Thanks for this. But for me this doesn’t add much clarity. Lots of words, not many specifics. Like not a single proposal on moving forward. Oh and one of the plaintiffs wants to tank doubles. This is a mess and PTPA isn’t really helping.
Two things occur to me; one from when I first heard of the PTPA lawsuit and its language, and a second one after reading this interview:
• Why is there no succinct, for-the-public list of how the PTPA has tried to engage those entities they'd sued? Amorphous statements in their web site's announcement – "Following years of good-faith efforts to reform professional tennis," combined with, "We have exhausted all options for reform through dialogue" – tells us nothing of substance. Okay, maybe the details are buried in the 163 page filing, but why not build a case in the court of public opinion, with an easy to read recitation of how the defendents have failed to address the PTPA's complaints? At the best this is bad marketing, at the worst it suggests the PTPA's not having receipts for their failed (sic) good faith efforts means there are none.
• Nassar's lack of details, as noted elsewhere in the comments, is disturbing. Saying, "illegal, illegal, illegal," over and over doesn't make it so. What, specifically, is illegal in what's being done? What laws are being broken? Bullet list, anyone? Again, something simple for public consumption isn't a big ask for dedicated tennis fans, let alone the more casual sports fan. Similarly, Nassar can't cite what the PTPA wants, how many players to be able to make a living, a more reasonable (sic, again) ranking system? As you point out, Ben, those would appear to be minimum expectations for an association filing a 163 page lawsuit, and things the Exec Director should have at their fingertips.
All of which doesn't mean the PTPA doesn't have legitimate gripes. But, jeez, this is far less than a convincing presentation.
Lively, informative interview, Ben, with good questions. Nassar is correct that the PTPA doesn't have to have all of the solutions to tennis's problems to win the lawsuit, or even to file the lawsuit. And maybe he doesn't want to reveal his desired solutions just now, to have a stronger negotiating position when that time comes. But you'd think he'd be able to sketch out some vision of what they'd like the sport to look like, and what sort of things might make them happy. I'm not someone who thinks tennis is perfect, but his vagueness is frustrating, and takes away from the PTPA's credibility a bit.
Also, there's no requirement that plaintiffs must be angels to win a lawsuit, but there are some scuzzy people among the named plaintiffs in this case. To be fair, I don't know anything about most of them. But if you offer me a chance to hang out with Nick Kyrgios, Sorana Cirstea, Tennys Sandgren and Reilly Opelka, I'm politely declining and walking in the opposite direction. (And I thought all of this before I saw that Djokovic has been palling around with RFK Jr.) That also makes me wonder about the PTPA.
Good interview. A class action suit will costs millions (because it can’t really be done on a “lawyers work for nothing but get a cut of the win” basis). The filing in the UK is just a complaint to the Competitions and Markets Authority - not the start of a legal process (which would also cost millions). Haven’t checked the EC one but likely the same.
I do find Nassar vague in every interview he does - it was the same when he was on the Served podcast a while back. As someone else comments here, just saying it’s illegal doesn’t make it so.
Also the carrying capacity of the pro game - there are people making money in Germany on its interclub circuit (name escapes me for a moment? - are they included in this?
Vague and incoherent. I do t think anyone could tell you what the “illegal” part is. The closest was about tournaments not being able to decide their prize money and points. But note too how agents aren’t in this suit. Yet they often own the tournaments.
On NCR i would be curious to hear your thoughts on the interview and how other people around the tours (not necessarily players) are feeling… also he mentions the NBA a lot— would be interested to learn what the PTPA is trying to emulate since they have been so unclear
Thanks for this. But for me this doesn’t add much clarity. Lots of words, not many specifics. Like not a single proposal on moving forward. Oh and one of the plaintiffs wants to tank doubles. This is a mess and PTPA isn’t really helping.
He's a lousy spokesperson for some serious, valid issues. Did no one give him any media training?
Lord knows there's a lot here. Thanks.
Two things occur to me; one from when I first heard of the PTPA lawsuit and its language, and a second one after reading this interview:
• Why is there no succinct, for-the-public list of how the PTPA has tried to engage those entities they'd sued? Amorphous statements in their web site's announcement – "Following years of good-faith efforts to reform professional tennis," combined with, "We have exhausted all options for reform through dialogue" – tells us nothing of substance. Okay, maybe the details are buried in the 163 page filing, but why not build a case in the court of public opinion, with an easy to read recitation of how the defendents have failed to address the PTPA's complaints? At the best this is bad marketing, at the worst it suggests the PTPA's not having receipts for their failed (sic) good faith efforts means there are none.
• Nassar's lack of details, as noted elsewhere in the comments, is disturbing. Saying, "illegal, illegal, illegal," over and over doesn't make it so. What, specifically, is illegal in what's being done? What laws are being broken? Bullet list, anyone? Again, something simple for public consumption isn't a big ask for dedicated tennis fans, let alone the more casual sports fan. Similarly, Nassar can't cite what the PTPA wants, how many players to be able to make a living, a more reasonable (sic, again) ranking system? As you point out, Ben, those would appear to be minimum expectations for an association filing a 163 page lawsuit, and things the Exec Director should have at their fingertips.
All of which doesn't mean the PTPA doesn't have legitimate gripes. But, jeez, this is far less than a convincing presentation.
I can tell you Bill Ackman is a big MEN'S tennis fan. He does not care for women's tennis.
Lively, informative interview, Ben, with good questions. Nassar is correct that the PTPA doesn't have to have all of the solutions to tennis's problems to win the lawsuit, or even to file the lawsuit. And maybe he doesn't want to reveal his desired solutions just now, to have a stronger negotiating position when that time comes. But you'd think he'd be able to sketch out some vision of what they'd like the sport to look like, and what sort of things might make them happy. I'm not someone who thinks tennis is perfect, but his vagueness is frustrating, and takes away from the PTPA's credibility a bit.
Also, there's no requirement that plaintiffs must be angels to win a lawsuit, but there are some scuzzy people among the named plaintiffs in this case. To be fair, I don't know anything about most of them. But if you offer me a chance to hang out with Nick Kyrgios, Sorana Cirstea, Tennys Sandgren and Reilly Opelka, I'm politely declining and walking in the opposite direction. (And I thought all of this before I saw that Djokovic has been palling around with RFK Jr.) That also makes me wonder about the PTPA.
Good interview. A class action suit will costs millions (because it can’t really be done on a “lawyers work for nothing but get a cut of the win” basis). The filing in the UK is just a complaint to the Competitions and Markets Authority - not the start of a legal process (which would also cost millions). Haven’t checked the EC one but likely the same.
I do find Nassar vague in every interview he does - it was the same when he was on the Served podcast a while back. As someone else comments here, just saying it’s illegal doesn’t make it so.
Also the carrying capacity of the pro game - there are people making money in Germany on its interclub circuit (name escapes me for a moment? - are they included in this?
Vague and incoherent. I do t think anyone could tell you what the “illegal” part is. The closest was about tournaments not being able to decide their prize money and points. But note too how agents aren’t in this suit. Yet they often own the tournaments.
On NCR i would be curious to hear your thoughts on the interview and how other people around the tours (not necessarily players) are feeling… also he mentions the NBA a lot— would be interested to learn what the PTPA is trying to emulate since they have been so unclear