 22.
  • Brian Baker, 28, ranked 57.
  • Ryan Harrison, 21, ranked 64.
  • Michael Russell, 35, ranked 94.
  • Tim Symczek, 26, ranked 125.
  • Rajeev Ram, 29, ranked 130.
  • Steve Johnson, 24, ranked 175.
  • Rhyne Williams, 22, ranked 194.

There isn’t a club player in the United States who would love to play as well as these 8 players. Unfortunately, the top American men are not elite players.

Junior Boys

Overall the 3 junior boys were 1-3.

First Round

Mackenzie MacDonald won his match and Martin Redlicki and Thai-Son Kwiatkowski lost their matches.

Second Round

Mackenzie MacDonald lost his match.

The ITF rankings show there are 4 American junior boys ranked in the top 20 junior boys and 6 in the top 50. Kwiatkowski has the highest ranking at #14. MacDonald is ranked 17th and Redlicki is ranked 45th.

Over the past 25 years, the USTA has spent millions of dollars on player development. The results of this and other tournaments suggest that has been a (you fill in the blank) investment.

 

U.S. Women – Hope and Change at Australian Open

horvath Leave a comment

Very early this morning Mountain Standard Time, Victoria Azarenka maintained her number one ranking with the defense of her title at the Australian Open. For the Americans, the theme of the tournament was hope and change – led by Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens. There is hope that the change in American women’s tennis will include players who have the potential to consistently play at the level of the Williams sisters.

Oddly enough, Taylor Townsend was absent. As the 2012 junior winner, Townsend was given an automatic slot in the qualifying tournament for the Open; however, she reportedly did not enter the event because the USTA did not provide sponsorship funding. (Last fall, the USTA chose to stop funding her because she was “out of shape.”)

The Americans were represented by 3 junior girls and 11 women.

Junior Girls

Overall, it was a weak performance for the girls (3-3).

First Round

Jamie Loeb and Alexandra Kiick won their first round matches.

Christina McHale lost in the first round.

Second Round

Kiick advanced and Loeb was defeated.

Third Round

Kiick lost to eventual champion Ana Konjuh.

Women’s Open

Overall, the 11 American women won 14 matches and lost 11. Serena and Venus Williams accounted for 6 of the 14 wins and Sloane Stephens added another five victories.

First Round

Jamie Hampton, Varvara Lepchenko, Serena Williams, Sloane Stephens, and Venus Williams won their first round matches.

Lauren Davis, Christina McHale, Vania King, Melanie Oudin, Coco Vandeweghe, and Madison Keys lost their first round matches.

Second Round

Jamie Hampton, Serena Williams, Sloane Stephens, and Venus Williams won their second round matches.

Varvara Lepchenko lost in the second round.

Third Round (Round of Sixteen)

Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens won their third round matches.

Jamie Hampton and Venus Williams lost their third round matches.

Quarterfinals

Stephens upset Williams in the best win of her career.

Semifinals

Stephens was ousted by Azarenka.

Stephens demonstrated that she may have the ability to follow in the footsteps of the Williams sisters.

Unfortunately the other “talent” appears to be several notches below Stephens. The other unknown in the equation is Taylor Townsend. It seems rather bizarre that the USTA would drop sponsorship of her at a time when she was number 1 in the world in juniors. Hopefully that situation can be resolved to the benefit of all parties.

 

The Significance of the 1987 USTA Tennis Teachers Conference

horvath Leave a comment

The bright lights of the City, free tickets to the U.S. Open, and a chance to hang out with leaders in the tennis industry blinded participants about the message the USTA delivered at the 1987 USTA Tennis Teachers Conference.

American professional tennis was at a turning point. Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Chris Evert were near the end of their careers. Andre Agassi had just turned pro, Pete Sampras was a teenager, Jennifer Capriati was 11, Venus Williams was 7, and Andy Roddick was 5. The future of American tennis was actually bright, but it wasn’t evident at the time.

The top players were groomed by professionals and coaches such as Harry Hopman and Robert Lansdorp. Other players trained at academies, such as those run by Rick Macci and Nick Bolleteri. The United States was home to the best coaches in the world and the top American players trained with them.

Because the strength of the American high performance coaches wasn’t fully appreciated, there was a belief that more and better American champions could be developed if the process was formalized. As a result, featured speakers at the 1987 conference included officials from the Swedish and German tennis federations. They were invited to discuss what they were doing to produce such great champions as Boris Becker, Steffi Graf, Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and Stefan Edberg.

Admittedly, it was inspiring to hear the success stories about the German and Swedish players. Attendees left the sessions nodding their heads that the future of American professional tennis was in dire straits and the USTA was going to “save American tennis” by developing a high performance program modeled after the German and Swedish programs.

In short, there was one significant difference between the German, Swedish, and American programs. The foreign federations controlled all aspects of the sport. That included oversight of a formal network of training centers where high performance players received coaching, an approach that seemed reasonable given the size of their countries (Germany is slightly smaller than Montana and Sweden is slightly larger than California). In the U.S. an informal network of high performance programs existed, but they were not centralized under the USTA.

