2025 ATP General News

[Kieran]

Musetti just said in his press conference that he will not be playing for Italy in the up coming DC finals
Italian team will be,
Cobilli
Sonego
Berrettini
Bolelli
Vavassori

Vavassori sounds like one of those particularly aggressive Italian terms of abuse…

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

The ATP Boss Gaudenzi, having meeting in Turin has stated that the longer Masters 1000 tournaments mean more tickets sold.
In Canada and Cincinnati, that allowed us to increase players bonus from six million to over twenty million dollars..That money goes back into the whole ecosystem.

Gaudenzi, made a strong statement when discussing his project to reform the calendar. The goal is to further reduce the number of 250s tournaments to focus world tennis around the Masters 1000s and the major competitions.
" In recent years, we have reduced the number of ATP 250s, we went from 38 to 29. The goal is to reduce it a bit further, especially with the Masters 1000 in Saudi Arabia, coming in 2028.
The 250s are important, just like the 500s and the Masters 1000s. But there are too many.Our objective is to have 10 ATP 250's 8 ATP 500s, 10 Masters 1000s and 4 Grand Slams, so 32 tournaments. If you are among the best, you play the 4 GS, the 10 Masters, and maybe one or more 500s.
If you ranking is lower, you will play more 500s and 250s, even lower the 250s and the Challenges".

 

[Moxie]

The ATP Boss Gaudenzi, having meeting in Turin has stated that the longer Masters 1000 tournaments mean more tickets sold.
In Canada and Cincinnati, that allowed us to increase players bonus from six million to over twenty million dollars..That money goes back into the whole ecosystem.

Gaudenzi, made a strong statement when discussing his project to reform the calendar. The goal is to further reduce the number of 250s tournaments to focus world tennis around the Masters 1000s and the major competitions.
" In recent years, we have reduced the number of ATP 250s, we went from 38 to 29. The goal is to reduce it a bit further, especially with the Masters 1000 in Saudi Arabia, coming in 2028.
The 250s are important, just like the 500s and the Masters 1000s. But there are too many.Our objective is to have 10 ATP 250's 8 ATP 500s, 10 Masters 1000s and 4 Grand Slams, so 32 tournaments. If you are among the best, you play the 4 GS, the 10 Masters, and maybe one or more 500s.
If you ranking is lower, you will play more 500s and 250s, even lower the 250s and the Challenges".

Doesn't this just favor the top players? How is this "player bonus" distributed?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Doesn't this just favor the top players? How is this "player bonus" distributed?

I feel it would favor the top players, but he didnt go into how the player bonus is distributed
Still I am over Masters 1000 going 2 weeks so are the players, at the end of the day it is all about the dollar factor

 

[Moxie]

I feel it would favor the top players, but he didnt go into how the player bonus is distributed
Still I am over Masters 1000 going 2 weeks so are the players, at the end of the day it is all about the dollar factor

And who cares what the fans want, right? Just get the suckers to buy more tickets. And who cares that the players don't like it, either?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

This is a piece from the Article on the expanded ATP Masters 1000's tournaments,

"The longer events are supposed to off players more rest. Instead, they are more exhausting.They are supposed to offer owners more revenue, but their schedules put finals on strange days.They are supposed to offer more entertainment for fans, but their length means narrative stutter, rather than catching fire"

How the kingmaker of men’s tennis sent the sport into turmoil by trying to save it

Andrea Gaudenzi's two-week tournaments were meant to give players riches and transparency, but robbed them of their most precious commodity.

www.nytimes.com

I also read that Gaudenzi has proposed that the top players get 2 byes in the 12 day 1000s so they get a longer break between tournaments.if they took this opportunity, which I understand to be optional, they would forfeit the points they could have won? Hey?

 

[El Dude]

10 ATP 250s? That's quite a reduction and would have a major impact on the schedule and rankings. I'm guessing it would make it harder to stabilize in the top 100 and/or top 50; the challengers and qualifications at non-Slams might be a bit more fiercely competitive. I suppose it would make lower level titles more meaningful, but I think Gaudenzi's ideal is a bit extreme. Plus there'd be less geographic diversity. I can see reducing to 20, maybe, but not 10.

Also, ATP 500s increased this year to 16, so they're going in the wrong direction from what Gaudenzi wants. Anyhow, players regularly played 30+ events in the 1970s...not saying we should go back to it, but Gaudenzi wants just 32...Joao Sousa played 34 events in 2014, which means a player could theoretically play every ATP event in a year.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

10 ATP 250s? That's quite a reduction and would have a major impact on the schedule and rankings. I'm guessing it would make it harder to stabilize in the top 100 and/or top 50; the challengers and qualifications at non-Slams might be a bit more fiercely competitive. I suppose it would make lower level titles more meaningful, but I think Gaudenzi's ideal is a bit extreme. Plus there'd be less geographic diversity. I can see reducing to 20, maybe, but not 10.

