MBAs

Spain and Italy can't keep their hands off each other, and Rennae ever so slightly relents on the weekly topic of Justine Henin's majestic backhand! As always, we're here to solve all of tennis' problems—from the NCAAs to PTPAs, Tour Finals (just join em, already!) and of course, team competition. As ever, we're thankful for all of you!

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
What are we doing here, kids, Nothing, We're recording. We're
going on pretty rode so people can We're already getting
to the holiday spirit here, Renee.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
We are Hi, everybody, Welcome to the Renee Stubsenta's podcast.
I had no idea, Caitline is control of the producing
side of this.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Is any problems we have?

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well now you nailed it last week. How happy was
everybody last week with us? Not to get interjecting an
ad for a music in the middle of a wood.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
It's because they turned mineral ads off. We're probably going
to get an angry note from our our parent company. Well,
I would like deserve technology. It doesn't work.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
Uh, those reads be paying us exactly.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Anyway, We're we're we're working on it, folks, We're working
on But you know what season conversations, you've given you
what you want? Okay, which is us unfiltered on the mic.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
And I have to say, because we haven't said this
and I haven't said this, but.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
You appreciate me so much.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
I appreciate you so much. Caitlin's to come in here
like a whirlybird, but I do appreciate this some random
times and walking on the streets in New York, and
people do come up and say, hey, love your podcast.
So for everybody out there that has come up and
said that to me, it is duly noted and is
also appreciated.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
It's pretty funny for me because I am not somebody
who's in front of the microphone very often. And I
also receive a probably maybe a disportion amount.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
Of you actually get more email than I do from
well listeners.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
No, because everyone knows you don't check your email. That
doesn't well, that's true. Somebody was like, did Renee see
my email? I was like, I can't speak Renee, but
the answer is no, I do. Like. I also think like,
because you're a public figure, everyone sort of knows that
they can engage with you, whereas for me, everyone like
I get a lot of I get a lot of
static on the on the channels. Everyone's like that Renee
is amazing, But why is Caitlin. I'm like, you know what,

(01:57):
I don't need to be I can just recede back.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Does not need to be here. I just because we
live in the same city, I'm happy to be here.
Really helps us and I appreciate, but.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
My desire for being a public figure in front of
an audience people is it's not high. It's not I
And so when people meet me and they're like, oh,
I only know you from the podcast, I'm like, really,
here I am.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
That's sad.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Okay, So anyway, what were you going to say? Interrupt you?

Speaker 2 (02:20):
No, let's get to a little bit of tennis, should we?
Shall we? And a little controversy and I want to
deep dive on something that is very near and dear
to your heart and I haven't even told you about it,
which I love throwing through right away. No, let's put
it in the middle part. But we have to talk
about Davis Cup. Italy wins their third Davis Cup in
a row without Janick Cinner And remember I was like, well,

(02:43):
and everyone was like upset at him for not playing
and all this sort of stuff. I'm like, dude, the
guy's just had an incredibly long year. He's just won
the last tournament of the year. He's exhausted, he's playing
golf horrible.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
On the gold on their private jet together.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Oh boy, No, I don't think that's happening, Caitlin.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
It happened. There was photographic evidence.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
Oh he was on the plane with him. Yeah, Oh geez.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
But No, he's in the Maldives.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Well, he was playing golf. He was playing golf with
Darren k Hill because Darren put it on the on
his social media or whatever. And he's trying to get
better at golf. But when I initially saw his golf swing,
I was like, oh okay. And I loved Alex Dimenoor's
comment on his Instagram where it said I finally see

(03:27):
what I can beat you at. It's always hilarious. But
he's having a lot of fun, he's enjoying his team,
and clearly he's off to the Maldives. He's got a
very attractive new girlfriend.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
No comment. I don't know. I don't know anything.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
No comment on that.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
I didn't I no, because I haven't. I don't know
who it is. I haven't seen her. And also I
don't think she's your time. Too blonde for you. I just.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Don't you love the ship we give you? People come on,
gives you this? Does Andy Roddick give you this?

Speaker 1 (03:58):
No? Probably doesn't, Yeah, probably he was probably so. One
thing that that makes me think of is how good
a golf game Carlos Alcaraz appears, and how hilarious a
golf game rough and at all appears to have it
because apparently he's quite good, but he looks like he's
playing his style of tennis, which is like sort of

(04:18):
agro and punchy.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
And Carlos is beautiful and free flowing and lovely. It's
kind of like ash Body is a great golfer, and
she plays golf like she played tennis, very free, fluidly,
quid and talent and you know, easy. And then you've
got Rafa out there like, you know, playing like a bull.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
Going back to what is a real sport, tennis. It
is pretty funny to me that Italy won their third
in a row, yes, without Janick Center, and Spain came
in second and also did not have Carlos Alkrez. These
two countries cannot escape each other.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
Now they've played isn't against.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
Each other either in the form of Yanick Center or
Carlos Alcaraz in all of the major tournaments, and then
of course it comes down to those two in the finals.
I have to say, for me, the biggest storyline coming
out of I know.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
What to say. I'm going to guess Berrettini.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
Bertini, Oh yeah, I knew it. See.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
It was just nice to see him who has not
had a great couple of years with injuries, and he
was like he was the guy, right, the man he
was the guy five years ago.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
Defeated like he was. That was really really I was
happy for him.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
Like about okay, and think about what he was doing
before Sinner came along. He was making Wimbledon finals. He
was like pushing the greats, you know, to five sets
to possibly you know, everyone was talking about him, including myself,
to possibly win a major title. And all of a sudden,
you know, these injuries just like kept coming one after
the other, and he just like went into oblivion. And
then all of a sudden, these other Italian guys are

(05:43):
like Caboli and Bolelli and of course Bussetti, they all
started coming out of the woodwork.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
Yeah, Barattini has been sort of left in the dust
in the last couple of years. You're probably right.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
One hundred percent. So just to see him have that
nice contribution to this because he probably not would not
have played. Ifani had played, it would have been I
would suspect a Kobali or you know, mess said he
didn't play because he was injured, but it would have
been Kobali and Cinna more than.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
Likely So to be clear, Kol obviously had like some
great moments as well. I mean, he got the moment
of like winning the the final match and having everyone
mob on the court, But it really was Barret Teeny's weekend,
which is why I think, like, after exactly what you're saying, like,
I really do love the sort of dramatics of a
lot of this where you're like, you know, casual fans
of this sport maybe remember this guy's name, and they

(06:30):
certainly remember his face. Well, I know the ladies do,
I mean, as we all do. I mean, wells is
yeah fest with those Varantini eyelashes. I mean, he's really
nothing about him, but the fact that he's had, yes,
an unfortunate series of events with injury after another and
then just really gotten over overshadowed. Yeah, allowing him to
have a moment like that's something amazing ab attendance, which

(06:52):
is also why I get excited when it's a story
that's not about the same two or three names at
the top where it's like, oh yeah, remember remember me, yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
And remember me boss guy, Hugo, boss man.

