Tennis Twitter is always a very special place to be. Before there was tennis twitter, there were blogs where one could go and become a keyboard warrior. Then there were sites (Tennis Forum/General Messages anyone?) where there were long threads discussing who or who was not popular or marketable in tennis. I have been thinking about this phenomenon for quite some time. I have some thoughts.
For years, Wall Street and tennis journalists, who are paid to upsell players, told us that the Williams Sisters were not popular. According to them, Sharapova was the most popular player in tennis because of her marketability. They spoke ad nauseam about her endorsement deals. She was always the blonde, blue-eyed girl featured on magazines. For them, Sharapova was objectively the most beautiful. I did not mind because, aside from the doping scandal that became known late in her career, she knew how to step up on the big stages and win.
Still, despite the Williams Sisters also winning on the court, advertisers and marketing folks claimed they didn’t possess the IT factor, which begs the question: what are the qualities that makes a player stand out and attract marketing dollars?
There was a time when Justine Henin was touted as the face of tennis (yes, you can stop laughing). She had an aesthetically pleasing game (meaning she could hit a slice backhand), she was non-controversial (forget that 2003 French Open hand) and she did not grunt. Yet, while Henin was racking up big titles, the media mostly focused on her fellow Belgian, Kim Clijsters. To them, Clijsters was the girl next door. So what if she complained every day about injuries and the rigours of life on Tour? Players sympathized with her and found her more relatable than they did Henin.
In the early 90s, the player who got most of the significant write up was Steffi Graf. She did not love the limelight, but she won big tournaments and had an aesthetically pleasing game. Her nemesis during that time was Seles. Seles was a grunter and a big hitter of the ball. I don’t recall if she garnered much in the way of endorsements, except for this American Express ad. So, even though Seles was the dominant player, few people saw her as marketable compared to Graf. Oddly enough, Seles was one of Venus Williams’ favorites to watch because of her brashness and boldness on court. I wonder why she wasn’t deemed marketable along with her on-court dominance?
In more recent history, Simona Halep is without a doubt a very successful player. 2 Grand Slam titles, a stint at number one, nice eyes, and a celebrity coach in her corner in Darren Cahill. I don’t believe Halep garnered much in the way of sponsorship aside from being hailed a hero in her home country. There was little talk of her being able to move product. While I recall people saying that of Genie Bouchard, who is now only known for two things: suing and winning against the USTA and have her status of active or retired being a constant question. Marketers immediately saw Bouchard as being able to move product despite achieving very little in terms of her tennis compared to Halep.
Lastly, we come to the recently retired Ashleigh Barty. Now, if there was ever a player who has seemingly done little to promote the sport of tennis outside of Australia, or indeed been a marketer's dream, it would be Barty. For someone like me who is a huge fan of the women's game, there were times when I literally had to pull up the WTA website to recall who was number 1 during her reign. Farewell Barty, we barely knew you. However, as a player, she rarely had a challenger on court. Barty, much like many of the women in the recent top 10 have for one reason or another failed to capture the public’s attention or imagination. Like many of their predecessors, they may achieve great things on court but marketers do not come to their door. Clearly, for women, marketing has less to do with your tennis prowess and more to do with whether you fit other people’s idea of what it means to be a woman or an athlete.
Naomi Osaka could easily be the marriage of both on-court dominance and off-court marketing gold. Yet, she seems to be struggling to manage both. As marketable as she may be, I doubt that Osaka will ever feel confident enough to be the face of tennis and women's tennis.
The new World No. 1 as of Monday next will be Iga Swiatek. A young Pole who plays fierce tennis and who lists her tennis idol as Rafael Nadal (go equality). The argument in tennis circles is that Emma Raducanu has outpaced Iga in terms of marketing while achieving relatively little in her career. As I have shown already, on-court dominance has rarely had much to do with marketability for women players. Emma’s case is particularly easy to understand. Well, for one Emma is from the UK- a country with a very rich tennis history who is eager to keep that crown. Duh. In addition, even if folks do not like to admit it, she did win a Major without dropping a set while also playing qualifying. That’s one for the history books. Frankly, Emma is to the UK what Osaka is to Japan (and the US as well). She is of mixed heritage, which means advertisers and marketers get a two-fer. Meanwhile, Iga does not seem to rate as possessing anything to captivate a buying public’s fantasy. Maybe if she was taller, blonde or spoke less about her mental challenges?
One thing is clear; the issue of popularity is a very complicated one because it is not necessarily objective. While Barty might not have been particularly marketable, she was very effective at putting seats in the stands. Whether that is because of her no-nonsense playing style or the fact that she is from a country, that is English speaking or that she is a "nice" girl, folks just warmed to her. The same goes for Leylah Fernandez, a player that fired up New York during 7 rounds of tennis at the US Open. Leylah continues to have a following even though she lost in New York City. Just watch any of her matches in Mexico. She plays fearless tennis for someone so small and you just want to root for her. As fans, she is a welcome sight. For me, Raducanu not so much. It feels like Raducanu is more of a marketer’s dream of a tennis player than someone who draws fans in by virtue of her on-court play. Where have we seen that before?
Still none of this will matter very much if we do not deal with the issue of accessibility of the women's Tour. Earlier in the season when there were no WTA tournaments, I decided to tune in to the ATP and see what was happening. I don't have a subscription to TennisTV, but on my local ESPN, I found men's tennis. Two courts from tournaments in Argentina and Brazil. I was able to watch the farewell tournament for Del Potro. I came away from both tournaments becoming a fan of Diego Schwartzman.
For me, that is the WTA's biggest issue, not who happens to be popular this week or this month. Yes, there is WTATV, but it is not a user-friendly platform. How is it possible that in this day and age you literally have the biggest women's sport in the world providing live streaming via a web portal that is as clunky and inefficient as the WTA's own website?!
If you can't see players and become fans of their games, why would I spend money to watch them live? Why are tournaments being played that are not being carried live on the WTA's own streaming platform? Why is it that when matches are being played, unless some controversy erupts there is little or no commentary on social media apart from giving scores, which is few and far between?
In order for players to capture the imagination of fans and make us want more, there has to be a certain je ne sais quoi. A little something different. It is not always about the tennis. In these days, people can tune out, but if we give them something a little bit more, they will come. In the words of Jimmy Connors "this is what they came for".
