Closed Era

And that's a wrap!

On the final episode of Open Era, Simon and Devang sit down for their 2024 Fireside Chat. Dev and Simon discuss the state of Tennis heading into 2025, share why they're concerned but also (slightly) optimistic, and examine how the podcast landscape has changed since 2019 when they started. To close out, they share their predictions for the future of sport and of course, thank our wonderful listeners.

Thank you for listening to Open Era! 

Sick of hearing all the ads? Subscribe to Soda Premium on Apple Podcasts to get rid of them!

Come join the Patreon family for bonus content, access to the exclusive discord server and ad free episodes.

Follow @OpenEraPod on Twitter! While you're there say hello to @DesaiDevang or reach out to the show and say hey: [e-mail]

If merch is your thing, be sure to check out the store.

If you enjoyed today’s show, please rate Open Era 5-Stars on Apple Podcasts.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:13):
Hello, and welcome to the Open Era podcast. My name
is de venga Side. For the final time, I am
joined by my co host, Simon Bushell. Open Era fireside
Chat twenty twenty five, technically twenty twenty four, but more
and born Bush. It's the finale of Open Era. We

(00:33):
started this pod in March twenty nineteen. You tell me, Bush,
which seems insane. I don't remember anything that happened in
twenty nineteen. Feels like a fake time in the world.
But the Raptor also underlined by the Raptors winning the
NBA Championship. If we needed any sort of signifier that

(00:53):
twenty nineteen was not real, the Raptors winning something, Toronto
winning something, it is the clear indicator. But Bush, how's
it going? Man?

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Not too bad? It is the end of end of
an era, a closed erar, end of an open era,
closed era. Finally got to say it, and.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
You got that in quickly. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
So you asked me the question of what happened in
twenty nineteen. Yes, the Toronto Raptors did win the NBA title.
Shall I list through some of the things just to
so I'm looking at the History Channel's website. So the
first thing it lists here is that the Muller report
was submitted. Thank God, no Christ, we have the Trump impeachment.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
Those Mullers, she wrote, Those Mullers, she wrote, people are
the only ones who came out successful. That doggled like
ten thousand people. They registered the successful patreons scared in
the pandemic world.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
It's true. The world events I think are slightly more
interesting than the US centric ones. So Emperor Akihito was
ad abdicated from after a thirty year reign. I was
in twenty nineteen Theresa May resigned of a Brexit negotiations.

Speaker 1 (02:08):
Do you think the emperor abdicating warranted a push alert
from the BBC rather than some some of the stuff
we're getting now with free of bush alerts. I'm like,
how is this news? I'm not signed up for this.
This is a news at all. Back in twenty nineteen,
I feel like that that would have meant the barometery.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah, I think that probably. Yes, the Emperor of Japan
abdicated seems like I.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
Would have hoped, you would have hoped it was an
innocent time, but yeah, you would have hoped.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
You had the Hong Kong protests and all the stuff
that came out of it.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
Did the Novak stuff happen in twenty nineteen January? No, no, no,
that's of course, how could it have, right?

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Notre Dame so Notre Dame April the fifteenth caught on fire. Also, like,
what is it this week? Do I remember? Twenty second
of December? Is it supposed to open or reopen?

Speaker 1 (02:56):
That's right?

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Yes, yes, it was incredibly closed. When I was there
eight weeks ago, it looked like it was still had
scaffolding all over it. So they had their work cut
out to hit the date. So I assume they're going
to get there.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
If you build it, they will come. And they are
oligarchs and the richest freaking people in the history of mankind.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yes, indeed, the speed of which everyone rallied around the
elite of society, it breaks out, it tugs and ngs.
Tony Morrison died trying to land them on the dark
side of the moon. What else do we have here?

Speaker 1 (03:34):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (03:34):
Yeah, the massive wildfires. It's not a good sign. When
I was reading this and it says wildfires destroy much
of Brazil's Amazon rainforest, and I'm like, which time?

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (03:46):
Which wildfireum? Which time? Because there's been quite a few
since then, because twenty.

Speaker 1 (03:50):
Twenty Australia was peak wildfire season as well. I remember
distinctly covering that at length on the pod. It's wild
to look back at this kind of time capsule because
I think when we made the podcast or started the podcast,
I don't know if it was forwarded to call us naive,

(04:11):
but I think we wanted to do a podcast or tennis,
but we lived not in the same city, and it
was like, how are we going to do this, Like
what's the what's the technology, what we need assistance, what
companies can we link up with? Like who do we know?
And these are all salient questions, but I think we're
on like the like the first wave of this push,

(04:32):
if you think about it, because of remote recording and
doing shows with your colleagues from all all across the place,
whether you were traveling somewhere, we were on the ground
floor of that. We were doing it before anyone was,
before they were forced to. So some credit to us
in twenty nineteen for believing the cross country records could
be done.

Speaker 2 (04:53):
And also think about the state of the podcast scene
as well, where we are in twenty twenty four in
December twenty twenty four. Versus Virio in twenty nineteen, talking
about the saturation of the market and also the direction
of it more broadly, like, it's been incredible to watch
it's a cent and the role that it's played. Obviously,
we're just a couple of months removed from the election

(05:14):
in the United States and seeing the impact of Joe
Rogan and alike and many of the podcasts that have
become mainstream media. In a lot of ways, they've managed
to hold a position in the media landscape that I
never thought podcasting would get to, for better or for worse.
I think I think I prefer it in twenty nineteen

(05:36):
than I do in twenty twenty four. I think that's
probably reasonable to say.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
Podcasters are literally changing the course of world events. You're not.
You're not coot. That's freaking you out of it?

Speaker 2 (05:47):
Well, I just don't. I think I look at it
through my own lens and through my own prism. I
don't feel qualified to remotely change the course of history
through this podcast, and I don't think anyone else.

