Posted by Stephen Tignor, TENNIS.com
ATP chairman Etienne de Villiers is stepping down from his post in December, though "stepping down" seems like a lofty way of describing the end of a three-year tenure. De Villiers, who angered top players by not consulting them to their satisfaction, isn't seeking to renew his contract. Still, he has claimed victory, saying, not without justification, that he enriched the tour and streamlined its schedule. It's likely this already wealthy man, who said soon after he started, that the job was "harder than he thought," felt that tennis' competing interest groups would continue to make it a no-win situation.
What can the next ATP chairman learn from de Villiers' time in office? While it's the sport's highest-profile executive position, we've been reminded again of how circumscribed its powers are. Just within his own organization, the chairman must reconcile the wishes of two disparate groups, the players and the tournament directors. De Villiers, who had no background in tennis, was hired because of his experience in the entertainment industry -- he had worked for Disney -- and tasked with making the tour a more attractive package for TV and sponsors. But he also had to make the players happy.
De Villiers did a better job than you might think. His push for round robins was a failure, but his push for instant replay was a success. He brought the season-ending Masters Cup from Shanghai to London in 2009 and was rewarded with a title sponsorship from (still solvent) Barclay's. He also made the Masters Series schedule, a major complaint among players, less burdensome: The finals were cut from best-of-five sets to best-of-three and the pre-Roland Garros clay-court events went from three to two.
For these things he was destroyed: In 2006, Federer and Nadal spoke publicly about their anger over his demotion of Monte Carlo and Hamburg; Nikolay Davydenko called him "Walt Disney"; this year all of the top 20 players demanded that the ATP consider other candidates for his job before rehiring him; and the Hamburg organizers brought a lawsuit that could have bankrupted the tour.
Looking back, it's clear that De Villiers was unlucky that his term coincided with the peak of Federer's reign. From 2005 to 2007, the Swiss' domination on court made him a kind of unelected president of the sport. If you wanted to do something new, you wanted him on board. The problem was that Federer is a stubborn, outspoken traditionalist. He was against round robins, instant replay and the unilateral demotion of Monte Carlo; he even mused wistfully about the days of grueling three-out-of-five setters in Masters finals.
De Villiers came in with big ideas and ended up nibbling at the edges -- he couldn't even demote Hamburg without risking the entire organization. The ATP board may now want to go with someone who isn't an outsider; U.S. Open tournament director Arlen Kantarian's name has been mentioned, but the job may be a step down for him. Whoever it is will have to consult closely with the players, because Federer, along with Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, has been elected to the ATP's governing council. This is a good thing for the next chairman: The top three may not have any brilliant ideas or political savvy, but now they'll know just how difficult it is to get anything done in this sport. Who knows, they may end up feeling sorry for poor old ET.