Also, ATP 500s increased this year to 16, so they're going in the wrong direction from what Gaudenzi wants. Anyhow, players regularly played 30+ events in the 1970s...not saying we should go back to it, but Gaudenzi wants just 32...Joao Sousa played 34 events in 2014, which means a player could theoretically play every ATP event in a year.

I have to agree with you I also feel 10 ATP 250's is quite a reduction, to me they are for lower ranked players building on their ranking, that will make it harder, thats why I have a problem even now a top ten player, playing a 250 tournament ( eg Novak as won 2, 250 tournaments this year ) the WTA has curtailed their top ten players, playing 250 events, I wish the ATP did the same.

 

[El Dude]

A bit more. Other than 2020 when there were only 32 events due to covid, there have never been fewer than 63 events on the men's tour and as many as 111 (1973), though that was before there was much structure to the tour, or tours, really, with the WCT and ILTF (later ITF Grand Prix).

The trend has been gradual reduction, with 90+ events most years in the 1970s and it only slipping below 80 (to 72) in 1984. It went down a bit further but then actually went back up, reaching 90 events in 1994. But then it trended down again, and it has been in 65ish range (and always below 70) from 2001 to the present. All of which means that Gaudenzi wants to cut the number of ATP events in half - if his goal of 32 is ever realized.

So if 65ish is the norm, Gaudenzi wants to cut that in half, and seems to want to make the Masters bigger events, with more money involved. I can't say for sure, but to me this only furthers the elitist nature of tennis - that tennis--already a rich person's sport--will become even more exclusive with a clear "elite" and then "everyone else," all jockeying for a position in the elite. And of course with fewer small titles, there will presumably be fewer players able to make a living on playing tennis. On the other hand, there's been more money in Challengers and since 2023, there's been 175 events, so less of a drop-off between 250s and the Challenger Tour.

 

[Moxie]

A bit more. Other than 2020 when there were only 32 events due to covid, there have never been fewer than 63 events on the men's tour and as many as 111 (1973), though that was before there was much structure to the tour, or tours, really, with the WCT and ILTF (later ITF Grand Prix).

The trend has been gradual reduction, with 90+ events most years in the 1970s and it only slipping below 80 (to 72) in 1984. It went down a bit further but then actually went back up, reaching 90 events in 1994. But then it trended down again, and it has been in 65ish range (and always below 70) from 2001 to the present. All of which means that Gaudenzi wants to cut the number of ATP events in half - if his goal of 32 is ever realized.

So if 65ish is the norm, Gaudenzi wants to cut that in half, and seems to want to make the Masters bigger events, with more money involved. I can't say for sure, but to me this only furthers the elitist nature of tennis - that tennis--already a rich person's sport--will become even more exclusive with a clear "elite" and then "everyone else," all jockeying for a position in the elite. And of course with fewer small titles, there will presumably be fewer players able to make a living on playing tennis. On the other hand, there's been more money in Challengers and since 2023, there's been 175 events, so less of a drop-off between 250s and the Challenger Tour.

But a little more money in challengers is cold comfort, is it not? The points are so few! If you want to build a solid, competitive field, you need more 250s and not more 1000s. If anything the 1000s are harder to get into than the Majors, am I wrong?

Somehow, it doesn't feel like tennis is starved for cash. Didn't they just increase the purse at the USOpen to some outrageous amount? Aren't ticket prices untouchable, with much complaint about that, including by tennis commentators? Didn't they just give the Saudis cover by taking their money?

You can't reduce the 250s. That is bread-and-butter for the players wandering around the lower-half of the top 100 and lower. There is a limit to how many the top players can play, and that could be reduced, and it should.

The other downside to reducing 250s, which I think you mentioned, is that it becomes harder to grow tennis regionally. One of the reasons that Italian tennis is doing so well is that the have a lot of challengers AND 250s in Italy. They don't have to travel far to play in tournaments. Which helps across close contries in Europe. But what about South America? SO much harder to travel. Are they losing theirs?

This seems like a terrible idea for the future of tennis.

 

[kskate2]

I think currently a maximum of 2 top 10 players can enter a 250 event. Of course this helps sells tickets because top 10 players will draw bums on seats. The problem w/ changing and limiting the eligible top 10 players in a 250 to 1 player is what happens if that one player withdraws last minute or loses early. Now there's no star power to drive the rest of the week.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I think currently a maximum of 2 top 10 players can enter a 250 event. Of course this helps sells tickets because top 10 players will draw bums on seats. The problem w/ changing and limiting the eligible top 10 players in a 250 to 1 player is what happens if that one player withdraws last minute or loses early. Now there's no star power to drive the rest of the week.

Quite frankly Top ten players should concentrate on playing Masters 1000s and occasional 500s instead of accepting fees at 250s and exhibition matches, 250 tournaments in my view are for lower ranked players trying to build up their ranking
For example in Formula 1, my hubby is a avid follower and explained to me their concept,
" A formula 1 driver isnt allowed to go and race in a race which is a lower category. They try to protect their talent".