Speaker 1 (05:59):
Really that's the problem, because I think the people who
have that hubrists are usually doing it for nefarious reasons.
Or malicious reasons. It's been really interesting. I mean to
talk specifically about tennis Bush and like media coverage and

(06:20):
our interest in this sport and why we started this
pod and kind of closing it at the end of
twenty twenty four, where I mean, God knows where this
thing's going to go, Like I really have no idea.
And in twenty nineteen, I did feel like there was
this same discussion. We talked about the end of an
era for like ten years, basically until we realized that

(06:41):
these guys would play much longer than their their predecessors.
But I feel like we did have some of these
conversations like what's next was the future? How does tennis
build from this? What do they need to do? And
we tackled some of these subjects. We talked about the ets,
we talked about how the game could be covered differently,
and I think the landscape now is definitely different. And

(07:04):
I think tennis did follow the lead of a lot
of other sports with these player driven podcasts, which have
definitely added something to the seer of coverage, because I
think that was lacking. I feel like tennis, more so
than other sports, relies on old greats in the commentary
lens and like on television a lot. But when you

(07:24):
talk about analysis and things that are happening on the
court from a more of a fan perspective or like
less of a mainstream media perspective, there weren't that many
players talking about tennis. I felt like, and I think
that's definitely changed. But I'm curious where you feel the
tennis media landscape is now Bush five years later.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
I think you're right. I think it's changed in that
regard the access to the players, eving having Dasha Katzakina
do a vlog right YouTube channel and continuing the success
of that, seeing things like and Erotics podcast doing well.
I don't know that it's quite got to like NBA

(08:04):
levels of active players who are at the elite end
of the sport doing podcasting or like direct media to
direct to consumers, even some of the twitch streaming stuff
that you see in football as well. I don't feel
like we're we're there. I mean, get my Feet is
a good example of someone who is a pretty active

(08:26):
to witch streamer. But I think tennis is just way
more conservative. I guess in some ways, like the top
end of the sport of people's pr and maybe maybe
there's something in the idea that the brands they work
with the consistent considerably more conservative as well in terms
of how they approach media and strategy. So I wonder
if there's something in that, like whether Rolex wants you

(08:47):
going on a six hour to witch stream playing Call
of Juicy. Probably not right. I think they would much
rather say nothing and then show up at a wine
dinner for Goldman Sachs almost certainly in fact, So I
wonder whether or not that's the reason why, Like it's
just the endorsements and the companies these players work where
they're just shittier. I don't know, that's my perspective. I

(09:11):
feel confident in saying shit.

Speaker 1 (09:12):
Yeah, incredibly interconnected me in the charitable way of saying that. No,
that's a really good point. Like I didn't really think
about that that aspect of it, where it's like brand
crossfire and you're saying something totally adjacent to maybe that
that kind of conversation, and yet you're you're reprimanded for it. Yeah,

(09:36):
I like, I don't think the Yeah, I don't.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
I don't so think of the brands that Tennis largely
works with. You have luxury brands, and you have the
banking sector. None of those are really wanting to be
more active in a new media space, like the clientele
that they're trying to appeal to, even the new new
vash kind of area. Like I don't see the way

(10:00):
that Vogue is doing its new media kind of strategy.
I don't think they feel like Yannick Sinner on a
TikTok is going to do a whole lot for them.
That's that, at least is my feeling around this.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
Perhaps this is a sign of where I'm at or
how cynical I've become, But I think there was a
there was room for the tours to lean into drama
in a way that is probably monoical dropping or a
monocal crashing, a monical worthy crashing consideration for these people.
But like if they were to lean into the drama
aspect of like Sinner testing positive, where's fiancee testing positive?

(10:38):
I think Mensik got he was tested mid match in
Riad if you've seen this at the Next Gen Final Swish,
So like there's things like this where him like you
can make this a spectacle, you can make this basically
a shit show and kind of lean into the fact
that who knows what's going to happen in tennis because

(10:59):
these are individuals and things changed by the minute, changed
by the second. It's totally unpredictable. Here's an example of that.
They clearly didn't do that, And I understand what they
were doing by by trying to protect their their prized
assets from scrutiny. But in this day and age, part

(11:20):
of me is like, it's better that people are talking
about you rather than not talking about you at all.
And and Schianta considered doping stuff not really making a
huge shop in the bucket in the widest sports world
was a big sign to me that we are in
a dangerous time for tennant's going forward. So whether or
not they like it or not, whether or not the brands,
brands are okay or comfortable with this, there's going to

(11:41):
be some sort of reckoning, isn't there, because there's there's
not enough attention to go around. But should I don't know.
I'm not as clued in with the gen z cohort
as others, but I don't know if there's like a
an appetite to watch five hours of Novak and Tailor Fritz,
you know, And I'm not saying that derogatory. I'm not

(12:01):
saying that's like a negative between those two guys. I'm
just saying in general, put any two of these people together.

Speaker 2 (12:05):
Yeah, but there is an appetite to watch twenty five
hours of Faker winning a League of Legends title. Right,
Like the idea of people not having enough attention span,
I always I've said there's a million times in the podcast.
Apologies for repeating myself again. People's attention spans aren't getting shorter,
Your content's getting shittier. It's just an excuse. It's constantly
an excuse that's pedled by people who are bad at
their job. Oh we can't, we can't appeal to any anymore. Well,

(12:28):
fucking try harder, Like, seriously, try things. There's a million
reasons of people trying to do things that are actually
successful out there. Try things.