To the casual observer, it appeared the USTA had performed due diligence by reviewing the best practices of the Swedes and Germans. In retrospect, that was a naive view of the situation, particularly given the fact humility has never been a strength of the USTA. The headline speakers at the conference should have been the top American high performance coaches, professionals, and academy directors. The 1987 Tennis Teachers Conference would have been the perfect place for them to talk about the juniors in the pipeline and how the knowledge of the coaches could have been coordinated to ensure that American tennis remained at the top.

In hindsight, it is obvious that USTA officials were clearly aware of the best practices of the Swedes and the Germans when they invited them to speak. They simply used the 1987 Tennis Teachers Conference as a coming out party to announce their intent to have a greater presence in all aspects of the sport. From an economic perspective their motive was to create a monopoly in high performance coaching and it was time for the American high performance coaches, professionals, and academy directors to get in line with the USTA’s way of thinking. The number of top ten players developed by the USTA’s Player Development program since 1987 defines the effectiveness of the program.

 

The End of an Era at the USPTA – Bad News or an Opportunity?

horvath Leave a comment

This past year marked the end of an era at the USPTA (United States Professional Tennis Association) when Tim Heckler stepped down as CEO. Heckler’s departure will be a major loss to tennis because of his vision, respect within the industry, ability to work with all organizations, and commitment to represent the viewpoints of all members, even those he disagreed with. Under Heckler’s leadership, the organization truly set the standards by which the sport was taught.

It is fully recognized that John Embree, the new USPTA CEO, is a capable man and a proven leader, but it remains to be seen whether he can garner the support of all 17 divisions. For the past two years, some of the association’s elected leaders have been so focused on creating change they have failed to develop and communicate a vision for the future. It is the membership, i.e. Executive Committee, not the CEO who provides the direction for the association. It will be Embree’s job to work with the divisions to fulfill the wishes of the membership. Good luck!

There are a number of challenges to be faced in the months ahead. Some of the questions that must be answered are listed below.

  • The USPTA has been a leader in the industry. Over the past two years its credibility has been diminished by the hatred, lack of ethics, greed, and pettiness demonstrated by key leaders. How much will this hurt the association and industry?
  • How many USPTA members have been lost because of its family feud? Will new members be incented to join the USPTA because of the hope and change provided the new leadership?
  • Does the new leadership have a vision for the future, now that they have accomplished their goal of ousting Tim Heckler? If so, when will it be communicated to the members?
  • Will the new leadership be transparent in its operation of the association?
  • What new, fresh, cutting-edge ideas will the new leadership put on the table to raise the standards for teaching the sport? How will they increase the number of players playing the game?
  • How many USPTA members have been lost because of the weak economy that plagued the U.S. for a majority of the past decade? What will be done to get them back in the fold?
  • Historically, sponsors have played a major role in supporting the organization. How many USPTA sponsors will be lost because of a diminished base of members and the change in leadership? Will additional sponsorships be attracted because of the change in leadership?
  • This past fall there were rumors that the USPTR and USPTA would be merged. The groups have co-existed for 35 years in a manner that has made the teaching profession stronger. Why has this issue again become a priority? How will such a merger, if it occurs, further the teaching profession and help promote the sport of tennis?
  • It makes sense for USPTA members to also be members of the USTA, but they should not be required to do so. Will the new regime require USPTA members to join the USTA?
  • How will the new leadership increase the number of women professionals?
  • How will the new leadership increase the number of minority professionals?
  • There have been rumors that the recent tumult was driven by the USTA to divide and conquer the USPTA. Will the USPTA be folded into the USTA within the next five years?
  • Will continuing education be mandated?
  • Will John Embree last longer than four years in his new position?
  • Will the USPTA be in existence ten years from now?

Moving forward there are three priorities for the USPTA and the industry.

Tennis is a great sport. As difficult decisions are addressed within the USPTA and between it and other groups, it must be remembered that Tennis has to remain the top priority.

Second, it is essential that the companies and alphabet soup of organizations in the industry remember that The players are the most important part of the game. They buy the goods and services provided by industry. For the most part, the players don’t care about the politics of the sport and industry. They just want to play tennis.

Third, The tennis professional introduces players to the sport, teaches them how to play and improve their game, sells them equipment, provides them with opportunities to play, encourages them to watch their favorite pros on television, and creates an experience they allows players to enjoy the sport for a lifetime. There is no need to have the USTA, USPTA, USPTR, WIlson, Penn, Head, and others without the tennis professionals who bring the players to the sport. The professionals have an obligation to maintain high standards by which the sport is taught and abide by those standards. The rest of the industry has the responsibility to respect and support the professionals.

Game on!

 

Another Weak Performance by American Men in a Grand Slam

horvath Leave a comment

The U.S. men posted another weak performance in the final Grand Slam of 2012. Of the 128 men entered in the U.S. Open, 20 were Americans. Only two made it to the round of 16.

