What is “Good for Tennis”?

By André Rolemberg

The advent of social media and the democratization of information through a decentralized system known as the Internet could only mean one thing. No, not the incredibly fast advancement of society as a whole with ever expanding knowledge being shared and tested, standing thorough scrutiny.

It means more people get to share their increasingly mind-blowingly dumb opinions, standing by them no matter what. Possibly worst of all, way too many people agree with those terrible opinions.

Ahem… sorry, I’m here to talk about tennis. Excuse me. Let’s begin.

What in the fuzzy yellow f*** is good for tennis?

This get thrown around a lot, and unfortunately within the realms of twi… X, what truly matters to people is the short, “witty” opinion, as if it was groundbreaking. That being said, let’s get this straight: if someone effortlessly fills up a stadium, it doesn’t mean they’re good for tennis — it means they’re great for business, now. This is not a bad thing, it’s just not the whole story.

Nick Kyrgios

The fiery Australian, flashy shot-maker, controversial superstar of tennis, or however you want to call him. One thing truly is undeniable about Nick Kyrgios: he fills up the stadiums. In fact, he overflows them.

Let me paint a quick picture.

At the National Bank Open, also known as the Canadian Open, in Montreal in 2022, Kyrgios was scheduled to play a match on Centre Court, but due to rain delays, he got downgraded to Rogers Court, the second-biggest court on site. It holds about 4000 seats. 

This is how Rogers Court is set up: it’s the dug-out stadium style like Pietrangeli at the Italian Open, but with a structure that wraps around about half the court for a second level of seats, above ground level. The blue seats inside the dug-out hole are the 100 level, for which you need assigned-seat tickets. The top structure is the 200 level, and anyone with access to the site can go up and take any seat (Centre Court ticket holders and ground pass holders alike).

Good ol’ Rogers Court was not made for Nick Kyrgios. The 200 level filled up within minutes for his match. People were standing around the edges of the crater-like structure to watch him. Even the top-level on Centre Court, which gives a clear view of Rogers Court, was watching Nick and not what was happening on Centre.

Whatever opinion anyone has on Kyrgios, whatever he might have done in the past, that player is a magnet for fans on site.

Is this “good for tennis”? Yes, obviously — in the short term at least. For tennis to grow, it needs money, and a lot of money is made with ticket sales. The business side of tennis can and does take advantage of players who sell themselves and do so effortlessly. Remember Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal? They also have this inherent ability. They just care that their public image remains neutral, unlike Kyrgios.

However, there’s two problems with that: 1. tennis is not just a business, and 2. the business of tennis can’t rely on these external factors which cannot be controlled for its growth and profit.

These problems are tough to see because they are exclusive to a short-sighted view of the sport — long-term thinking is hard. Kyrgios fills up a stadium, but not only does he not play tennis very often, he also does not have the intention of playing for too much longer. Strategizing around Nadal and Federer made sense because while they could lose early or suffer and injury that would see them withdraw from a tournament or even a longer period of time, they were committed to playing and winning — you knew what to expect from them. It is not the same with the Aussie.

A player like Kyrgios is not the main ingredient, they are a bonus. You prep your whole strategy around what you can control, then if Kyrgios says he will show up, sell the tickets! If not, the tournament will be a blast for fans regardless, who will be willing to come back every year to see who else is going to be the big story, long after the outspoken, opinionated bad-boy (or girl) has retired.

Iga Świątek

Świątek has two problems: 1. She is a woman, and 2. She is very professional and cares that what improves is her tennis.

Notice something? These are not problems. The first real problem is that far too many people still think women’s tennis and sports in general is inferior to men’s. And the second problem, entirely dependent on the first, is that Świątek does not assign to the “drama” expected by many in her matches and press conferences. You see, the tennis itself does not matter, what matters is the petty feud between players that so many want to see because apparently female players can’t be competitive and good friends (or even just co-workers) at the same time.

Sure, it is fun to see the the press conference where Serena Williams talks about how Dinara Safina won Rome and Madrid in a sarcastic tone, while she has the Grand Slams titles (and Safina has none). This was also in reference to what Safina said in a previous answer to a question about whether she deserves to be #1. However, these are things that are not under anyone’s control, and Serena spoke also out of her frustration with the structure of points awarded in the WTA — and ranking points vs titles is always a point of contention.