Speaker 1 (12:38):
Could have almost been treat everyone the same that could
have been trying something last year. It would have been
a huge scandal and you could have got everyone cluing
in and watching the sport, or could have tanked the
sport forever because there could have been no questions to
the France cyclic style. I kind of want to talk
about this a bit bush. I don't know if this

(12:59):
is a seguay still Got It, Still Got It final
episode doing a segue. But we talked about this on
the discord A bit I saw Mikaylo Mutrik, Chelsea winger
Huge Transfer a couple of years ago, has been preliminarily
sanctioned for a doping test. I don't think he's ban
just yet. He's appealing Chelsea are backing him. But another

(13:20):
incident of a doping test kind of coming to light
a bit after the fact. I think missed a bunch
of games, but they said he was absent for other
They didn't say why he was absolute Really it turned
out later because he was found positive for that test.
But have the mensic thing mid match at the ADP
Next Gen Finals. This cursed event do we see in

(13:42):
twenty twenty five? A bit of the floodgates opening of
people getting caught and people with a lot more to
lose potentially getting caught, Like got do you get bigger
than the world number ones? But like I seem to
from your tone the way we've been talking, you seem
to think this is the beginning of something pretty big.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
I do. Yeah, it was an interesting discussion in the
discord as well about like the arms race between the
two sides, effectively the dopers and the people that are
trying to catch them. And I said, I think in
our predictions a few weeks ago, this concept of who
has more money, who has more at stake? Right, Like,
it's definitely not the side of the agency's trying to
catch people. They don't have the resources, they don't have,

(14:23):
Like all they have to do is credibility. If no
one knows that people are doping, then your agency has credibility.
That's like one of the built things that's in it,
which sucks for everyone. The only time that you don't
have credibility is when people start testing positive, which is
a double sord. It's quite funny if you start to
think about it. So I am of the opinion that

(14:47):
if these agencies feel like they are in a position
now and they feel strong enough that they can actually
start making inroads here, then they will do it. If
this is just like a one time thing to catch
people or to make a statement that we're still around,
it's perhaps not a sign of a wider trend here,

(15:09):
because it's the classic old like you go after one person,
make a point, make a scene out of it, and
then leave and then you're gone for like two years.
Or is this something more systemic where the two sides
have caught up to each other. I actually lean a
little more of the second than the first. I think.
I think we are in a position where we're going
to start seeing a lot of high profile people being caught.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
Yeah, I agree. I think as we've seen throughout the
history of sport, people will keep trying shit. They're going
to continuously try stuff that might not be legal in
terms of what's been written down as of yet. But
that being said, I do think those with more resources
will find better ways, as you alluded to in about

(15:53):
that arms race, and I think that it kind of
breaks down to, like how I don't know if there
is a sport that really exists this way anymore of
like this egalitarian everyone is equal push. I probably were
beyond the point, maybe never existed at all, and I'm
now full pie in the sky thinking. But like the
idea of a level playing field was always fake, was

(16:16):
never real, but it feels even more intensified today when
we see how people are treated than like beyond tennis,
if their names were Yannick San Diego or Ega Sanchez.
Are they allotted the same the same kind of protections
of course not.

Speaker 2 (16:37):
So.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
Yeah, I'm curious how far this could be pushed, you know,
before it becomes a total farce, because honestly, like the
play Dennish Apavalov, bless that kid, bust a guy man, Sorry,
he's a man, he's full at all. Like, I don't
agree with everything he says, but I do feel like
he is raising a really good question about things of
this nature, regarding how things are not equal and whether

(17:00):
or not those kind of complaints will be heard or
maybe acknowledged by the people involved in tennis. I think
it is. I don't think it's being swept under the
rug entirely. I learned just a lot of media about this,
but I look at bigger events that are covered and
things like that and understand that it really will be

(17:21):
a sideshow thing if at all, as we saw at
the US Open.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
Well, it's impossible to not have a discussion of inequality
and your brain to not lead to geopolitics and societal
issues like in twenty twenty four year, in a period
of time where you have the highest level of inequality
in human history since like people were getting pitchforked and
burned at the stake, Like it's literally as bad as that.
Tennis is just a vehicle for that. At the moment,

(17:46):
I don't think it's any different than any of the
walk of society. It just is baked into the system.
It's one of those things where you are trying to
protect the top players because of the money involved. And
then also if you're at the top, it's good to
be at the top. You'll stay there because you are
afforded more things than anyone else's. I don't know that
it's any more complicated than that, honestly.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
Dev Yeah, and I'm sure this will drop in ten
years or fifteen years, but I would like to I
would imagine that there was a few more of these
cases that we didn't know about in the last let's say,
twenty five years, twenty four years.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
The anger at inequality is the thing that if we
were to leave this podcast of like a touch point
in twenty twenty four, it's clearly something that's had a
through line that's becoming more and more anger inducing from
twenty nine, even when we started podcasting on the spot.

(18:44):
Chron Like you can see the through line of people's
awareness of the treatment of who is who is equal,
and who is not some people are more equal than
others or whatever. The animal farm quote is. That's the
direction of the world ultimately, and I think we're wherever

(19:04):
that ends up in the next ten years is going
to indicate a significant amount about the course of the
next century. Is ultimately whether or not you're going to
be able to flatten out this inner quality. Not to
sound too much like Gary Stevenson, is that the name
of the economist who was banging on about it. He's right,
like it is. I don't say that to demeanor. He's correct,

(19:25):
but he also has just been yelling from the rooftop
about it for the last like ten years. He Yeah,
can I tell you a story? Please go Actually, you
finished your shore Verst before I like segues into oblivion.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
No, I think you have the floor to do that,
because I was just thinking back back to twenty sixteen
and then twenty nineteen and then now, and yeah, I
think you should take the take the mic because I'm
a metal loss for words currently.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
Yeah, even you could argue seeing through the no, let's
not go down there. I was going to make a
Bernie Sanders twenty sixteen, twenty nineteen. Thing start of the podcast.
You know, there's yeah, there was a left answer to
it from a political perspective, like there was there was a.

