Last week, every time it was announced that Tonic by Martina Hingis was the official clothing sponsor of the Southern California Open, I felt uncomfortable. For Hingis's company to agree to sponsor Carlsbad sounds exciting, but there's a catch: Hingis was entered in the tournament. I realize that these are hard times, but having a tournament entrant sponsor the event is simply not appropriate.
I have no objection to Hingis's line being sold at the tournament, just as Venus Williams' clothing is sometimes sold. Perhaps I should, but the money being exchanged, in that case, is between fans and the clothing company. I had no objection, in fact, when the Family Circle Cup held an after-hours event in which players and fans wore EleVen on the court. The tour can--and does--promote its players in different ways.
But being an actual tournament sponsor is another matter. I wonder, too, if--on some level--those in charge were making a statement about the relative significance of doubles competition. I really can't imagine their allowing EleVen, for example, to be the clothing sponsor. But perhaps I'm underestimating the economic crisis--or overestimating the ability of organizers to see the view outside their own world.
I don't understand this at all. How is anything compromised? Please state the harm? Is the presumption that somehow Hingis will have an unfair advantage on the court? I don't think so. The umpires and linespeople are remarkably objective, as far as I can see. This is reminiscent of some craziness that I observe in the Bar Association's Model Rules. I repeat, I don't get it at all. Who is hurt? Who gives a damn?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that there's a bad faith presumption. I don't buy it either.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it opens a door that might be better left closed. I don't think it was a "bad" thing to do--simply an unwise one. But I feel this way about a lot of things that happen in the world of pro sports.
ReplyDeleteI think the umpires and linespeople are fair, too. But it doesn't really matter what we think. I prefer tighter boundaries in the interest of everyone involved, that's all.
Diane, I too can't seem to see how this is any different than when management companies who represent players, also represent tournaments etc. The issue of conflict in tennis is too long and storied to get into. I sometimes think that IMG, who are the main offenders of this have too much of a stranglehold on tennis. They not only own tournaments, but they provide publicity for many tournaments, including Wimbledon, and then they represent players. You then find that players who are represented by IMG have an unfair advantage in terms of court scheduling, practice and match times etc. I guess Hingis is just doing what everyone else is doing
ReplyDeleteTo show how much of a hand IMG has in tennis, they are one of the owners of Tennis Channel (or rather they are a shareholder, major one at that), they sponsor Sharapova, whose social channel is consistently being advertised by Tennis Channel and whose link to her social channel is on the Tennis Channel website.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Diane on this - in an individual sport like tennis, it just seems strange to have a competitor sponsor the competition. I have no doubt that in this case, having Hingis' clothing line be a sponsor didn't affect any calls or the seeding or anything else. But the door-opening effect seems something to watch out for. If I was a coach and my player got an unfavorable draw in the "Florida Open brought to you by Maria Sharapova," I would look hard see what kind of draw Pova got.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Karen, I get concerned about IMG, too. It all just goes in one big circle.
ReplyDeleteLet's talk about draws. A few years ago, for two years running, no American junior (male or female) had to play another American in the first round of the US Open JUNIORS qualies OR main draws. One year, 14 of the 32 girls were Americans and not one had to play another American in the first round. Pretty stiff odds there. I expressed my thoughts to several writers and to the USTA. No action ensued. There was also a study that questioned the US Open main draw in comparing it to the French, Wimbledon and Aussie majors. The US draw was suspiciously weighted; the others not. Oh, our dear USTA...
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about Tonic - is Hingis an owner or does she just endorse the company's clothes?
ReplyDeleteI'm struggling to see how the Carlsbad situation is any different from (say) Sharapova playing the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami when she was endorsing Sony.
I don't think this sponsorship is as bad as the Djokovic family owning & managing the ATP tourney in Serbia a few years ago. Also I think David Ferrer is a co-owner of the Premier equivalent ATP tourney in Valencia - and he plays there!
It's hingis's line, Penny. And I had the same issue with Djokovic and Ferrer :)
ReplyDeleteit's not just tennis--it's all of pro sports. Very complicated!