↑ Grab this Headline Animator

So much has been written on tennis’s popularity — or lack thereof — in the States that it all seems a bit redundant at this point. But until the tennis establishment (that never ending list of governing bodies, including the ITF, ATP, WTA, and USTA) can figure out a way to stop the bleeding, the discussion will continue.

So with advanced apologies, I will ask the question yet again: why has tennis declined from its heyday years, from the 1970s to the mid-1980s?

Nothing is ever black and white; there’s always a lot of gray area in between. The shrinking popularity of tennis is a complex issue, with no one true answer.

On the top of everyone’s list of reasons is the shortage of media coverage of the sport. But is the lack of press really the problem? Reading is also declining in the United States, and the print media is scrambling for readers.

Limited television coverage is another major sore spot for the sport. Without TV, some claim that it will be almost impossible for the sport to gain fans. And they are right. Tennis is trapped is a Catch-22 situation. Without TV, the sport can’t grow. Yet until people begin tuning in to watch tennis on TV, no cable network will want to air a lot of coverage for a sport with low, declining ratings.

But that problem isn’t unique to tennis. NASCAR, which roared on to the scene to become the second most popular sport in America after football, is also facing a declining TV audience. In fact, television viewing as a whole has drastically gone down in the United States in the past couple of years.

What is the main culprit?

The answer is easy; you are using it to read this column. Technology. People are plugged in to the internet and are surfing Facebook and MySpace rather than turning on the TV. Video games are also hot. So hot that even that American icon, the Hollywood movie, is less popular than video games with younger audiences.

The men and women at the top of tennis must address the challenge that technology poses. Technology is the future, and not just for U.S. audiences. The internet isn’t an American-only phenomenon, and video games aren’t only popular in the U.S. Kids are accustomed to things moving at a fast pace, and most importantly, in an environment that they can control. Tennis doesn’t move quickly; it requires patience, strategy, and a bit of endurance (even on the part of the fan). In contrast, the images in a video game are larger than life.

Tennis’s decision-makers can utilize technology to its advantage to supplement television coverage. The ATP is now using YouTube to reach a larger audience. The ATP Masters Series TV gives fans with limited television coverage an opportunity to watch tennis on their computer screens. During the recent Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, the WTA offered free live streaming of the women’s final to viewers in certain countries that had no TV broadcast access.

More needs to be done. Masters Series TV is limited in scope. The live streaming is far too expensive and is limited to only Masters Series tournaments. Particularly short-sighted is the fact that matches can’t be watched on demand — they must be watched live. In addition, live streaming is inconsistent between tournaments. For example, Wimbledon offers nearly perfect live streaming coverage for fans in nearly all countries. The live streaming from the Australian Open, on the other hand, was limited to only a handful of fans; this caused much frustration and anger on the parts of the fans who were declined access. And to date, neither Roland Garros nor the US Open offers any type of extended live streaming during their fortnights of play.

With that said, tennis’s problems in America existed even before the start of this technology era. Yes, technology can and must be used effectively. But other changes must also be made, primarily to the sport’s image.

The diehard fan might find it hard to completely understand why so many sports fans in the States take a pass when it comes to tennis. Their reasoning can be summed up easily: many Americans consider tennis to be an elitist sport. Obviously the game itself doesn’t create an “only for the wealthy” image. The court is rectangular with lines and is played with a racquet and ball. Tennis is no different from many other sports: a playing field with a small assortment of equipment. While many people play the sport in some type of tennis club, most towns in America have public courts open to its residents. Buy a less expensive racquet and a can of balls, put on a pair of shorts, t-shirts, and sneakers, and a person is set to go play.

With tennis, it’s the people — who play and watch — that uninformed sports fans consider elitist. That is not truly the case. Many players come from humble beginnings, and so do the fans who watch the game. But the appearance is one of wealth, and the illusion overshadows the reality.

The U.S. is a bit of a paradox. Americans want to be rich, but they don’t like the appearance of having too much wealth. Americans consider themselves to have that strong middle class Common Man (and Woman) appeal, where hard work and not family connections determine whether you are a success.