Speaker 1 (20:10):
Candid that's the South Carolina Chevin Bernie out of the way.
Seems a bit surreal. It's like that that happened as well.
Still absolutely, oh it should not. It should not. Frankly,
this should not just become a soul of politics and
this pot but it might with the Canadian election on

(20:30):
the horizon as well. But yeah, I think tennis is
an excellent metaphor for the world. That's where I kind
of let out. It's a perfect perfect and maybe that's
why I find myself wanting to distance myself slightly from
the sport. I think that that could probably say a

(20:51):
lot on therapy bills with this, this realization in a
few concise sentences, but it no longer reminds me of
things that brought me as much joy as they did,
And I think that that's just a time thing. I
think that's a people I like leaving thing. But I

(21:12):
also think the state of the world is so so
damn reflected in tennis that it's impossible to ignore. And
I'm not saying the other sports aren't like that. God No,
then I'm still gonna watch tennis, don't get me wrong,
But covering it day in and day out. I don't
want to say nauseating is the right word Bush, but

(21:33):
unsettling perhaps is the one to bank on. And I
think that's kind of where I net out.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
Yeah, and just to sort of follow on from that.
If tennis is the vehicle to it, then the PTPA
and the union is the way out of it as well.
The only answer to inequality is to have power amongst
many people, and that is the mechanism because Josh right
in the Disko channel always come back to it, like

(22:01):
circling back to yes, join a union. That's that's the
point that you always seem to arrive at because it
is the one vehicle that you have in your labor
to affect change in the world. If you believe your
vote doesn't count and everyone is bought and paid for,
then you have to go outside of those mechanisms. I
think there's on the one hand, like the PTPAS is
the response to it, and a unified labor body. On

(22:23):
the other hand, it is your sort of like hyper individualism.
I will get just I will be the best person
I can be. I'll rise above everyone else, doggy dog
and you know, systems broken, but I will be the winner.
I'm going to come out the winner on the other
end of this, and everyone else, you know, like fuck them,
which is kind of what you saw in the US election.
Truth be told like that. Those are the two political

(22:44):
arguments that are just not being I'm not actually I
shouldn't say that. That was not the political argument that
was being put forth by the Democrats. And it's in
any capacity, and it's certainly not the capacity it's just
being seen in Canada or in the United Kingdom either,
like there is no current like willingness to deal with
the inequality in built in society. I think in Tennis

(23:05):
there is a little more of that. But I guess
to your point, is Chapeau seen as an outlier or
is he a vox uh vox markna? Is he a
voice of the a canary in the coal mine of
like people who actually feel about this way?

Speaker 1 (23:22):
I really optimist in me says he's he's one of many,
and I think that is true. It's tough in as sport,
as individualistic as this though.

Speaker 2 (23:30):
That's the that's the fun part, isn't it, because it
is such a good vehicle for wider society, is it?
We have put so much individualism into the world. Tennis
is the embodiment of that. Like, it couldn't be any
more individual. It's literally individual.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
It's the it's the guy with like family values, father
of ten in his bio and he's like, I care
about people, but when he means by by people, he
means my family. That's it, Like my family, those ten people,
that's it. Like, that's that's all. Like if everyone else, Like,
we've reached the point where doing a kind thing is

(24:06):
a political act basically, And I think in tennis, like
for example, anyone even uttering a word about Zverev not
being a good person or not being someone that should
be held up as the face of the ATP going forward,
they're what like excommunicated basically or forced to put up

(24:26):
an ig story apology almost immediately. So yeah, I'm I
believe Chapa is not alone. But I do wonder if
there's like the clickisms that that were a problem in
the John mcenrode's are just as much of a problem today,
And like there's there's a part of me as well
though that I and we talked at length about Vashiak

(24:48):
and Novak and the PTPA and like skepticism and what
have they achieved and like what what's going on here?
We are rooting for them. It may not sound like
it all the time, but we are, and I do
think that, God how they are important. Like I think
Vashik especially is very important in this discussion because I

(25:09):
know Novak is speaking for the people and a lot
of everyone respects him and they know what he's done,
and he has a huge vegaphone. But you need people
who have been in the mack to the extent that
vashikas to speak as well. I think that's where Dennis
can carve that lane as well. He's an excellent tennis player,
but I feel like there's also potential to do more

(25:30):
beyond the court if he continues this way, right, So
I think there is reason for optimism in that regard.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
I think there's a really fascinating discussion, which is honestly,
it's at the core of a lot of the labor
movement as well and wider society as well. And I
think tennis is a good example of this, which is, ultimately,
why are you Are you just using this as a
vehicle to get power to burn the system down to
effectively like you as an individual, feel so aggrieved that

(25:59):
you don't you Ultimately you're You're not there for nefarious means,
but you're there for the reason that, like you have
people standing behind you to gain power in a way
which is like disconnected maybe from the wider labor body.
It's just purely there as an act of defiance. And
on the flip side of it, there is like, no,
I'm in this with solidarity to the rest of the

(26:22):
people here because I understand and connect to the issues
that they have, and I still don't know which way
this body leans on that. I think there's a huge
amount of people that do feel like a level of
empathy and sympathy for people ranked one hundred and ninety
in the world and for the inequality for people having

(26:44):
to go on at three am. But the problem is
that that's not really the people who are leading this.
Even vas Igpospersil, for all of his faults and for
all of the good things, the dude is a millionaire, right,
And it is a different conversation between a millionaire and
a journeyman player or journey woman player who has ranked
three hundred and ninety nine in the world and is
earning twenty grand a year.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
One is so true.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
Yeah, one is there just to be like fuck everything,
I hate all of it. You've had too much power
and it's it's not like I don't mean to diminish it,
because there is something really valuable in that, but it
is a bit like toys out of the prem I
just want to be the king. And the other one
is like a genuine level of connection that you have
to have. You have to have genuine empathy for other
people to be able to join with them and recognize

(27:28):
the struggle they have.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
Yeah, I don't. I would. My guess on that percentage
is not great.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
My that's mine as well. I don't. I don't think
there is a I don't know.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
It might be a messaging thing, to be honest, though,
like all politics, like if you want to get people
on your side, I think there's a way to to
message it. But this goes back to a bit of
the competing interest thing though, because like even even if
you were to get a rally and galvanize the people
against let's say, like, let's say you wonder after a