Speaker 1 (07:03):
This guy deserves a moment in the sun. So I
was really really happy for him. I also thought Spain
playing with a very controversial lineup Davide Ferrer, who we
all love. By the way, here's another guy who like
was pushing the greats, made it deep in a tournament.
He was the guy who was sort of destined to
lose in the semifinals, and yeah, he made a final.

(07:23):
And you know, he made a selection for Davis Cup,
preferring to take four players instead of including a fifth
in the form of Alejandro da Vidovich Fakina, and I
think a lot of people were kind of like, well, what,
but whatever he did clearly worked. Although you know, if
you come up short in the final or not, questions
are going to linger.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
I suppose yeah, listen, I want to go back to
the Semis with Belgium. Though that tiebreak goes down as
one of the great tie breaks we've ever been. I mean,
twelve match points between the two of them, unreal, what
it was like a hour and a half or something,
crazy third sad it and that was you know that

(08:03):
that was probably the thing that won Italy the Davis Cup,
because you know, winning that and then getting to the
final and then doing what they did in the final
in Spain. Okay, let's not forget about that, but it
also to have Spain lose to Italy in Italy, you know,
to have the crowd like that's a home and away tie,
and that's what Davis Cup should be, yea. It should

(08:23):
not be their destination. Everyone goes. We've talked about it
at nauseum about how many times we think the Davis
Cup should be played. And I think that what we
saw on the weekend, just and having those moments for Berrettini,
for Koboli, for Yannick in the past, for Novak in
the past. I think every two years would be really good.
I think they should do a Davis Cup Ryder Cup

(08:44):
kind of similarity where it's every couple of years and
it becomes super important. And frankly, yes, the best, all
the best players in the world should be playing it,
but you cannot demand the best players to play it
if they're exhausted and it is freaking ye no vem
by you guys, and they are getting on a plane
to go to Australia in the end of December. Yeah,
it's like there's no turnaround and they need to have

(09:07):
the time off.

Speaker 1 (09:08):
And I don't even know that they should have it
once every two years. I would love to have them
do it more infrequently and more meaningfully, like the World
Cup or the Olympics. And again I know that there's
like it seems like we're splitting hairs, but I really
do think like, if you're going to keep it in
this late stage of the year, which I'm sure they
would all love to move it, but the question becomes
to war, then you have to make an exception to

(09:29):
make it the special thing that happens off season, because otherwise, yeah,
I mean you just have.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
Two years probably maybe if you want it every four years,
then two years before the Olympics.

Speaker 1 (09:37):
Right, sure, you've been off cycle for two years off
of the exacts. Again, so either way, like you need
to create a momentum, you need to create a story,
you need to create steaks. And I think the powers
that be in tennis, I hope, based on some conversations
I've had with various folks, I think they're starting to
understand that, like, oh, in a world where tennis isn't

(09:59):
a given for people to want to consume, in a
world where it's already hard enough for us from a
broadcast perspective to tune into it, and there's really only
a few empties that matter. Creating something off calendar or
creating something or sustaining something that maybe doesn't have a
reason to exist is a real like, that's a real
existential question, which is like, why is this thing? And

(10:19):
if it is the thing, then what are we going
to do to make sure that the stakes are clearly
articulated for fans and for players so that they don't
have an easy pass to say no, thanks, yeah, or
so that fans understand Okay, well, this is why I'm
tuning in. This is why it matters. And and I
think in the case of the Billaging King Cup and
Davis Cup, obviously the history of this really matters. The
way that the players represent their country. I think different

(10:41):
players understand this differently. The Athletic had a piece over
the weekend quoting Pete Sampras, who was very articulate about
I love this thing. It was extremely meaningful for me
to win it alongside Andre and the Gullicksins and you know,
McEnroe and all these guys in the early nineties. But
it really should be infrequent, and it should matter matter,
and I think those things.

Speaker 2 (11:02):
I mean, one of the greatest players of all time. Yeah,
I mean, who really love to play Davis Cup? Yeah,
I think the thing that you know and me, look,
it was a It was absolutely on my calendar every
time whenever I was asked to play Billy Jean King Cup,
I was like, where do I got to go?

Speaker 1 (11:19):
As a matter of fact, I suspect that if I
go downstairs to your base, to your bottom level and
look at your closet, that for all these clothes you've
on used, there's probably an extreme amount, based on past experience,
that is labeled Australia either Olympic team. Yeah, Billy Jean Kings,
Oh yeah, I am.

Speaker 2 (11:34):
Yeah. It's a matter of taking up in my very
small apartment in New York. But I will say that
playing for your country is something that you don't get
to do a lot, so when you do it, you
I would argue that there's not one player playing on
tour and if they are, they're just either not patriotic
or they're just assholes, because I don't think there's one
player that wouldn't that would say I don't want to

(11:57):
play for my country. Every single player wants to play
Fas Cup or Billy Jean king Cup or the Olympics.
Every single one of them wants to do that, but
they're not going to also threaten their livelihood like a
Janick Sinner or Al Karaz for example, who was injured,
who didn't want to play, or they're exhausted or they've
had to play too much. And yes, we're going to
have these people go yeah, but yeah, we're about Charaz

(12:20):
is playing and he's playing an exhibition in a week.

Speaker 1 (12:22):
Okay, we're about to have this conversation.

Speaker 2 (12:24):
It's the difference. He's going to play that exhibition. And
trust me when I tell you, he will not hit
one tennis ball from the last tennis ball he hit
against Yonick Cinner, the backhand cross court miss, he has
not hit a tennis ball. He will not hit a
tennis ball before the start of that exhibition that he plays.
So he's giving himself full rest, he's getting the leg fixed.

Speaker 1 (12:43):
And also it doesn't matter, and.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
It doesn't matter. I know it because last year when
he came and played the Garden Cup here in New York,
he hadn't hit a ball since the last time he played.
So so he went out there and hit a few
like hit for a half an hour, and then he
went and played and he played great, because great players
can pick up a tennis racket after two weeks and
play and be fine. They might be a bit rusty,
which by the way, he was.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
Yeah, but I think just to sort of double down
on this point. And we talked about this actually with Elkresz,
specifically when he played at the French Open and lost
a very nervy match to Novak Djokovic, because he was
so tight that the way his body responded in that
match he cramped. And I think when you say, like, oh, well,
you know, why is it different when they're playing an exhibition.

