The 4 majors - popularity and financial clout

[britbox]

Who's the Number Daddy of the Majors?

Financially, it's the US Open and by attendance, it's the Australian Open.

Attendance (2016 figures, USO - 2015)

1 Australian Open 728,763.
2 US Open 691,280
3 Wimbledon 493,928
4 Roland Garros 413,907

Financials (2015 figures)

1 US Open $291m
2 Wimbledon $219m
3 Roland Garros $205m
4 Australian Open $188m

 

[Moxie]

OK, but in NY we have 2 ML baseball teams, 2 NFL teams, 2 NBA teams, 2 NHL hockey teams. People run out of money for sporting events. What have you got in Oz? The annually inconclusive kangaroo trampoline competition, and tennis. (Of course, I'm just ribbing you.) As far as attendance, I think that the BJK Tennis Center and Melbourne Park have the benefit of space on their side. Roland Garros is talking about expansion. And Wimbledon will just forever be what it is, and no one will complain. When RG expands, it will pass Wimbledon in attendance.

 

[britbox]

Wimbledon could boost official attendance by enclosing that Henman Hill section. Thousands watch it there during the championships on a big screen.

 

[El Dude]

Of course prestige is a different matter and impossible to quantify, but I think the order would go:
1. WImbledon
2. US Open
3. Roland Garros
4. Australian Open

 

[britbox]

Of course prestige is a different matter and impossible to quantify, but I think the order would go:
1. WImbledon
2. US Open
3. Roland Garros
4. Australian Open

Possibly, although I think the gap has closed a lot to the point where it is almost irrelevant. The AO was long a distant fourth but definitely back in the pack now. It might even be my favourite slam these days. I reckon they are all pretty close to a level playing field and not too much in it.

 

[Moxie]

Possibly, although I think the gap has closed a lot to the point where it is almost irrelevant. The AO was long a distant fourth but definitely back in the pack now. It might even be my favourite slam these days. I reckon they are all pretty close to a level playing field and not too much in it.

I lean more your way on this, as in they're all the top of the sport. I always thought Wimbledon, then RG, which has nothing much more than the way it seemed to me watching them when I was a girl. But they are both on the traditional surfaces. It's ironic that we all usually put Wimbledon at #1 most prestigious, since barely more than 10% of the ATP calendar is now played on grass. Nowadays, though, everyone who can plays all 4, and the wins are weighed evenly.

 

[El Dude]

I definitely agree, that the gaps are tiny - nonexistent in terms of level. But there is still an extra smidgeon of shine about Wimbledon, I think, as the first among equals, and AO's luster is just a bit less.

 

[Moxie]

I definitely agree, that the gaps are tiny - nonexistent in terms of level. But there is still an extra smidgeon of shine about Wimbledon, I think, as the first among equals, and AO's luster is just a bit less.

I don't think Australia still suffers any prestige hangover from the old days. If they get less in the financials, I'd say it's because they are Down Under, which makes it less appealing for advertisers, just because the majority of us (where the money matters) have a hard time watching. But as Japan and China get more interested in tennis, this will change, too, because Melbourne will be the Slam they can most easily watch and attend.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting thought...if tennis booms in Asia, how will the tournament structure change? Right there are is only one Masters (Shanghai) and a couple ATP 500s (Tokyo, Beijing), and a bunch of ATP 250s. Might it ever come to the point of a possible 5th Slam in Asia, or perhaps re-conceive of the AO as the "Astralasian Open?" Even if that happens, I'd imagine it would be decades away. I also think tennis is rather traditionalist, and we'll probably never see a 5th Slam. But it is fun to think about (I know some want Indian Wells to become a Slam).

 

[britbox]

Interesting thought...if tennis booms in Asia, how will the tournament structure change? Right there are is only one Masters (Shanghai) and a couple ATP 500s (Tokyo, Beijing), and a bunch of ATP 250s. Might it ever come to the point of a possible 5th Slam in Asia, or perhaps re-conceive of the AO as the "Astralasian Open?" Even if that happens, I'd imagine it would be decades away. I also think tennis is rather traditionalist, and we'll probably never see a 5th Slam. But it is fun to think about (I know some want Indian Wells to become a Slam).

I think the AO saw that a few years ago and added the strapline "The Grand Slam of the Asia Pacific" to the brand.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting thought...if tennis booms in Asia, how will the tournament structure change? Right there are is only one Masters (Shanghai) and a couple ATP 500s (Tokyo, Beijing), and a bunch of ATP 250s. Might it ever come to the point of a possible 5th Slam in Asia, or perhaps re-conceive of the AO as the "Astralasian Open?" Even if that happens, I'd imagine it would be decades away. I also think tennis is rather traditionalist, and we'll probably never see a 5th Slam. But it is fun to think about (I know some want Indian Wells to become a Slam).

I don't really want a 5th Slam. I can't see any great argument for it, and it would really mess with the record books. Golf has 4 Majors, Tennis has 4 Majors. Like the seasons. But if there were a 5th, however nice the facilities are in Indian Wells, the 5th should be Miami, because it's the most accessible to South and Central American fans. If you have an Australasia one, you should have a Latin American-inclusive one.