(28:04):
specific nature of a rule that they had that was
Wimbledon and the men's and women's separation and unequal, unequal
locker room accommodations, et cetera, things like that they were
to come together and to go against Wimbledon. And then

(28:25):
one player is like, well, I have this deal with Slazenger,
and Slazenger's logo is all over the grounds here. They
won't like me to do that. That's one player. What
about the ten people who don't have that deal right
with Slazenger? Like, how do you get them on site?
And I think there is a way to be like, listen,
in the if this goes perfectly, you will be in

(28:46):
that position to have the deals with these companies where
you don't have to speak up if this goes perfectly.
But the chances of that happening are quite limited and low.
So what is this really about? Like you were saying,
I think there's a way to get people on side
with an argument like this, And I do wonder how
messaging can kind of can tweak that because my other

(29:10):
question is, like the people who watch tennis, the fans,
I don't know if there is on board with this
as we are, but ash as well, and I think
that's a bit alarming, is to me in the sense
of I don't know if player representation and player power
is at the forefront of the average tennis spectator's mind.

(29:32):
We could say they know five of them because they
know five players.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
So I think you're right. Yeah, I think you're right.
And also, if you want to sort of zoom out
to a macro level, tennis is older and wealthier and
more conservative in voting habits as well.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
It's better than golf, but you can only get by
on that for so long. Better than golf was basically
the tagline in the last twenty twenty five years. Case
is what that was on slide one of one hundred
deck PowerPoint.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
We are better than golf.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
We're not as bad as these guys.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
The power of positive thinking.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
You can play your you can play your way into
luxury and one percent of one percentage land if you
do the following things.

Speaker 2 (30:30):
I feel like the one percent stuff is really interesting
in tennis because it's effectively like Tennis's entire marketing strategy
is please one percent fucking pay attention to us. That
is the whole marketing strategy In a nutshell, I could
save that the PowerPoint deck and just do that. It's
if I could go to this is please Elon Musk
buy our tour. That's what we're desperately hoping for. That

(30:51):
someone someone likes playing tennis in the country club at
the weekend and Jessica Pegulu's father buys the whole tour.
That's their strategy from now on.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
I'm heading to the land of Larry Ellison or as
you listen to this. But my other sneaky bet about
the future of tennis is that you have someone legitimately.

Speaker 2 (31:13):
Just buy everything like the Saudis.

Speaker 1 (31:16):
And no, maybe not them though, because I it sounds
like if any any reports about the PIF and how
much they're scaling back or true, I don't know if
they're going to be going all in as much as
we thought on sports.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
Yeah, I yeah, I think you're right.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
Yeah, or more so like an Ellison guy Allison type
person getting the four majors together and going Okay, we're
going to do this now mm hm, and then you
get the Super Tour.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
Yeah. Because tennis is relatively small in the grand scheme
of things. Of how much it would cost to do
all this stuff and the quantities of talk about illequality
of the people who actually have the money to do this,
Like there's definitely people in the world or that could
do it. You see a scenario, whether it's like a
like a big tech or like a finance organization who
just buys the tour.

Speaker 1 (32:04):
Who that's the beginning of the end? Right, Yeah, you can't,
that's oh boy, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
Like tennis isn't a growth market though, right, Like if
you went.

Speaker 1 (32:13):
Seven seven seven partners, Yeah, if one of these venture
capital firms come in, there's tried to bid for Everton
ten times and failed, and they are interested, you know,
you know, there's big, big problems.

Speaker 2 (32:25):
I think I think you're right. That seems more likely
than the big tech like or like a Netflix style
takeover of a tour. It seems more likely it's going
to be gambling than it's going to be anyone else.
Like you can see a scenario where BET three six
y five just buys the entirety of the vehicle and
then runs their own media company out of it, just
because they know there's degenerates out there and they have

(32:45):
the product to be able to do it, and then
fuck the rest of it like, that's really the darkest
timeline for a lot of things. It's also I think
probably quite likely, and I don't think it will be tennis,
but I do think another sport will be like that
maybe soon as well.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
I mean tennis was one of the fore runners of
this right on bet Musis five especially, you could watch
anything on there in terms of like the level for
a long time. Yeah can I yeah, I yeah, go
for it.

Speaker 2 (33:15):
I was gonna take us in a different direction. But
if you want to finish your finish your bit.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
I'm good.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
I'm good.

Speaker 1 (33:22):
I'm good. I am fearful tennis is going forward or
what's going to happen, But that's not breaking news.

Speaker 2 (33:30):
Yeah, this is a backdoor pilot for our Last Word
on sports esque new podcast. We talk about nothing in
the actual sport, but only talk about the things around it. Okay,
I want to tell you a quick story and I
promise it does have a point, so stay with me.
So as someone who is pretty much mind blind, so

(33:51):
I can't picture anything in my brain, like I have
no mind's eye, which is an interesting position when.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
You can't imagine anything.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah, like I can't visualize it, sorry, in my brain,
like it's so if someone says, like, imagine an apple,
I can't see anything, like I can't visualize the apple.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (34:11):
But the interesting part about is that periodically, once in
a in a couple of in a blue moon, I
get very very visual dreams, like the kind of thing
that I imagine people do have in their mind's eye normally,
And they also happen to be just very strange, like
very very strange concepts and ideas because they like slam
a bunch of things together. So a few weeks ago

(34:33):
I had this thing and I wrote down some notes
for it. It was after the Tyson Paul fight, and
it was over this idea of spectacle and drama and
like it was edging towards professional wrestling, edging right, Like,
no one's claiming this was scripted. No one's claiming this

(34:53):
as like.

Speaker 1 (34:55):
People were claiming, okay, let's back up, if you were
putting it on the people are throwing it, we're claiming that, yeah,
that there is not script.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
So there's the adjacency between Roman reigns and seth Rawlins
fighting in the main event of WrestleMania and Jake Paul
and Mike Tyson fighting irl. They're not that far apart
from each other. And I'm thinking, like, how long before
we start to see those worlds merging is the sport?