(13:25):
And to be clear, I don't like exhibitions and I
don't care about any of the stuff that's about to
happen in the next month or so, truly, And I
mean just not to say I won't go to it,
or like I wouldn't like have a cocktail, but I
just think like in a world where there's already too
much tennis and there's a struggle for narrative and mind share,
the things that we do have should be meaningful and
well marketed. That's not to say they all have to count.
On the record, I loved more than most people the

(13:46):
United Cup. I loved cop Hopman Cup. I loved the mix.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
Well, Team Tennis was great, World.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
Team Tennis, like, I really do like this idea that
tennis can be and should be played in all sorts
of different context and in fact, thinking about these exhibitions
and some of the things that mean tennis is experimenting
with format. You know, Eric back, the USCA executive who
was largely credited with executing I don't know if he
thought of it. I yes, you share is credited with
the person having created that idea. But regardless of where

(14:15):
it started, Eric Buderack was in charge of executing it.
He did a great job, and the mixed doubles event
in the fan week leading up to the US Open
was such a smash hit that it is hard to
imagine the other Slams don't take notice and replicate the
same thing, as as well as other Masters one thousands,
which I would love to see.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
So I'm not even well, I can tell you Wimbledon
will never do it.

Speaker 1 (14:33):
I mean maybe, but Wimbledon they said would never have
a tie break and they instituted one in the last.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
That's a little different. Maybe that's a little.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
They're making changes around the margin.

Speaker 2 (14:42):
They also a recent change. Why this is a set
tie break?

Speaker 1 (14:45):
Well, sure it happened at their club.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
Sixty nine sixty seven or whatever the hell that's seventy
sixty eight years set.

Speaker 1 (14:52):
But I do think, like for the exhaustion question, coming
back to this, nobody's going to get nervous in an
exo and cramp, no or injured.

Speaker 2 (15:01):
No one's going to care.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
No one's going to care. No.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
And so for me, like the million dollars saying they
walk away.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
The larger idea here, which to me has morphed into
a conversation about how do we fix tennis? Fewer events,
more meaningful, better stories, better offerings, is all part of
the equation. And in a world where the itf exists
and sort of administrates the Billaging King and the Davis Cup,
they are now also competing for eyeballs, competing for relevance,

(15:26):
competing for interest, and to be fair, the players, as
they always do, provided the product at a really high level.
It's up to everybody else to figure out how to
make sure that they stay safe, they stay healthy, and
the product itself, meaning that the actual ticket sales and
media rights are as valuable as you hope that they
would be. Yeah, and that's all often the part that

(15:48):
Cup falls down because the tennis itself was excellent.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
Yeah. I mean I argue that if it's more meaningful,
it's less frequent and it becomes more special. Like I
bring it up all the time, ryde A Cup and
Solheim Cup. For the women golfers, it's just something they
vie for and they are so desperate to get in
that team and it means so much to them and
to win it means so much to them. And I
think that there is a way to monetize it better.

(16:10):
I think that there's a way to you know, get it. Okay,
Tennis Channel has it on, but I think that a
bigger network could have it where you're providing more money
for the players. You're selling it a little bit differently,
like Dave, like I sit and watch Ryder Cup, in
Tolheim Cup all the topic.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
I love it if a different network added, if it
was an NBC, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (16:28):
Because it just gives you a bigger audience and therefore
you're you know, you're going to generate way more money because.

Speaker 1 (16:34):
You think yourself, you're putting it in front of a
generalist audience, yes, exactly, which maybe doesn't have the tennis
IQ and therefore the opportunities for storytelling and let's.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
Get so open. It's a perfect example. Most people that
watch the US Open don't watch tennis at all through
the year. It's it's the same in Australia. No one
gives a shit about tennis in Australia from February first
till January first, and then all of January. The only
thing people care about in Australia is the Australian and
the tennis. That's all they care about. And they a
little bit of cricket, a little bit of you know,

(17:05):
that's about it really and then it's just tennis, tennis,
tennis sense if you.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
Go out in Australian football, No, it's.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
Not it's not national. I don't think it's on that
time of the year.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
I just wanted to say that because that's so I
don't know what it is and they don't plan to
learn uzzie rules.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
That's how long I've lived out of Australia. It's not
going on at that time of the year. It's in
the winter. But but the Australian Open is all anyone
cares about, and it's on every single TV in a
bar in Australia, so it's the same. So I think
that there's an opportunity to do something bigger with it,
and and for the players it's it would be so
much more special for them.

Speaker 1 (17:40):
Yeah, all right, well and that's from this topic. Bravo Ragazzi.
Great job Italy. They now have the Italian title. In
the women.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
I think they're going to win the tour finals and the men.
I think the men are going to win it again.
I mean to imagine the record I think is five
with the bullets.

Speaker 1 (17:57):
Amazing. Yeah, do if they don't even have Musstian Center
this time.

Speaker 2 (18:02):
I want to get to the WTA finals. And you
brought up an interesting thing with me in a general
discussion the other day about what is the importance of
the WTA and ATP finals, particularly the WTA finals, and
you're you actually said they shouldn't they just shouldn't have it.
And I started thinking about a little bit, and I said,
I thought about it from a player's perspective. It's a

(18:24):
real it's an honor to get in. It's something that
we play for. Or actually players don't really think about
the WTA finals. Well, this is my thought anyway, people
don't really think about the WTA finals till about August
and then they go, oh shit, I'm on the bubble
of the WTA finals, right, So if you're a Sabalanca,
you're probably not thinking about the WTA finals because you
just know you're going to make it. And I have

(18:45):
to say in the years that, like I dominated in doubles,
I wasn't thinking about the WTA finals because I was like,
I'm going to be in it, because I knew I
was going to have the results that would get me
in there. Right, And if you're good enough, like an
eager Shyon Tech or you know, a Sabalanca or Coco Goth,
the likelihood is you're going to get in almost every
year that you play because you're that good, right, consistently good.
You're making semis and finals of slams which hold the
most points, you're winning smaller tournaments. That's gonna you know

(19:08):
what I mean, it's the bubble people like Andreva or
whatever that are like, am I going to get into
w TA finals? And there any thinking about it in
like July August, when they have had three major titles
that have been played where they get the most of
the bulk of their points, right, So I'm Mattie Keith,
for example, would have started the year going, oh man,
I'm good. I'm maybe probably gonna make the WTAO finals

(19:28):
because I want a major already, which is a lot
of points.

Speaker 1 (19:31):
So I just ask.

Speaker 2 (19:32):
You, Like I started thinking about it. I was like, yeah,
it's actually not the dumbest idea.

Speaker 1 (19:38):
And also, wait, what I do to kill it?

Speaker 2 (19:41):
Not having it? But what can we do outside of
that to make it more interesting if we do have it?

Speaker 1 (19:48):
To be clear, I prefer the WTA finals to the
ATP finals.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
Yeah okay, but do you like is it because you okay,
it's for three reasons. Okay, here before you end, because
I want to get this out. I started thinking about
what you said, and I said, okay, how do we
make it better? And then I started thinking, yeah, we
got to get it back at a Madison Square Garden,
which is where I played, or you know, at a
Staples Center or a big Ei the O two in
London or somewhere in Paris or somewhere in Italy or

(20:16):
somewhere somewhere where tennis is beloved Canada, right, And I
was thinking, to do we get rid of the round
robin format, So it's okay, so you like that. So
I was thinking, why don't we just make it a
full tournament, Like, just make it a tournament, knock out
and be done.