Tennis doesn’t do much to dismiss the illusion; tournaments positively reek of money. From the corporate seats that take up almost half of the bottom tiers of each main stadium to the often temperamental players who take the court. Middle America isn’t amused by the on court temper tantrums of seemingly spoiled athletes who complain incessantly: it’s too hot, too cold, the fans need to be quiet, opponents’ sneakers are squeaking too loudly, and the chair umpires and linespeople are all blind. All that shh’ing reminds people of being in a library. And as the saying goes, if it doesn’t play in Peoria, the show will close.

So it takes players who can defy that upscale image to bring the average sports fan to the game.

Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe had charisma. That all important “it” factor. Brash, loud, and arrogant, they defied the upscale elite image of the sport held in previous decades. The Superbrat and the Brash Basher graced the covers of major sports magazines, and with every on court confrontation, their popularity grew. They gained an equal number of detractors, but the line between love and hate is slim. Either way, they grabbed fans’ attention.

In the 1980s, Andre Agassi was a showman extraordinaire, and Las Vegas a middle class paradise. Whether Agassi, in reality, had a larger than life personality didn’t matter, because it’s all about image in America.

When the Williams sisters hit the scene, they defied the stereotypical image of tennis, and with that came their popularity. Tennis could no longer be defined as merely a white upscale country club sport. Today when the Williams sisters play, television ratings double, but both women seem to be more interested in their fashion careers than success on court.

On the men’s side, Andy Roddick and James Blake both have the potential to be household names. Roddick definitely has the “it” factor to add fans to the game. With his dry wit and edgy on court demeanor that lacks Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe’s nastiness, the American has more the playful frat boy image than that of a member of an exclusive club. Blake has that boy next door charm that appeals to soccer moms.

But to date, neither Roddick nor Blake has shown that they have the game to win the big tournaments consistently. And without those big wins, it’s difficult for the men’s game to compete with the plethora of other sports vying for Americans’ attention.

Bottom line is that until the U.S. can produce another consistent Grand Slam champion with a bit of charisma and charm (or wicked ways), the game will be relegated to the back burner of sports coverage.

One can argue that America’s need for a winner is not much different from most other countries. Despite the fact that Tommy Haas is a good solid player, after Steffi Graf and Boris Becker retired, Germany seemingly lost interest in the sport. A recent article decried the decline of interest in tennis in Sweden. And even with Lleyton Hewitt, Australia is no longer the tennis powerhouse that it once was, and the interest in the sport Down Under reflects that.

Tennis is booming in parts of South America. But once Fernando Gonzalez and Nicolas Massu retire, will most of Chile will forget tennis and go back to soccer? Ditto Argentina, once the current crop of players runs their course.

Pre-Rafael Nadal, it was difficult to find tennis on TV in Spain, even during the Grand Slams. It wasn’t until the current Clay Court King began to win big that Spain became a Tennis Nation. What will happen if Nadal hangs up his Nike sneakers? And while Serbia loves Novak Djokovic and Ana Ivanovic’s winning style, will the love affair continue if no one takes their place in ten years?

There are ways to overcome the lack of an American winner to grow the sport in the Unites States. If the USTA and other tennis governing bodies would listen to the fans — rather than the players and sponsors — for just one moment, they could find a number of ways to gain back tennis’s popularity. Many Americans long for the days when fans were treated with some degree of respect. They want a day out with their kids to watch a sport without having to take out a bank loan to pay for the tickets and food. And above all, today they want to watch sports when and where they want to watch it.

Tennis is a great sport. Many of the men and women who play the sport have that “it” factor. But it’s going to take imagination — and a winner — to bring the sport’s popularity back in the States. The recent changes proposed by the ATP for the 2009 season are for the benefit of the players, not the fans. Until the tennis brass can find ways to put fans first and get the game out to the fans, it’s going to be a hard sell in the U.S.

No related posts.