(35:27):
Is sport so sacred that there has to be something
real about it in terms of the competitiveness or do
you get to the point where you're like, is someone
more interested in just the story of two people competing
in a tennis match? And it's like the actual physicality
of the sport doesn't matter as long as you can
tell a story. So what I'm trying to say is,

(35:49):
is there a world in which in ten years time,
the US Open final is competed between two people and
it's predetermined they're playing out a story between each other,
And maybe there's the the is the actual one that's
taking place as well? But is there like a Netflix
version of it? Is there a storytelling version of things
where we live in this world that's so dramatized that

(36:11):
people and sports been so sacred. It's been to protected
so much from this idea, But there is no reason
why it couldn't happen because like film has taken place,
like it's oh no, that's the role of film, that's
the realm of like TV series and drama, is it?
Like professional wrestling pretty much demonstrates that that's not true.
Like people will go and watch acrobatic, athletic things that

(36:33):
are predetermined. Why is that not the case in other sports?

Speaker 1 (36:37):
It's provocative. It's a provocative point. I guess, like they
tried it a bit with American gladiators that wasn't that
wasn't rigged all or not rescripted.

Speaker 2 (36:46):
Sorry, that was rigged.

Speaker 1 (36:49):
I don't. I don't know. I parton. For me, this
feels like dystopian and like I like wrestling. I like
I like the pageantry, I like the storylines, I like
this opera idea, Like I like reality TV. Like I'm
not against it at all, so like I think sports
is really just that. And in the sense of like
it's reality TV, right if you made it so that

(37:12):
you knew that it was predetermined, I don't think it
works because of the the way fandom works. I think
there is And I'm not as big of a wrestling
guy as you, so you tell me if this is wrong.
But I think in wrestling, part of the joys, like

(37:37):
it's it's menibal, like you could it changes. You're not
the same the person you like the most isn't the
same from like maybe era to era he switched up.
You could have been a stone cold guy, and then
I don't know, you're a seth rawlins person. Like there
doesn't have to be necessarily like a linear reasoning, Whereas

(37:58):
I think a lot of the the sports stuff is
like I don't want to say familial. I think it's
like giving it too much credit, but like I think
it's more embedded in society. So to take to take
to take that away, I guess would be like imagine
in college football, you told like you you got to

(38:22):
a point where everyone knew someone else has written this
script for the year. I don't think it works anymore,
even for as insane as Americans are for college football,
even though sometimes it does feel scripted because everyone thought
Alabama was gonna get into the college football playoffs till
they didn't because they're Alabama. So like, I get what

(38:43):
you're saying, and I think we are definitely on the
road to these type of events, if not already there.
But whether or not it's penetrates the leagues that we
all talk about, the Super Bowl things like that, we're
talking about like the end of these leagues, right, we're
talking like twenty one hundred the next ball game, or

(39:04):
are we talking about in twenty years from now?

Speaker 2 (39:07):
No idea. Yeah, I've got no idea. And I think
if you're going to see something like this, I think
it exists outside of the traditional sporting world because I
think there is there's a bigger dissonance, and there's a
larger jump that someone has to make and just even
a length of time. Right, the idea of going on

(39:27):
watching ninety minutes of Everton playing Arsenal and the knowledge
of it being prescripted. There's a lot of drama and
story that has to go into it. The choreography needs
to be able to do this and to make it
actually work is you know, it's significant, Like it's not
a small task. So I wonder whether or not there

(39:48):
are sports that actually it fits better with, like if
this and so one of the reasons that I thought
about this is that the constant desire, right, the constant
desire always for the reduction in length on on product
is that the end goal of that is that you
get down to just nothing. You get down to like
an emotion, a beat which happens. It's like, how long

(40:11):
do you want a tennis match to be That's the
thing I always want to ask, like these marketing executives,
we've got to make the game shorter? How short? Like
to what end do you want to do this? How
short is a good amount of time? Is it one set?
Is it one game?

Speaker 1 (40:25):
Like?

Speaker 2 (40:25):
What are you trying to achieve with that statement? Because
I think that's the fascinating part about it is if
you truly do like reduce it down to Okay, we'll
play a tiebreaker and that tiebreaker is live streamed between
two very competitive celebrities, but it's predetermined and people watch it.
Is that still fucking tennis? I have no idea. Someone

(40:46):
tell me the answer to that.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
It'll get easier to do this once there's there's like
less undoubted stars, like for like what the NBA does
post Lebride, KD. Curry have? Like will the rules be
even remotely the same as they were? I don't think so. Like,
I think we're talking about some really huge changes to
how that sport is played entirely. So if that, I mean,

(41:10):
if we're on track for that, I don't think anything
is sacred, right, Like I don't tennis what tennis looks
like on a tour level in twenty three is going
to be different, perhaps jarringly different, and it'll be easy
to do so because we're not tied to era or
the Golden Era or six hour epics. So I think,

(41:31):
I think there's going to be a siphoning of the
cord between what we've known, what's been tradition, and what's
to come. And I'm not sure I'm going to be
doming down with all of these changes, But I mean,
I think the NBA is going to be the league
to watch in this space because they seem cognizant of
the idea that the game is kind of broken and

(41:53):
some changes need to be done. And I think you
can say that about most of these leagues, right.

Speaker 2 (41:58):
I agree, it's the death of the global sports celebrity,
which is sort of happening in real time before our eyes.
Is that who comes after Serena Williams, Leo Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo,
Roger Fedder, Rapinidal. You know all this Nmi Osaka. Osaka
is actually a pretty good and interesting case for that
of being slightly younger out of that group. But broadly,

(42:21):
if we've atomized everything and broken everything down, even that
you know that ties into the election as well, right
in the United States, is that there was this big
pitch from the Democrats and from the Harris campaigns utilizing
to lean into the big celebrity. Is it is the
Beyonce of the world, like the Taylor Swift, the global
power like these are huge, huge figures. Or do you

(42:43):
just like go in the opposite direction where you're on
twenty Manisphere podcasts or fifty biggest Manisphere podcasts, all of
how have a very rabid audience of you know, hot
blooded Nazi adjacent men who are willing to anything that
you're selling to them. But like those are more motivated

(43:04):
voters and aren't captured. I just think that's really like
a fascinating the death of like the global celebrity aspect
of it as well.