Speaker 1 (20:35):
I my issues with both tour finals, and I vastly
prefer the WTA finals for reasons that I'll go into.
But my issue with both the finals, and I've said
this before and it's not dissimilar from the conversations we
were just having about the team competitions is what's the narrative?
What are the steaks? I understand the stakes. And you
got to this a little bit when you were talking

(20:56):
about why if you're a bubble person, in addition to
the honor, you would want to get motivated and have
a real fight to the finish, as Rabakina and Mira
Andrevia did this year, to see who of the two
of them was going to make it in or the
drama that surrounded so MESSEETI a felix O j Lasim
and Djokovic who sat on his his desires until it

(21:22):
was you know, revealed that he wasn't going to play
the whole time. So to me, it's the money. I mean,
the winner of those.

Speaker 2 (21:28):
Oh yeah, of course it's some money massively.

Speaker 1 (21:30):
Rewarded, and I'm not even saying they shouldn't be. The
tours get enriched by this, and I like the idea
that you know, tennis is productized, and you know there
isn't in some cases a narrative to this, which is
outside of the slams, who's the best? The fact that
it's always on the same surface is a little bit
disingenuous because you're always going to have people who do
better on that in worlds where.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
You have never won an a t P finals, Yeah,
it was just what correct.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
So for me, the idea of having let's get down
to the brass tacks and have a tournament of only
the best where people actual care, as opposed to an
exhibition where you're maybe having a tournament or an event
of only the best, but they don't care. And the
people who say like, yeah, but it doesn't matter if
you actually really closely watch the sport and I don't
care if you do or don't, that's fine, but you
can tell that they're not trying as hard. And so
for me, I actually want to see them. You know what,

(22:16):
does their trying understand as are the ATP finals. But
I'm saying people who say that they like to watch
exhibitions because they get to pay to watch the best
players in the world. It's like you're getting to pay
them make an appearance, You're not getting to watch them
play their hardest. So there's a difference there. And part
of it is the fact that it just happens so
far after that the narrative has been lost and it

(22:38):
doesn't matter anymore. And I think that this is not
just an issue for the tour finals. It's an issue
for the entire fall season, which is to say, tennis
needs to be shortened. So that's setting that aside when
it happens matters greatly because by the time that it happens,
tennis nobody cares. Is off of the conscientiousness yea. The
second thing is I actually quite like the round robin
format because you get to see all these different matchups

(22:59):
that a tournament would not necessarily provide because of the
structure of the draw. And the third reason, and I
actually sort of I take your point. I think the
crowd is a good one, and I understand that you
actually mean it. I think, to me, what's actually interesting
is that it goes to the different parts of the
world where maybe tennis doesn't have a strong tradition, and
I get the chance to see how tennis is interpreted
and marketed and played in different arenas like I would love.

(23:20):
For sure, I don't mind the locations you suggest, but
they're overwhelmingly white, they're overwhelmingly English, English speaking, and there
they've been rewarded with lots and lots of tournaments forever.

Speaker 2 (23:31):
I know where this is going. Someone wants a tournament
in South America.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
I definitely want to tournament South America, but I also
want a tournament maybe that roves and I understand the
sponsorship challenges of selling something that moves. I mean, I
think the World Cup has four years to get its
location in sponsorships and facilities in order. Where we've seen
this be an issue for people. But like I said,
I was much more engaged in the WTA finals this
year as opposed to the ATP, partially the depth, partially

(23:57):
because it was set in Saudi Arabia too. It's a
bummer that there's no fans, but also there weren't any
fans when they did it in Asia, and at least
Saudi Arabia, I get to see them doing cool photoshop
shoots with hawks and stuff and dune bugging out in
the dunes. Like the content, the stories were a little
bit more interesting to me. Osterbur was there like cool
to me. Also, the fact that the women's Tour has
a ton more depth makes it more interesting. And third,

(24:20):
the results weren't necessarily a foregone conclusion, so the matches mattered. Yea,
I about stakes, and I think the most important thing
isn't actually where you put it or the fact that it's,
you know, the format. I think the most important thing
is just the schedule is impossible. And I think the
WTA and the ATP, and I've said this to anybody

(24:40):
who cares to hear, is not necessarily that they should
kill it. I just think neither of those entities have
enough brand equity that they can coast on their own audience.
So nobody knows outside of tennis where the WTA is
or the ATP. I'm not sure we should teach them,
but we definitely have to if something's going to be
branded the WTA Finals, It's like, what is that a
dental conference in Old Nebraska? Yeah, you know, like that's

(25:02):
not a brand. I know what Wimbledon is I know
what maybe? So for me that is all part of
the one year and it was. It would have been
awesome if it had been an El Paso exactly to
my point, because that's a border city. You'd get Warrez,
you get them going on day trips eating delicious food.
Instead it was in.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
So you're all about the marketing, it's all.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
About the story. If I don't care about it, then
how can I tell other people who are casually interested
at the best in tennis they care about it too.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
I listen, I think in Saudi Arabia they have one
more year?

Speaker 1 (25:38):
Is that?

Speaker 2 (25:39):
Is that right? It was one more year to and
then so what's the conversation, What is the conversation? Where
is it going new?

Speaker 1 (25:45):
And I again, I don't want to put this all
in the feed of the wt A. The ATP Tour
finals are in a tennis mad country in Australia. I
love I mean in in Italy. I loved it when
it was at the O two Arena. Not because I
think London needs more tennis events. They already have the
biggest life Labor Cup next year. I can't get it.
I don't have the energy to debate the Labor Cup.

(26:06):
But I think for me the I'm not excited about
Italy and Turin either. I think that's had plenty of
There's nothing really interesting about that city. I'd rather see
it on TV where people are skiing down their Italian
Alps than looking at the indoor of court.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
Bill Gates buys it and puts it in Seattle.

Speaker 1 (26:23):
Yeah, it would be awesome, it'd be great. It would
be all also most incredible. And this is again an
opportunity because I like to make sure we're presenting ideas
alongside criticism. Join them, join them, have a mixed event.

Speaker 2 (26:35):
I think Canada would be great as well. I think
it's a tennis mad country and I think that that
would be a great spot.

Speaker 1 (26:41):
Also, does it have to be indoors? And I realize
it does if it's in No.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
But it's at the end of the year. So where
do you go, you know, other than South America or Australia.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
I mean not that the way I was thinking about
this too, because the other way sports deal with US
is they have an all Star break in the middle
of the season.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
Yeah, but you can't do it in the middle of season.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
I'm not saying that's good point I'm not saying you can,
but I don't. I think part of it is the
fact that this is broken until we fix the season.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
Okay, Well, once again, we haven't sold anything.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
Okay, so let's get to see that they should join
the events. That's actually a pretty good idea.

