Ian McKenzie's article in the Jul/Aug edition of SquashPlayer has generated much debate over the future of the Pro Tour.
- Original Article by Ian McKenzie
- Fair Day's Pay - reply from Tim Garner of the PSA
- Call for single body - Greg Hutchings, Australian Events Manager
- New Model for Pro Squash - Ted Wallbutton of the WSF
- Where's the Plan? - John Smith
- Adopt the Tennis Formula - Mark Bertram
- Great ideas. What is being done about it? - John Smith
If you have an opinion on the Tour and how it should be structured,
send it to psatour@squashplayer.co.uk
Rethink Call on Pro Tour 06-Aug
In a provocative article published in the July/August issue of the authoritative international squash magazine The Squash Player, editor Ian McKenzie calls for a rethink of the professional circuit.
"The question we want to ask is: Should 'pay days for the prosą be the first priority for our sport? Has this policy worked and has it produced the best tournament system?" writes McKenzie.McKenzie states at the outset that he is not against professional squash players being well paid. However he argues that the obvious attempts to hike prize money levels have been counter productive and have led to a decline in the number of events.
Of particular concern to McKenzie is not just the decline in events but the limiting of opportunity for young players to play on the circuit. Of the players ranked 100 to 200 in the world he states only 37 have managed to play 5 events or more.
"There are not enough events for a major sport." he writes. "Events are declining, prize-money is declining and, with the move to 16 draw events, opportunities to compete are declining. What chance has some good keen young player to get through this system?"
The decline in events and the reduction in draw sizes from 32 to 16 are he argues are the result of a misguided attempt to protect the top professionals interests to the detriment of the sport as a whole.
FAIR DAY’S PAY 09-Aug
Top pro and PSA Board member Tim Garner responds to Ian McKenzie’s critique of the pro Tour:
"I am disappointed by the negative attitude your article takes towards the game of squash in general and the PSA in particular. It is very easy to criticise but not so easy to put forward constructive ideas; sadly, your article does plenty of the former and very little of the latter.
The PSA has been an important element in the development of squash around the world and is always looking at ways to improve the World Tour. Challenger and Closed Satellite events were introduced to tackle the problem of players having to travel great distances when starting out on the World Tour. In fact this month the Star System was introduced and this will offer much greater flexibility than the old system. We do have coherent circuits and it is a misconception that PSA tournaments appear at random on the calendar. Another false allegation is that there is a separation between the PSA and the WSF.
To read your article one would think that the players on the PSA Tour are interested only in ‘a fast buck’. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the players. If this was the case, they would be in the wrong vocation and would soon be looking elsewhere. In fact, PSA players regard themselves as the professionals in the sport and what they want is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work."
CALL FOR ONE BODY 10-Aug
Australian National Competitions Manager, Greg Hutchings, offers his views on Ian McKenzie’s critique of the PSA Tour:
"It is time for the PSA to rethink where the circuit and the development of the sport is heading. Changes must be made to enable the top players to play a greater number of tournaments.
Stand-alone events are not suitable for Australia. We need a series of events (Satellite & major) to generate a momentum and the appropriate media exposure. However, the restrictions imposed by the current PSA ranking system are not allowing Australia to register events as either Satellite or major tournaments.
I have expressed my frustration with the current system to the PSA. Several events with adequate prize money to qualify as Satellite tournaments during the past few years have not been registered with PSA, because the entry of local players would be jeopardised.
Both the PSA & WISPA are player unions representing their members to the client (promoter/employer) very poorly. They are not capable of meeting the demands of the marketplace. The sooner the sport has one international governing organisation the better."
New Model for Pro Squash 13-Aug
Ted Wallbutton of the WSF responds to Ian McKenzie's article:
The tournament structure of PSA was created in the mould of the tennis ATP Tour, in the expectation that squash would become a major spectator sport generating substantial prize money for the players. In reality the PSA, and WISPA, would now be better advised to follow the example of badminton and table tennis, which are more comparable with squash. Using these sports as models I would suggest:
- A new ranking system based on head to head matches between ranked players. (In this system the number of ranking points earned is decided by the comparative ranking position of each player, a weighting factor for the event which reflects its importance and the round in which the match takes place.) Ranking points would then not be restricted to PSA events but could be earned in National Leagues, Commonwealth Games, National Championships, World Team Championships and many others, even in the PSA Super Series Finals! No longer would sponsors put up substantial funding for leagues and events and see some players taking the money but not giving full value These are the events where players earn much of their income and they would benefit by gaining a truer ranking easily, without huge travel and expenses.
- A move from the strategy of seeking maxium prize funds for each event. It is better to have three $50,000 events than one $150,000 championship. The pressure to give the biggest prize fund has frightened off many smaller organisers.
- Closer links between the players, the PSA and the National Squash Federations. Players may mistrust their National Federation, but it is in their interest to be a part of the organisation and have a voice within it. The PSA must work closely with the Federations to organise national events and gain their sanction for independent events. Sponsors and promoters come and go, but the National Squash Federations are a constant and the PSA ignores them at its peril.
- TV programmes which do not just show male players in major events. A regular magazine format is needed which shows men, women, masters, juniors, doubles. TV programmes should be driven by viewer interest, not by the PSA’s brand strategy.
Although I agree with the general thrust of your comments, I strongly disagree that there is separation between PSA, WISPA and the WSF. The three organisations work very closely together and there is nothing in the above suggestions which I have not discussed personally with John Nimick over five years of excellent cooperation and communication.