Speaker 1 (43:10):
I think local. Okay, all right, we're at forty five Bush.
This is the last episode, so I'm not I'm not
concerned about length, but perhaps we'll we'll try and wind
this down, can we in a bit? But uh yeah,
go for it.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
One question for you that's your to work through on
this final episode. Nah, I don't know, well, I mean,
what what what do you take out of the media
coverage that not necessarily that we've done, but the direction

(43:55):
of media that's actually useful for people to do add
a local or like individual level. I like the conversation
between us, what's the direction of media that is actually
useful to continue to have a voice in the world.
Is it useful? I just came up the back of saying, like,

(44:16):
you have a bunch of Nazis now running podcasts who
have like got the air of people. Is it even
valid or useful for us to be in the media
like and I mean not traditional legacy media, because there's
a there's a wider conversation about that, but like homegrown,
direct audience twitch podcasting. I'm not sure. I am not sure.

Speaker 1 (44:42):
I don't know if you ask me that in like
early November, when I was at the nature of all
thoughts regarding like good things and optimism, I don't think
my answer would be very good in a sense of like, well,
the answer is no, Like I don't see it heading
in a good place. I don't see the resources being

(45:06):
allocated to the people. Are the publications that you could
work anymore? Like I see it kind of going in
different directions, not necessarily saying it's all bad. I think
a lot of people are doing great work still, but
I think the way people are rewarded now, it's not
necessarily for the most the most impactful work that I like,

(45:29):
at least in my opinion, right, Like, I think there's
definitely a market for these things, and I think I
kind of scoffed at in the beginning, whether that be
over the top fan reactions or like you have even
beyond Arsenal fan TV, which I think was the canary
in the coal mine for like what what ended up
happening in the larger space of Like, I think it's

(45:52):
good that anyone can be abundant literally that's what we
tried to do as well. I think it's good that
there are no limits to access in terms of getting
a podcast out there, or getting your tweet out there
or your Instagram post. I think that that's awesome. That's
why I sort of fell in love with the media game,

(46:14):
I would say, and why I wanted to do this
so badly. It was great. I think what happened was
that I think once capital got interested in and we
had people trying to make as much money out of
it as possible, obviously we lost our way and we
were led down the wrong directions to whether it be
video and Facebook or or frankly every publication that we've

(46:39):
kind of loved being bought by a hedge fund or
a venture capital firm. It looked like it was going
in this direction for a while, but I guess the
idea that we had so many individual organic fan perspectives

(46:59):
kind of allayed my fears. And now we've sped up
to the point where I find a lot of those
fan pov kind of things, even for fans of like
the things I love, not my cup of tea at all,
and I really have a hard time getting into that
sort of stuff now, And I wonder what that says

(47:20):
about maybe my level of saturation to like what I've
maybe consumed or consumed too much of. I don't know.
I think that there are places that are doing good
work now, There are people that are doing good work now.
There are ways to get your work in front of
people now that weren't around before, and I think that

(47:42):
will always remain positive. But I think in terms of
like who gets rewarded who, or who gets rewarded for what,
or people are seeing, what are the types of things
that are rewarded that is created a situation that I
find quite awful because a lot of the places I
like to hang out in the social realm online are

(48:06):
basically uninhabitable anymore, and they make me quite sad to
be on. So I think I'm still generally kind of
pessimistic bush about what exactly the future is going to
be in this media sense. What is the goal? I
think is really interesting, Like I work with a lot
of young kids at my work now and like kind
of like a mentor position, which I think is interesting

(48:27):
considering I don't find myself like basically if I was
twenty now, I'd be like, well, is this something I
want to do? And I think when I talk to them,
I'm reminded that yes, Like it's not a lost cause
by any stretch of the imagination, And the fact there
are people that are fifteen years younger than me, with

(48:50):
a great head on their shoulders that want to get
into this kind of stuff is awesome to see. I
guess my question is is making a living? The goal
is having a good job with a good salary and
good benefits. The goal is affecting positive change. The goal
like are these things that can we do? These things
within the current sports media ecosystem or video ecosystem in general.

(49:14):
Some of these things I don't think are like that true.
Really like living wage in media in generalal is hard
to come by. I'm seeing Jaws posted for some pretty
outrageous salaries, but that's kind of how it is, right
because you're supposed to love this. So I think that
aspect not changing with everything as everything else changes is
quite alarming to me. But I do think there is

(49:39):
there's there's reasons for hope in the sense that people
are still trying to get into this space that I
think have good intentions, which is kind of the whole point.

Speaker 2 (49:46):
Yeah, I agree, I agree there's something.

Speaker 1 (49:49):
That was really long, but I apologize.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
Yeah, but I think it's a great answer. I was
watching a YouTube video the other day and it was
it's kind of a throw go back one to your
two thousand and six era YouTube, and one of the
top comments really made me just like stand still. I
fell to my knees in a Walgreens and it was

(50:13):
basically saying like this had It was summarizing as like
the video had the energy of early YouTube, where purely
and simply it was someone who was sharing something that
they were really passionate about without any real subtext of anything.
It was purely and simple, like a one way of

(50:34):
this is really cool, don't you think it's cool as well?
And me sharing that idea or the person sharing the idea,
No ads, no sponsorship, no nothing. It's completely disconnected from capital,
completely disconnected from the idea of a product. There's something
really sincere about that, and I hope that doesn't go away.
I think that's been eaten in the last twenty years

(50:56):
of the ownership of the Internet, and I wonder whether
or not there's a vehicle for that to exist in
this version of the Internet and in this version of media,
because I don't see a lot of it anymore. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (51:09):
No, it's really well said.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
And we can't leave it there.