Speaker 2 (27:10):
Or have the ATP and WTA join.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
Yeah, just called the tour finyls the mecha of either
of those brands. Who will find anyway?

Speaker 2 (27:16):
Man, can you imagine how big that would be?

Speaker 1 (27:18):
Exactly? Would be huge, be awesome, and you get to
watch everyone in one.

Speaker 2 (27:21):
Place, yeah, and one place destination, make it nice exactly. Okay.
So the lawsuit with players that are playing college tennis,
and recently the Reese who won the NC double as
again in singles has is one of the complaints. One
of the players, along with Maya joint the Ossie who's

(27:43):
doing very well on the tour now, is suing the
NC double A's because they want to retroacle actively go
back and get the price money that they were given
basically the US Open or any autonomous that they played.
And they feel like, and I want your take on
this because you play college tennis and I did text
Lisa Raymond on this who was one of the great

(28:03):
She's the collegiate athlete and arguably, outside of maybe Ben
Shelton now and maybe Danielle Collins and Kathy Jordan like
long time ago, one of the great college players of
all time. And you know, I'll read to some of
the text messages that she wrote to me about it.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
Yeah, I would like to know what she hears. But
let's just make sure we're setting this up so as
everyone probably knows, the NCAA, which is the National Collegiate
Athletic Association which mandates and sort of facilitates all of
the college athletics play in all sports, has certain rules
about what constitutes amateur versus professional, and one of the

(28:42):
in addition to make sure you can in fact read
and write when you get to college, which is a
pretty low standard because I definitely met some athletes at
Mazoo who were questionable on both of those.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
One tennis players. I know, I won't tell you what college,
and I won't tell you who told me, but you
could probably wink wink figure it out. The one of
the is on the tennis teams got a track scholarship
in a really good tennis player like played pro in
the end, I no, it wasn't Lisa Raymond, but it
was just like, what are we doing here?

Speaker 1 (29:12):
That doesn't make any sense?

Speaker 2 (29:13):
Yeah to me, got a track scholarship? Did one? Did
actually run?

Speaker 1 (29:17):
Like nobody was paying attention she played on. I remember
going to the gym, the college athlete gym, Miszoo, and
I remember somebody being like, no, no, you can't come in
this for athletes only. And I was like, oh, yeah,
I know, I'm on the tennis team. They're like, we
have a tennis team.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
Well, that's just embarrassing.

Speaker 1 (29:32):
It was embarrassing. But the NCAA to make sure that
players remain eligible, as they call it, for scholarship, make
sure that you haven't accepted up to a certain amount
of money as a professional.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
Thousand dollars is there, and that's basically for reimbursement of
travel and expenses.

Speaker 1 (29:50):
And that has changed. I think the number has changed
because I remember being much less. I remember I had
to give back my seventy five dollars that I want
as a finalist of the Atlanta Open in nineteen ninety seven,
I believe it was I lost to Juel Peterson very fast, Wow,
who was a college standout athlete. I believe, yep, my
pro earnings added up to less than a dinner out
in New York City nowadays. But anyway, what do I

(30:12):
think about this? I think the NC double A has
made so much money, profoundly, so off of the backs
of astute and athletes, that it's sort of outrageous that
there is a limit at all. That said, I much

(30:32):
like I have questioned, what is the purpose of Nile No,
what is the purpose of things like the refinals or
the team competitions. I'm not sure what the purpose of
college athletics is. I say that having been money. But
let me let me elucidate a little bit more. What
I mean college athletics. Getting a tennis scholarship was transformative

(30:57):
for my life. I would not have been able to
go where I went, I would not have been able
to afford it. I would have gone to at best
a state school. And the opportunities afforded to a lot
of people, particularly women, because of things like Title nine,
are generationally impactful. I've talked about this. I hope this
is not the first time you heard me talk about this.
Current administration is listening to this, becare is not up

(31:20):
pulling funding from so many of these they're definitely not
female oriented anyway, go on, keep going, so we get political,
yeah don't. But for me, the purpose of college athletics
was theoretically to create more well rounded human beings coming
out the other side of college. It wasn't to necessarily

(31:41):
make money for the school, although that's obviously what it
is now, and so it makes me wonder, especially in
the wake of NIL, which is the system that allows
athletes at the collegiate level to make money off of
their own likeness and their own You know, if I
wanted to sell a trading card, for example, with myself,
which would never happen, But if I were a very
amazing basketball player, for example at a popular school that

(32:02):
very reasonable, or have a senator trishoo, or go play
in the summer league.

Speaker 2 (32:06):
It's keeping a lot of certain athletes in college.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
That's right, instead of going and making the very smart
and inevitably sort of risky decision to leave so that
they could make money. I think this whole system needs
an overhaul. The insight of LA is one of the
least credible organizations, and I want us to completely rethink
with the point of having athletic scholarships in America is
especially when you look at the fact that no other

(32:30):
nations reciprocate. If I were somebody who was wanting to
go overseas to play college tennis, now it doesn't exist
in Astrola, and because of that, the tennis world ends
up being largely comprised of non American players. I don't
think that that's a bad thing. I think it's a
wonderful thing. In fact, most of my collegiate teammates were
not born in America. I was not, in fact born

(32:51):
in America. I'm an American citizen, but I grew up
partially in Canada with a Canadian passport. So I'm not
going to do the sort of typical answer being like
this is outrageous in NC double A should reconsider. Although, yes,
this is outrageous, the NC douable a should consider. But
I actually think it's a much more interesting conversation to
sort of say, what is the point of college scholarships.
What's the point of having teams other than enriching the school.

(33:13):
And when you get to a school like Alabama or
a lot of these SEC schools that are making profound
amounts of money, much more so as sports participants than
they are as educational infrastructural systems. What is the point
and have we been totally compromised? Like, I think this

(33:35):
is a much bigger conversation.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
That's interesting. I didn't I actually didn't know we were
going there with that answer, But that's.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
I didn't know you're gonna bring it up. But my
main feelings of my feelings of college tennis are more like, ugh,
I don't know, do you think I.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
Mean, Lisa is Lisa basically you know, you know, by
winning the NC double as, you're basically getting a wild
card into the US Open, and you know that should
be enough. But also at the same time, yes, you are,
but you're not being able to be able to take
the money for that.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
So I think in a world where none of this
was monetized and the you know, Herbard Yale game was
the sort of be all and end all of like
college athletics, and I'm thinking, like fifty eighty years ago,
like this was a non entity. This wasn't a big deal.
And I think the fact that no other nations do

(34:25):
this is also sort of interesting.