You cannot force someone to be what they are not. And why in the world would anyone want to change who Iga Swiatek is? She is one of the best role models in modern sports, she is a phenomenal tennis player and dedicated to her craft. She is reserved, but open about her ideas, problems, frustrations, and does not put blame on anyone for losing except herself. If that reminds of you of someone, it’s because she probably sees Rafael Nadal as an inspiration for her and great influence not only on her tennis, but work ethic.

Iga Świątek is the world number one. She works harder than many. She makes sure to keep improving every day in her job, which is to play tennis better than anyone. And this is what Serena Williams did too, though she has a very different personality.

And THIS is the core of tennis: the sport itself.

While a Nick Kyrgios may appear every once in a while to disrupt the status quo and fill stadiums just by being who he is, it is not sustainable to rely on him by saying “this is what is good for tennis.” We cannot change who people are; what we can do is focus on telling stories. Nick is easy. Tennis needs the ability to flourish in tougher circumstances.

And by the way, Iga Świątek is massively popular and fills up stadiums as well. Some people (not many) find her style boring, but one opinion is not the truth — equal to how some people may find Roger Federer annoying. And we all know the power of the RF brand, including the Rolex executive team.

The Core Product

The core product of tennis is simple: the sport itself. Good tennis attracts people. Even bad tennis attracts people. Tennis is an awesome product. What is good for tennis in the long run, at least on the professional side of things, is to captivate people with stories from athletes, to touch fans and prospects deeply in their emotions so that they would not only come for the sport, but also deeply care about the results.

Iga Świątek took over the top position in women’s tennis in a historically significant way, from the equally significant, shocking retirement of Ashleigh Barty. Świątek went on a winning streak that seemed almost endless, has now held the #1 ranking for 72 consecutive weeks and counting, and already has four major titles to her name. Regardless of her personality, any good story-teller would easily be able to produce something that would captivate tennis fans and sports fans with this information. Couple that with a proper marketing strategy and align the whole with social movements promoting women’s sports and there are millions of people that can be reached and can elevate Iga Świątek to the divine realm, making her a timeless idol.

A marketing strategy and a good public relations strategy are not simple, to be sure, especially at a global level. However, there are many millions of dollars running in this industry. It is possible, if not absolutely necessary, to find the best people in the business, to form the best team to market tennis players.

Tennis is good. It is undeniable that we have a phenomenal product in our hands. Our athletes are better than ever, and every generation now is more eager to chase the super-human records of the previous generation. Iga Świątek and Nick Kyrgios are not the only players either. There are many great players, great personalities, great stories to be told. Millions of fans are just sitting, waiting to be captivated by them, with the help of the monumental history that tennis boasts with active tournaments going back well over 100 years.

Social media bites are cool and necessary. But marketing cannot end there. Tennis needs people to care about it deeply. Tennis needs stories that will make even casual fans have heated debates about, and want to witness more history being made — on both the men’s and women’s side, but especially on the women’s side. Fans need to see just how advanced women’s tennis is, that every story is attached to how well they are playing, how titanic their matches are, how skillful they are, and how incredible the records they are chasing are.

It doesn’t even need to stop with the highest level. Across the board in professional tennis there are amazing stories to be told that people would stop to hear.

What I think is good for tennis is more people caring about it. More casual fans to know what’s on the line. More people wanting to play and realizing how dang hard it is to do what these athletes do every day. More people understanding that they cannot possibly win a game off a professional player. If the world of tennis is divided between “die-hard” fans and people who basically just know Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Maria Sharapova, and Serena Williams, this is not-so-good for tennis. Even less if all they know is that Nick Kyrgios plays crazy shots at times and has a bad-boy personality.

In the end, what is good for tennis is, in essence, that a lot of work be put into it to make it better every day for fans, prospective fans, and amateur and pro players alike. Thank God we can still communicate in longer formats like this — if we only ever debate on Twitter, we would all just be complete imbeciles and tennis would deserve to die.