Speaker 1 (51:13):
Yeah. I was gonna say, let's leave it there.

Speaker 2 (51:15):
No, we've got to end in a positive.

Speaker 1 (51:19):
Yeah. I want to maybe a final tennis positive note.
I've had a blast to in the show man. I've
had a blast talking over the five foot plus years
with our wonderful discord friends, Loup, Josh, Brianca, Pog. I
hope Pog is listening if he's out there. We haven't
talked to him in a bit, but I go on

(51:42):
easy Torquette. I mean, so many people that we met
through the show, Bush, that we talked tennis with. I
got emotional thinking about it. It's it's been a trip.
I think that Discord will continue on. Hopefully with some
help from our space monkey friends, we'll figure that out.
But yeah, just a lot of reminiscing about the show

(52:05):
and our our journey together in podcasting, my journey with Tennis,
my journey with my dad man Tennis, and losing my
dad this year, and just a lot of emotions. Like
I felt quite sad when we decided, like we agreed
this was going to be it, but I think as
we got closer to this final record, I also was

(52:27):
feeling like I didn't almost not want to do it
because I was sad to see it go. But I
think as you recorded this episode, it felt cathartic, but
it also felt like I'm excited about the next thing
as well, Bush, and whatever that is we do. I
think I think there's there's a venues for us to explore.

Speaker 2 (52:47):
I agree. I think the kind of like emotional core
of this show coming to an end, or at least
like for me personally, I don't feel a level of
sadness around our relationship for the podcast ending, because I
think our relationship continues and I don't think this is

(53:09):
the last time that make media together either. So this
doesn't feel like an ending of a podcast which means
the end of a friendship or the end of a relationship.
I don't feel that way. So I don't feel sadness
around it. I think what I do feel immense sadness
and appreciation and just gratitude overall. It's just the idea
that even you have a group of people that are

(53:34):
that are willing to listen to at what time is
nonsense between the pair of us. And then a perspective
on a sport which largely doesn't exist or it's quite
a small element to it, and finding a pocket and
finding a community is so really, very genuinely difficult for
people in twenty twenty four, especially living in North America

(53:57):
or in like very highly capitalized worlds neoliberal countries. I
should say, so that to me that feels like the
hardest part to me, I feel like in some ways
that like I do feel like letting down a community
of like breaking a community, which that that's that's tough.
That's that's difficult for me, but it will keep going.

(54:22):
Like people find different spots as well. And I think
there's good people making media in tennis, and I think
that that kind of thought that is there around that,
that passionate idea of what tennis could be, like, the
ideals that we aspire to and what to see in
the sport, those things won't go anywhere. I think they
will find other avenues for it. But I think that's

(54:45):
the part that really sticks with me the most, and
I'm so just eternally grateful to find even a small
engaged group of people that share similar ideas. It's nice,
it's really lovely.

Speaker 1 (54:58):
Who it's really well said, sir. I bet you there'll
be a time, probably after some dumb shit happens at
the third Route in Gushtad, that they'll be like, I
wish we could record it tomorrow because this was the stupidest.

Speaker 2 (55:10):
Thing I've seen.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
But overall, I feel I feel good about this dis decision,
and I think it's also kind of at the right
point in terms of my relationship with tennis as well. Bush.
I'll be up watching this Australian tennis action. Don't get
me wrong y and Sambia doesn't waiver and we'll be
texted about it and chatted bet on the discord hopefully.

(55:34):
But it's the end of an era. It's the end
of open Era as we know it. I wanted to
thank our friends at Space Monkey throughout the whole ride
since twenty nineteen onward. Obviously had a pandemic in there,
but I mean Clay Dylan Greg our friends over there.
Thanks a lot to them for all their support helping

(55:56):
us skeet this out. Thank you all our guests. We
had a lot of our friends on this show, people
who took time out of their schedules to talk tennis.
Often took time out of their schedules at weird timings
as well, thanks to time zones and stuff. It was
a blast having them on, having them on to talk tennis.

(56:18):
I know when we started this bush that was such
a novelty that we had a place to bring people
on to talk tennis. And I still think that's one
of the proudest things I am in terms of this show,
like what we did there, the fact that we got
on CTV News Network and CBC News and with the
open Era on the cryon and going to the Vancouver

(56:40):
Open at that country club and feeling like we were
going to get kipped out because we didn't have the
right shoes to covering the Rogers Cup. To have a
new in Toronto with the space on Keep Studios and
doing a show, It's been a trip, man, and I'm
really thankful to have done it with you you throughout years,

(57:03):
because I think when I left Vancouver, I was worried
that our friendship would change, and I think it has changed,
but it's changed in positive ways and I think I
credit the pods for that as well.

Speaker 2 (57:16):
I think that is a great way to end the podcast,
which is I think it has made our friendship stronger, closer,
and better. And what more can you say? That is
the strength and value of a podcast.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
Perfect, All right, we'll leave it there. Thank you to
Clay and Dylan on the ones and twos. I think
this is a coll ad from them to get this
out ahead of the holidays. But again, thank you so
much to space Monkey for all of your support. A massive,
massive thank you to our supporters on the Patreon. Like
I said, friends for life over there, tennis, friends for life.

(57:52):
Whatever tournament goes down, I'll want to be talking about
it with them. We love you, guys. Thank you so
much for support. Thank you to anyone who's listened to
this pod. People have reached out via email, via Twitter,
whatever means the world. Thank you so much for your
kind words to us. Okay, we'll leave it there for
Simon and myself. Thank you so much for listening to

(58:14):
Open Era. Thank you for enjoying tennis with us. We
hope you enjoyed tennis in the future, and hopefully we
talk to you soon. Take care of