Speaker 2 (34:28):
Yeah, I mean, it's funny because people, you know, say
to me you know, did you play in college And
I said no, No, I went pro. I was seventeen eighteen,
on the road, already playing in Europe and playing in
the US, and I didn't have an option to go
to college in the U and Australia. I mean, it's
university and you go twelve hours a day to university.

Speaker 1 (34:46):
You've made the decision to not pursue athletics if you
were in university in most places outside of America.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
Yeah, and so you know, for everybody else, it's that's
why you do get a lot of imports from Australia
from Europe going to college in the US because there
still able to play the sport they love and get
an education at the same time. I mean, listen, there's
an argument to be made for both to have kids
going to school getting in it, like yourself, getting an education,
as well as being able to still play the sport

(35:12):
that they love, staying in shape, all of those things.
You know, you would argue that some people doing certain
sports in college are not getting the greatest education because
their professors are like, it's fine, you're the you know,
you're the linebacker of our Alabama team. We about your brow,
But I do think that there's you know, something to
be said, and there are some institutions like I would

(35:33):
say a Yukon for example, women's basketball. Gino Arima would
want his athletes to still be having a good ged
having good you know, schooling and GPA, sorry where they
come from GPA, and to be able to have the
opportunity to because not everyone's going to turn pro and
make money, so make sure you get your education.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
I understand. I mean most college athletes don't play pro.
And for that reason, when I was more attempted to,
when I attempted to learn at my universe city, I
was met with a lot of pushback and they're like, oh, well,
why don't you just like pick an easier major that
doesn't have so much requirement of your time? And I said, well,
that's the reason I'm here. Yeah, but I don't think
that's uncommon.

Speaker 2 (36:09):
No, it's not uncommon, absolutely not. I will say this though.
The one thing about it is, you know, I think
that you already have the opportunity. So I don't agree
on them getting the prize money. I actually don't you.

Speaker 1 (36:20):
Think they should not.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
I don't think they should issue. I think they should
be I think that there's a way to take the
money and put it into something that might help them,
whether it be I mean, I'm sort of thinking on
the fly here, but maybe maybe into a retirement fund
or something like that. But they don't actually get the
actual cash, so maybe after college they can get a

(36:42):
certain installments or whatever. Yeah, after they've finish college. They
don't get it right up front, but I think that
they I think that they should get it in some way,
But I don't know about the cash handouts. Soon as
the tournament's over here, it's just seventy thousand dollars. I
think maybe after college, once they've left, they are able
to get installments of it in a sort of a
retirement sort of fund, and it grows from that. To me,

(37:03):
would actually make a lot more sense for them. Some
people might say, well, they that money will help them
be able to provide for them to maybe go pro
or get a coach or all all those things. But
at the same time, they're getting a free education, which
hopefully will benefit them for the rest of them.

Speaker 1 (37:17):
They're getting free coaching whether it's good enough.

Speaker 2 (37:20):
If they're good enough, they're going to turn pro and
be good. Daniel Collins comes to mind a Lisa Raymond,
Emma Navarro, Ben Shelton. Yeah, I forgot about Emma cam Nory.
It also you look at this situation and go, guys,
you're getting free education, you're getting a degree, you are

(37:40):
possibly going to get money. But also you do have
an opportunity to make money on nil. So you do
have an opportunity to make money at college. You're just
not doing it well enough.

Speaker 1 (37:50):
I mean doing it from a tennis perspective, Like we
can't get people to kiss pro tennis, much less college tennis.
I don't think that's right now, but there's.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Still an opportunity. You can still get a local car dealership,
or you can get someone who knows that was an
opportunity which you could not do ten years ago.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
I don't just agree, I think this is a much
larger conversation though about like when I was a freshman
and I played against somebody who was twenty five who
spent some years on the pro tour and had to
give all the money back, but she was basically a
pro athlete. I remember thinking, I'm eighteen playing a twenty
five year old from.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
Brazil and she's crushing me.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
Actually, in that case, it was double's I was hanging
in but it was nuts, like it was, yeah, you
were two different we had traveled such a different path.

Speaker 2 (38:26):
Yeah, that's seven years. So it's sort of like enormous amount.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
Is this person getting an education? Here is this person
biding time until they can go pro Like? It just
sort of questioned, like, this is a state school supporting
this person to get really good at tennis better than
they were already, and like to what are we doing here?
To what? Yeah, kind of like to what and you
know again fair is fair, Like that's she was great,
but it just sort of raised the.

Speaker 2 (38:48):
Question to make it in the pros she didn't know. Okay,
So Caitlin, let's get into the ways of something else
which I love to do, especially with you, and we
will get into this hole like wrapping up of the
year because Petco's coming back in town and we really
wanted to get into the whole, you know, just nuts
and bolts of what happened this year. Tennis Channel have
a great thing on right now where they're going through
the entire love. Yeah, it's great. Right, we have Carlos

(39:10):
Aurkairez playing Draper right now in Indian.

Speaker 1 (39:12):
Wells and but so much happened this year, though it's
nice to have a recap. Yeah, recap, yes, so we
will get into that. But I also like when there's
not so much tennis on because we can use the
officeason to talk about this great stuff like what should
happen with these big questions around the sport, what should
different governing bodies do? And yes, we do have an
interesting sort of turn of events here.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
Yeah, it just kind of got on the slide. The
PTPA has come out and had a bit of a
win against Tennis Australia. They have agreed. We don't know
much about what was in the context of the agreement,
but basically they have agreed to settle with the PTPA.
You get into the weeds of this stuff, which I love.

(39:54):
What are your thoughts on what Tennis Australia have done
with this situation?

Speaker 1 (39:58):
Well, I will say I am certainly not qualified to
talk about like anybody's you know, kinetic chain with you,
so I all I can do is admire some of
the players and talk about what I like. But you know,
with the exception maybe of whose backhand was the prettiest,
Oh my god, I.

Speaker 2 (40:12):
Did see Before we get to this Papa, think I
did see that you sent me an email from a gentleman.
It was, yes, yep, about Justin Enna's backhand.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
Now again, please take don't take the bait. Please, we don't.
I just want to please.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
I just want to make sure people understand.

Speaker 1 (40:27):
Pike a deep breath.

Speaker 2 (40:28):
Justin Enna had the most aggressive one handed back end
in the history of women's tennis. She could step in,
she could crunch a return, she would hit the shit
out of this thing. It was like unbelievable how hard
she could hit this one handed back end, and especially
for someone who was Caitlin' size, not very tall. But

(40:51):
there's a difference between an aggressive, beautiful, attacking, one handed
back end and what I'm talking about, which is a
beautifully constructed shot. Okay, look, that's the difference. And her
the beauty of her backhand was the power and the
aggressiveness and how she could hit it. But it's not

(41:13):
and it was not, and it will never be as
beautiful as a Carlos Suarez Navarro, as an Emily Moresmo. Ever, well,
I do like just a fact.