 

[Kieran]

Quite frankly Top ten players should concentrate on playing Masters 1000s and occasional 500s instead of accepting fees at 250s and exhibition matches, 250 tournaments in my view are for lower ranked players trying to build up their ranking
For example in Formula 1, my hubby is a avid follower and explained to me their concept,
" A formula 1 driver isnt allowed to go and race in a race which is a lower category. They try to protect their talent".

They’re very different sports, in fairness. I doubt a formula 1 driver gets points from a lower category event that boosts his ranking in the formula 1 standings. I could be wrong, but I doubt it..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

They’re very different sports, in fairness. I doubt a formula 1 driver gets points from a lower category event that boosts his ranking in the formula 1 standings. I could be wrong, but I doubt it..

I understand they are 2 different sports, still I feel 250's tournaments should be for lower ranked players trying to build their ranking not a top ten player, especially now if the ATP Boss wants to reduce the amount of 250's tournaments

 

[Moxie]

I think currently a maximum of 2 top 10 players can enter a 250 event. Of course this helps sells tickets because top 10 players will draw bums on seats. The problem w/ changing and limiting the eligible top 10 players in a 250 to 1 player is what happens if that one player withdraws last minute or loses early. Now there's no star power to drive the rest of the week.

But this assumes that the 250 should in any way be driven by "star power." It shouldn't. And it isn't, usually. Did you watch any of that Athens event? The seats were pretty empty for most of it. I forgot to notice when Novak was playing, but I'm guessing folks turned out. But star power drives the money to the Majors, the 1000s, and even the 500s. That extra money that Gaudenzi is talking about? It should be there to support the 250s so that we have a viable top 250 or so players to keep the game competitive. And the local federations should support them, to give their players somewhere local to make their bones.

IMO, we don't need another 1000, but if they're going to take blood money from the Saudis, put it into the 250s. They should in NO way reduce the number of 250s if they're looking to support lower-ranked players and keep the talent base healthy.

 

[Kieran]

But this assumes that the 250 should in any way be driven by "star power." It shouldn't. And it isn't, usually. Did you watch any of that Athens event? The seats were pretty empty for most of it. I forgot to notice when Novak was playing, but I'm guessing folks turned out. But star power drives the money to the Majors, the 1000s, and even the 500s. That extra money that Gaudenzi is talking about? It should be there to support the 250s so that we have a viable top 250 or so players to keep the game competitive. And the local federations should support them, to give their players somewhere local to make their bones.

IMO, we don't need another 1000, but if they're going to take blood money from the Saudis, put it into the 250s. They should in NO way reduce the number of 250s if they're looking to support lower-ranked players and keep the talent base healthy.

They’re good points, especially when we remember that Novak is always pretending to be so concerned about the financial well-being of lower ranked players - and then he turns up, takes a spot - then takes the pot…

 

[Moxie]

They’re good points, especially when we remember that Novak is always pretending to be so concerned about the financial well-being of lower ranked players - and then he turns up, takes a spot - then takes the pot…

All while nursing a bum shoulder that kept him out of the YEC. Way to insult the competition, particularly the finalist.

 

[Kieran]

All while nursing a bum shoulder that kept him out of the YEC. Way to insult the competition, particularly the finalist.

He’s got as much sincerity and care for others as a snake has for a mouse…

 

[El Dude]

It might be interesting to play with variant ideas, like you can't play in an ATP 250 if you're in the top 10. It would probably have some unforeseen negative consequences, but it would prevent the "vulturing" of lesser titles by big stars. Of course it would have hurt guys like David Ferrer. Poor Daveed...he probably would have won half a dozen Masters and a Slam or three if he was born ten years before. He would have eaten guys like Gaudio and Costa for lunch on clay.

 

[Moxie]

It might be interesting to play with variant ideas, like you can't play in an ATP 250 if you're in the top 10. It would probably have some unforeseen negative consequences, but it would prevent the "vulturing" of lesser titles by big stars. Of course it would have hurt guys like David Ferrer. Poor Daveed...he probably would have won half a dozen Masters and a Slam or three if he was born ten years before. He would have eaten guys like Gaudio and Costa for lunch on clay.

There are rules as to how many 250s top players can play, already. But, yeah, I would see them restricted. Ferrer won 16 250s, and so did Davydenko, who i know for sure played a lot of them as a top player. it's what kept him in the top ranks. Not sure how many Ferrer played when he was in the top 5-10, but I'd guess fewer. Which brings us to Djokovic. He just got to his 101st title in Athens. How is it going to go down amongst the fans if he wins 3 more 250s to pass Federer's total of 103 titles, with no more bigger ones, or especially with no big ones?

Also, as to Djokovic and General News, he says he'll retire after the 2028 Olympics, playing for Serbia. Personally, I have a hard time believing that, if he continues to lose in the big moments against the current #1 and #2. Will he really keep taking it on the chin for 2 and a half more years, just to play the Olympics again? What does everyone else think?