The three player representatives from the ATP has said they are ‘surprised’ by reaction to their decision concerning the removal of CEO Chris Kermode.
In a statement issue to the media on Wednesday, the group said their verdict were not ‘made or driven by one or two individuals’ personal beliefs or agendas.’ Last week the representatives voted to not renew Kermode’s contract. Something that has been criticised by players such as Rafael Nadal and Grigor Dimitrov. The Players council, which is headed by Novak Djokovic, has also been criticised for a lack of communication concerning the matter.
“All members of the Player Council, including the ten current players, as well as the three Player Board Representatives, have spent months discussing and debating the merits and concerns with renewing Chris’ contract.” A statement reads.
“We should not minimize the commitment and sacrifice of this Player Council to give back to their Tour and the sport they care deeply about – the time and effort they have dedicated to preparing for meetings, talking with the wider player group, debating late into the night just days before big tournaments commence, and discussing all matters consistently via emails and Whatsapp chats.’
“This decision was also made while communicating with players, tournament members, ATP Staff and Management, senior stakeholders in the game, CEOs and Chairman of other sports, as well as our fellow Board Members.”
The trio compromise of TV executive David Egdes, lawyer Alex Inglot and former tennis player Justin Gimelstob. Gimelstob’s involvement is controversial as he is currently in the middle of a criminal investigation into an allegation of assault on a former friend. A change he has pleaded not guilty to.
A war of words has broken out on the tour following Kermode’s pending exit. World No.1 Djokovic has been at the centre of the attacks with some labelling him as the driving force behind the change. Although the Serbian has opted to remain neutral on the matter. Dodging a direct yes or no answer on Kermode’s future when questioned by the media, before later calling for a change to the structure of the ATP.
“The structure is such that it’s I personally feel a bit flawed,” he said. “You kind have to put always the role of the president as a tiebreaker in many voting circumstances. You have three votes of the player board representatives, three votes of the tournaments and most of the cases, there’s a conflict of interest. It’s a difficult position to be in as a president because you have to kind of at times choose between the two. So I feel that’s something we as a group have to address.”
The Djokovic-lead council had previously voted on Kermode’s removal. However, the results of that vote have been kept secret following an agreement between the members. It is understood that there was a split in opinion of the council, who acts as an advisory to the board members.
There is now speculation that the likes of Nadal or Federer may enter into the world of tennis politics. Something that was also confirmed in the Wednesday statement.
“It is worth adding at this point that we have heard in recent days that some of our greatest icons are interested in re-entering the political conversations and helping us and the Council guide the next phase of this sport’s growth.” The Player Representatives revelled.
It shouldn’t have been this difficult
Ubitennis founder Ubaldo Scanagatta is more than familiar with the world of tennis politics. The veteran journalist has reported from 151 grand slam tournaments over the past four decades. Witnessing the creation of the ATP during the 1970s and following its development ever since. In the wake of the latest statement, Scanagatta has issued his personal opinion on the situation.
“It is clear that the board was annoyed by what the icons (Federer, Nadal, Hewitt) said in favour of Kermode. Especially when they said that they have not been consulted. The board, through Djokovic mainly, was always saying that they were always available to listen to others, but as a matter of fact the board never bothered to meet them….perhaps, in the case of Federer they presumed or thought he had other priorities or potential conflicts of interests such as the Laver Cup. But who doesn’t have conflicts of interests?
Due to the important role, past and present, of icons like Federer and Nadal has had on the tennis image and popularity in the last 15 years, it shouldn’t have been so difficult at least to try to meet them and share opinions, knowing that it is the board that must have the final word.
David Egdes, who is one of the three player representatives said “we have heard in recent days some of our greatest icons are interested in re-entering the political conversations and helping us and the Council.” He is somehow underlining the fact that the Icons didn’t seem to care before coming out with their public declarations.
Nobody can claim – in my opinion – a total innocence. It wasn’t so difficult to find the way to meet and talk, unless the board thought – which is what I personally think – that to talk with the Icons would have complicated the process of the decisions they had on their mind and they didn’t want to change. Politics is always politics. Full transparency is never in action.”