Speaker 1 (41:23):
I do like the fact that you've talked about Rambo
Serla's Navara, who was one of my favorites. Yeah, that
was And you wonder why I call you, I'm calling
her that. Check out her headband mullet Era really was great.
It was very uh, I mean, come on, that's great.
It was a beautiful shot.

Speaker 2 (41:40):
But that but those were that's a different between you
know what it is. That's a difference between you know,
a painting.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
They called this gilding the lily beautiful just and Pollock.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
It's just like Pollock, just throw on playing against the thing.
This is a little different carry on for that one.

Speaker 1 (41:58):
The ptp A, the Professional Tennis Players Association to RECAP
launched a couple of years ago, has not had the
most overt mission strategic plan. They've thrown a lot of
grenades in a lot of different directions.

Speaker 2 (42:17):
They've sort of had I have had a lot of
power behind them though with Novak and with a lot
of money Phil bill Ackman.

Speaker 1 (42:22):
Has funded them. They've had at times very interesting players
align themselves with them. You said Novak vast Pospisil was
one of them on stuburr at one point was involved.
You know, they're they're not not relevant, but it's been
hard to kind of ascertain what their strategy has been
to essentially create a non union players union. I think

(42:42):
a player's union is necessary. Don't know why they haven't
embraced that, but setting that aside, what they have done
is file a ton of lawsuits and a lot of
different directions, some of which the players have signed on to,
some of them they haven't. And one of them, the
most recent one I think they launched earlier this year,
not only against the Tennis Australia but against all of
the Slam. Some details we know, which is that they

(43:02):
wanted more transparency, they wanted more pricemary sharing, They wanted
to understand us some more, say in the scheduling, you
know things that you look at the players and you
say that seems fair.

Speaker 2 (43:12):
Absolutely, But again, the.

Speaker 1 (43:14):
Way that they've gone about it, the way they've sort
of played the politics of this have been opaque at best.
So it was pretty surprising to see that the Tennis
the first.

Speaker 2 (43:23):
First bit about it was when they came out and
it was just like all.

Speaker 1 (43:25):
Guys, and I was like, guys there about years ago.

Speaker 2 (43:28):
Years ago. You know, that was their first misstep when
they had just all guys and just like guys. You
got to have the cults be a part of this.
The women be a part of this as well.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
See taking a picture with only men on the center
court to launch their organization at the US Open was
It's the play is a bit of a head scratcher. Again,
I keep talking about this narrative matters, the stakes matter.
If you're not communicating what your plan is. You can
have the best plan with the smartest people involved, but
it will not get traction. I don't know why it's
taken the folks in the tennis place to learn this,

(43:56):
but you know, no time like the present, so anyway,
they An announcement was made this week saying the PTPA
in Tennis Australia was close to a deal, to an
arrangement to settle, and I think, without knowing what that
settlement looks like, I have to imagine that it includes
at the very least, giving the players some more say
about how and when they play during the Happy Slam,

(44:17):
which is coming up very soon, so the next one
on the calendar in Melbourne late January, and that they
have more percentage of the profits made, which again we've
talked about this a lot. The Slams make tons of money.
They pay the players tons of money, but as a percentage,
they pay the players a ton less money than all
the other tournaments do with a few exceptions, but they

(44:39):
are not partaking in a lot of these profits, and
therefore the players want to make more hay out of
the fact that the Slams are making hay with their product,
which is playing. So again, without knowing exactly what the
settlement looks like, the politics of it are really interesting
to me because I think more than anyone else, it
seems like tournament director Craig Tyley, who you know and
I want you to ask him these questions when you

(45:00):
se him in Melbourne, has probably one of the closer
relationships to the players. Would you say that's true.

Speaker 2 (45:06):
Yeah, I would say, you know, it's interesting now, I'd
say Eric Bouderach now being just given the head job
of tournament director at the US Open, I think I
would argue that he has one of the better relationships
now with the players as well, So we'll see where
this goes from his standpoint. But I would say that
you know, interestingly to me and I don't know the
details as well, we are speculating and guessing.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
No, but respond to what I'm talking about literally just
Craig Tyler has a good relationship to the players. He does.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
Therefore, I think that he is aware of they're correct
in a lot of these things, and I think that
he is trying his best to make sure that he's
appeasing the players and appeasing the people that are the
reason why the tournament exists.

Speaker 1 (45:48):
And I think because of that, the Tennis Australia decision
making we've seen is out in front a lot of times.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
I would I would argue that, I think that and
again we're speculating, but I think Tennis Australia and Craig
Tyler to get ahead of this, and I think that
they're trying to get ahead of it knowing that it's
probably going to be a problem if they were to
go to court or if they were to open up
their books and they were show everything. They're like, listen,
we're going to get ahead of it. We agree that
we need to profit share a little bit more. We

(46:16):
understand this. Here's what we're willing to show you, here's
what we're willing to give you to you. And also
I would argue, and knowing Craig the way I do,
I would argue that and I don't know anything. I
haven't spoken to him at all, but I would argue
that he would sit down and be like, look, this
is what we make. And I would argue also that
Tennis Australia and the Austraian Open really suffered for a
number of years with COVID. It was awful for them.

(46:38):
They lost a ton of money. They had to They
were chartering flights for players to do buy and back.
They played qualifying in the Middle East of the Australian
Open during COVID. They were housing every single player in
hotels and their coaches. They pay for their flights out.
Tennis Australia and the Australian Open really took a hit
for a number of years with COVID. It was terrible
for them. So I would argue that they probably showed

(47:00):
them that, maybe opened their books up and said, look,
we're not rolling in the dough like the USDA.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
Or certainly the All England.

Speaker 2 (47:08):
Certainly the All England Club which alone.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
Is the most really crtially successful and did need money
during the COVID because they had the force say having
pandemic insurance. I mean crazy, but honestly, if any entity
of the Slams were the most on the hook for
proper sharing, it would probably be Wimbledon for sure. And
now and I think where this all goes, which is
why the level of analysis is sort of going to

(47:32):
be interesting when it becomes apparent what the deal is is.
It is hard to imagine now that the other Slams
will not either follow suit or face tremendous pressure not
to do the same.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
And I would say that Tennis Australia and the Austrain
Open have been under a bit of extreme pressure from
the Saudis from what's happening over there with the money
that's getting thrown at players, you know, and this is
easier too, always these dumb conversations from people saying, well,
maybe we take this strain open away from that.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
I'm one of them, we know, That's why I put the.