Ted Wallbutton
Chief Executive & Secretary General, WSF
Where's the Plan? John Smith, 11-Aug
I was scanning the squash sites while eating my lunch and noticed the debate surrounding Ian McKenzie's article calling for a rethink of the professional squash tour. The return comments from Greg Hutchings and Tim Garner make interesting reading. I'm not a professional squash player and I am not involved in any squash-related organisation or corporate. I have seen the current squash administrative bodies and players in action (both on and off the court).
Ian's article, while provocative, pretty much hits the nail on the head. Cash is too much of a primary focus and the availability of points-earning tournaments is a problem. Greg's letter accurately expresses the frustrations of trying to pull events together 'on the coal face'. A central, cohesive, 'transparent', administrative body is not obvious at the moment.
Rethinking the pro tour will hit two obvious hurdles, player culture/attitude and the quality/effectiveness of the administrative body.
The culture and attitude of players is a product of the sport itself. It is a tough sport in which players have a limited professional life. Earnings are dramatically lower than most sports. Once a player is off the circuit he's forgotten, squash does not have a very high profile. It is not surprising that the players are very much short term focussed and 'fast buck' orientated - which they undoubtedly are.
The 'core' player culture change that is needed is to understand that squash as a whole has to benefit from their efforts before they see rewards. The money just doesn't appear out of thin air. The spin off or by product of squash's success is player remuneration. Players are the front line advocates and diplomats. The success of squash is directly attributable to spectator's perceptions of the players. On the whole squash players are a pretty arrogant, self-centred group.
The difference between Greg and Tim's letters would indicate that the PSA/WSF combination (however it works) is not managing the process effectively. There is obviously a large gap between how well the PSA/WSF perceive they do and the perception their 'clients' have of them. To be honest the PSA/WSF do not seem to have any direction. Is there a clear business plan with objectives, milestones and performance criteria. Is this sort of analysis well-informed and carefully planned out? Is it published to all and amended to incorporate feedback from clients and players alike? It's all very well starting off all of these initiatives but they will come to nothing if they are heading in the wrong direction.
Have a plan and make sure it is transparent to everyone - then they will all be on the same page.
John Smith
Tennis has the right formula. Mark Bertram, 12-Aug
Hi, I read the various articles on the Pro Tour and would like to offer up my opinion.
It seems to me that Tennis has the right formula. Now I can't play tennis to save my life, and I love Squash, so bear with me. What if Squash was to adopt a Tennis-like formula for its Pro Tour. Four Grand Slam events with other pro events in between, and a satellite tour for second tier pros. I know most of this is already happening but what the Calendar needs is more balance.
As squash is an indoor game there are no weather concerns. Run a "Grand Slam" event every three months balanced throughout the year and offer up some huge incentive to any player who can win all four in the same calander year. Designate the British Open, US Open, Australian Open, and World Open as the four Grand Slam events and promote them as such. By packaging them together it may be possible to attract larger sponsors and make these tournaments truly huge events. I am not talking about a 32 man draw, but a full 128 man draw with Mens, Womens, Doubles and Mixed Doubles over a full two weeks. And to finally offer up real prize money. Televise the whole thing. I know people say it doesn't televise well, but I have seen a lot of bad squash videos and even the worst was acceptable to watch.
I know it would take a ton of money to put on something of that level, but if the US Open tennis championship can come up with enough cash to pay the mens winner almost half as much as the total combined prize money for the entire mens squash tour, then the money is surely out there floating around.
I am not an expert in promotion or fundraising, but I would gladly volunteer my time and effort to do anything necessary to raise the Pro Tour to the level it deserves. It is, after all, the showcase for our sport. Hope this is viewed as constructive as that is truly how it is meant.
Cheers,
-Mark Bertram, Squash Director-Vanderbilt University
Great ideas. What is being done about it? John Smith 17-Aug
In response to Ted Wallbutton's response (13 August 1999).
With all due respect I think that Ted's response emphasises the separation between the player unions and the WSF. The last five years have seen very little tangible improvement if not a deterioration in the squash pro tour. It is incredible that over the same time frame the PSA head and the WSF head have been in agreement that sweeping changes are needed but have not managed to initiate anything of substance. Five years is a lot of time.
Last week, I stood in the bar with an ex-pro (all of 24), now turned coach. He said that he relieved to be off the PSA. Cancelled tournaments, varying prize money, massive travel, unreliable administration. He said that as a coach, he makes far better income than as a professional player. His income is higher than some players in the top 30 on the PSA rankings and he can enjoy a normal lifestyle.
I agree with the suggestion to change the ranking system. In my travels, the best ranking/points system is the one that is used by New Zealand Squash and has been adopted by New Zealand Tennis. If you want to see a national circuit that is run efficiently and effectively, the New Zealand circuit is pretty amazing.
The suggestion to have three $50,000 events rather than one $150,000 is one that needs to be thought through carefully. Part of the current problem for professionals is selecting events that it are financially viable to participate in. You might just be creating one less event that players would automatically attend and three more that they cannot afford to participate in.
As to closer links and 'trust' between players, PSA and National Squash Federations - this is very much a 'catch 22' situation. While players need to become a little less self-centred, organisations around squash need to streamline and become more effective and efficient. Players need to know that they can rely on the organisations that represent them not only in an administrative and representative role but also to provide initiative.
Has there been a series of workshops to discuss the issues and agree when the next steps should happen? Does it have the backing to make changes of the scope that are being discussed? If one option was to sweep the plate clean and start again, could it be done?
John Smith