The 2012 event was noteworthy because of the lousy weather, the retirement of Andy Roddick, (America’s top player for much of the past decade), and someone other than Djokovic, Federer, or Nadal won the event (Andy Murray).

The singles results for Americans are listed below.

Round of 128
The 20 U.S. men players had a strong start – 12 wins and 8 losses. While all players are incredibly gifted athletes, only Roddick and possibly Fish, Blake, and Isner have limited name recognition in the U.S.
• Winners – Mardy Fish, Jack Sock, Sam Querrey, James Blake, Tim Smyczek, Brian Baker, John Isner, Bradley Klahn, Steve Johnson, Ryan Harrison, Andy Roddick, and Dennis Novikov.
• Losers – Donald Young, Robby Ginepri, Michael Russell, Denis Kudia, Bobby Reynolds, Rajeev Ram, Rhyne Williams, and Jesse Levine.

Round of 64
The American players continued their winning ways in the second round – 7 wins and 5 losses.
• Winners – Mardy Fish, Jack Sock, Sam Querrey, James Blake, John Isner, Steve Johnson, and Andy Roddick.
• Losers – Tim Smyczek, Brian Baker, Bradley Klahn, Ryan Harrison, and Dennis Novikov.

Round of 32
At the Australian Open 1 of 11 American men made it to the round of 32, while none of 8 American men made it to the round of 32 at the French Open. Four made it to the round of 32 at Wimbledon. Seven Americans were in the round of 32 at the U.S. Open. (It is hard to believe that reaching the round of 32 is now considered a milestone for American men’s tennis players).

The 5 American men had 2 wins and 3 losses.
• Winners – Mardy Fish and Andy Roddick.
• Losers – Jack Sock, Sam Querrey, James Blake, John Isner, and Steve Johnson.

Round of 16
Both players bowed out in the round of 16, although Fish withdrew for medical reasons.
• Losers – Mardy Fish and Andy Roddick.

At Wimbledon, the 12 American men won 14 matches and lost 12.
At the French Open, the 8 American men won 3 matches and lost 8.
At the Australian Open, the 11 American men won 7 matches and lost 11.
At the U.S. Open, the 20 American men won 12 matches and lost 20.

For the 2012 Grand Slam season, the American men won 36 matches and lost 51.

The outlook for American men’s tennis is bleak with the combination of Roddick’s retirement, the less than stellar performance of the other American men and the dismal results of the junior boys. The results of the American men at this year’s Grand Slam singles tournaments raises a question about the return on investment of the millions of dollars spent by the USTA on player development.

Mixed Results for American Women at U.S. Open

horvath Leave a comment

Thank goodness for Serena Williams!

Once again Serena demonstrated that she is unequivocally the top player in women’s tennis and the only elite singles player in the United States.

While there are a handful of juniors and a half-dozen women under the age of 24 who have shown promise, time will tell if they will become elite players. Mallory Burdette and Sloane Stephens showed that they may be more than one-hit wonders by reaching the round of 32. Time will tell.

This year 16 of the 128 women players were from the U.S. and four reached the round of 32.

Round of 128
The 16 U.S. women players had an embarrassingly weak first round – 5 wins and 11 losses.
• Winners – Varvara Lepchenko, Mallory Burdette, Sloane Stephens, Serena Williams, Venus Williams.
• Losers -. Samantha Crawford, Victoria Duval, Julia Cohen, Melodie Oudin, Jamie Hampton, Nicole Gibbs, Coco Vandeweghe, Bethanie Mattek-Sands, Christina McHale, Irina Falconi, and Vania King.

Round of 64
The women fared well in the second round – 4 wins and 1 loss.
• Winners – Varvara Lepchenko, Mallory Burdette, Sloane Stephens, and Serena Williams.
• Loser – Venus Williams.

Round of 32
With the exception of Serena Williams, the other American women lost (Stephens had a strong showing) – 1 win and 3 losses.
• Winners – Serena Williams.
• Losers – Varvara Lepchenko, Mallory Burdette, and Sloane Stephens.

Round of 16
Serena William remained on the winning track – 1 win and 0 loss.

Quarterfinals
Serena defeated Ivanovic handily – 1 win and 0 loss.

Semifinals
Serena blew out Errani – 1 win and 0 loss.

Finals
Serena wins in three sets against Azarenka – 1 win and 0 losses

At the Australian Open, the 10 American women won 9 matches and lost 10. (Serena won 3 matches)
At the French Open, the 12 American women won 15 matches and lost 12. (Serena won 0 matches)
At Wimbledon, the 10 American women won 14 matches and lost 9. (Serena won 7 matches)
At the U.S. Open, the 16 American women won 14 matches and lost 15. (Serena won 7 matches).

In the 2012 Grand Slams, the American women won 52 matches and lost 46. Serena Williams was 17-2. She won 17 of the 52 matches won by American women.

Given the track record of the USTA Player Development Program, hopefully, Serena can stay healthy for a long, long time.