Speaker 2 (48:01):
Dumb in front of that common But you know, I
think that they're probably under a bit of stress and
a bit of pressure, and they're like, guys, we are
truly the Happy Slam because we do want to appease you.
But at the same time, this is what we are making,
and this is what we are giving you, and we
understand maybe we can give you more, but also understand
we're coming from a from a point of view where

(48:23):
we're trying to make this tournament better every year and
so for us to do that, we need more finances.
They are lucky that they have the help with the
Victorian government which really helped them, which understand the importance
of the Australian open for finances and financial you know,
profits of the Victorian government. But in the end, I
think Tennis Australia are gettinghead of this and it's going
to be interesting to see, as we talked about before

(48:45):
we even started the pod, where the rest.

Speaker 1 (48:47):
Will go now. I do want to I do want
to say one of the things that I would hope
the PTPA does. They haven't listened so far, but what
I hope they do is take this victory. I think
it's safe to say that it's a victory and be
really thoughtful, organized, meticulous and direct about how you then
build on it. And I don't know why they haven't

(49:09):
created a union. I also would diversify who's funding them.
Bill Lackman comes with a lot of baggage and work
more directly with a broader spectrum of players. They branched
out from having only men, at least in front of
the camera on their behalf. I think they need to
continue doing that to cultivate the next couple generations. And
if they don't do that, then the tours need to
do it. And in my mind, because the players hold

(49:30):
all the power, that's truly this means of production, the
labor here, they're providing the product. It goes back to
basic economics. Without them, this doesn't work. None of this works.
Nobody cares. And so what are we doing to ensure
that they're healthy, they're happy, and they don't have a
crazy season that's conflicting and making them fly every which
way in front of fans who maybe don't know about

(49:51):
the sport as much as they should. That's on the
governing bodies and the tours and the Slams and everybody
else accept the players. They need to just show up
and do their job. And so for me, I would
like to see this create momentum and have more than
just sort of you know, the whole ptp of thing
has felt a little like, you know, call one nine
hundred diabetes repair, like ambulance facing a little bit.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Here's the thing. I'll tell you what one thing I
do know, and I find this injury. There's a great
financial financier guy by the name of Howard Marx, and
he has this thing called the Memo which people out
there that are in finance or in the finance world,
are interested in finance. It's one of the great listens
for anyone that wants to learn about finance.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
This is a podcast.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
It's a podcast, and Howard Marks is one of the
most incredible. He's probably almost eighty now, but he's like,
you know, we're talking about Warren Buffett's sort of ish
respect in the finance world. He I had an interesting
conversation with him because he's a massive tennis fan. But
I had a really interesting conversation with One of the
things is, you know, the role of a you know,

(50:55):
anyone in finance is to understand what's the next right,
what's the next great thing? Like you know, the AI
bubby or bubble is now getting talked about, but like
twenty years ago, the companies that were huge were look
back on who the top companies were twenty years ago,
what's going to be the next thing in ten years,
what's going to be the thing after that? In twenty years,
Like we're talking about people wouldn't have talked about AI,

(51:15):
you know, twenty years ago.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
Now it's like sounding like me. I'm always the person
who's trying to get you to look at the horizon
instead of the way things have been done.

Speaker 2 (51:21):
He's looking at the horizon.

Speaker 1 (51:22):
Okay, great, anyway, see you all day, you know.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
But my point is, I think that Craig Tiley is
that guy. I think that Craig Tiler's always been that
guy that's looking ten years from now. He's not looking
about what's happening this year. He's thinking about what's going
to happen in ten years. Now. We see he's going
to be at Tennis austray at the Strain Open in
ten years. I doubt it because my god, I mean,
he's been there, he's been there a long time, and
he's done some fantastic things, and I would imagine at

(51:45):
some point he wants to do something else. But he'd
be great to run the entire sport.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
Frankly, but if I believed men should hold positions of power,
then I would agree with you.

Speaker 2 (51:55):
Yeah, well, you know, Tennis Ausraya has a lot of
women that work for him and under him. But my
point is saying this is that you always have to
think about the next And I think that Craig, he's
playing chess, and others are playing checkers. Sometimes should in
this industry. So I think it'll be interesting for me
in ten years time, if hopefully you and I are
still alive and friends. I want to look back in

(52:17):
ten years and go, oh my god, remember remember that decision,
Remember that tournament that we thought would be around forever.
You remember that exhibition that now doesn't exist. Oh, tennis
is completely Tennis might look like F one. It might
just be ten, twelve, fourteen major tournaments all around the
world and we just go boom, boom boom every single week.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
They all matter.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
And then we have a four months off schedule, which
I think would be frankly great. And then you put
the Grand Slams and you put five other tournaments or
ten other tournaments around that, and that's it.

Speaker 1 (52:48):
So I don't know.

Speaker 2 (52:48):
I think he's playing chess. I think he's getting ahead
of whatever is coming next. And I think Tennis Australia,
I don't want to say the weakest, but they are
certainly the poorest.

Speaker 1 (52:59):
I think the way to look get them in the
context of what you're talking about, which is capitalists. They
are the disruptor brand.

Speaker 2 (53:05):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (53:06):
Look, they have to be.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
We had a roof eight, like, come on, we were
way ahead of it.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
They have to hustle, and I think because of that
they've you know, now what seems to be happening. And
this is the through line about everything we're talking about,
is the folks who've been fat and happy for too
long in tennis are realizing. And this was something that
I was hoping would happen ever since I started racket
a decade ago, which is this sport has so much

(53:33):
optimization to go through, so much consolidation to go through,
and so much innovation to embrace that it is hard
not to see this being an inevitability. And I think
if you look at it from this angle, none of
this stuff is to be feared, and none of these
conversations are too difficult to look at. But you really
do have to take a holistic approach to say, like, okay,
what matters and why? And the only thing to me

(53:56):
that matters is the fact that more people are picking
up rackets and playing than they or certainly before I
started a racket. And you could argue that the eighties heyday,
still hasn't been a clipster achieved, which that's that's a
good goal. And then the second thing is are more
people embracing the sport, watching it, traveling to support it
and finding it out how amazing it is? And I
the answer to those two things isn't. Yes, does this

(54:18):
idea serve one or both of those ideas? Then keep
back to the drawing board, because the mind share that
actually tennis is competing against isn't tradition, isn't its own history.
It's everything else that people are doing with their time.

Speaker 2 (54:32):
Well, I'll tell you what it is. It's tevid, wrights
and sponsors, and that's and keeping the fans happy and
keeping the play is healthy. So on that note, guys,
it's been a real because we solved everything. I think
we went to Harvard today once again. Well let's go
to Harvard. Let's go to Penn Princeton zero. What's that
place out in Malibu?

Speaker 1 (54:50):
Oh I'll be I'll be at the London School of Economics.

Speaker 2 (54:53):
Oh okay, Yeah, let's get out of the let's get
out of the US exactly. All right, guys, thanks for
joining us again today. We'll see you next week. Oh,
on everybody, Happy Thanksgiving, and for those that aren't in America,
happy Thursday, because that's when Thanksgiving is here in the
US anyway. All right, guys, thanks for joining us today.
We'll see you next week.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
Bye bye,