WSJ: Tennis NEEDS Henin Badly - Page 2 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Glanteeignile** · 07-01-2010, 07:40 PM

I don't know, Suliso. I'd agree that a Justine/Serena rivalry will be great for the WTA, and it would be great if some other players could compete consistently enough to join that party. But in reality, everything is about the financial bottom line. So to some degree, it really IS all about moving product.

I meant it's not about Justine moving some non-tennis related products. Very few players can do that (Dinara, for example, also has no chance).

**carlsberg21** · 07-01-2010, 07:47 PM

The WTA is going to be in dire need of a new title sponsor real soon. The LPGA is in horrible shape, losing tournaments and sponsorships left and right. Tennis won't have the struggles ladies golf does, but it will still have a tough time getting a deal like they have with Sony Ericsson.

Justine makes the product more competitive...bit it's the Serenas and Marias of the game that make it more valuable in the eyes of potential sponsors. And that's who the WTA needs to be focused on right now.

**Glanteeignile** · 07-01-2010, 07:55 PM

Justine makes the product more competitive...bit it's the Serenas and Marias of the game that make it more valuable in the eyes of potential sponsors. And that's who the WTA needs to be focused on right now.

And you do that how? It's impossible to manufacture "stars" out of thin air. If those two don't cooperate with superior results all WTA marketing campaigns won't be worth a paper they are written on.

**gardenerextraordinaire** · 07-01-2010, 08:04 PM

And you do that how? It's impossible to manufacture "stars" out of thin air. If those two don't cooperate with superior results all WTA marketing campaigns won't be worth a paper they are written on.

Except that both have loyal demographics that will buy, no matter what the results.

But I agree that good results definitely help. But good results don't make one marketable, which is Justine's big limitation.

**bobibnoxx** · 07-01-2010, 08:05 PM

More than anything else, the absence of Sharapova and the early retirements of Clijsters and Henin have hurt the WTA product. This point is really inarguable whether you are a fan of Venus or Serena or of the three absent players. Wozniacki has the potential to be a new star assuming her game continues to rise. As for the next prodigious talent to come our way, I firmly believe it is only a matter of time.

I blame Ray-Ban

**carlsberg21** · 07-01-2010, 08:07 PM

And you do that how? It's impossible to manufacture "stars" out of thin air.

You didn't read Agassi's book, did you. He was a manufactured star (admitedly, with a lot of potential) well before he was a success.

**bobibnoxx** · 07-01-2010, 08:16 PM

You didn't read Agassi's book, did you. He was a manufactured star (admitedly, with a lot of potential) well before he was a success.

His competition (on and off-court) was Sampras and Chang

**Peretool** · 07-01-2010, 08:18 PM

By the rules laid down in this thread, is Fed marketable? The answer would be a definitive no - he sure the heck wasn't moving any merchandise prior to winning his first slam. However, he eventually did become marketable through his brilliant play. I think there is a lot to being ranked #1 and winning slams consistently that has been overlooked in this discussion. Sure there will always be the Kournikovas and Sharapaovas of the world who will remain marketable regardless of their results on the court, but the flip side is that simply being the best also makes one quite marketable.

**carlsberg21** · 07-01-2010, 08:27 PM

but the flip side is that simply being the best also makes one quite marketable.

I'm trying to remember Arantxa's and Marcello's big endorsement gigs, but nothing is coming to me.

**Peretool** · 07-01-2010, 08:36 PM

I'm trying to remember Arantxa's and Marcello's big endorsement gigs, but nothing is coming to me.

You're taking the discussion off topic. How long was Marcello's reign at #1, and how many slams did he win? How consistent was he? As for Arantxa, she won four slams over a 16-year career. Hardly a consistent slam winner year after year. Her reign at #1 was also a whopping 12 weeks over a 16-year career.

Neither of these players meets the criteria I laid out in my post.

Having said that, I'm sure Arantxa was making plenty of off-court money in her native land.

07-01-2010, 07:40 PM	#21
Glanteeignile Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 565 Senior Member	I don't know, Suliso. I'd agree that a Justine/Serena rivalry will be great for the WTA, and it would be great if some other players could compete consistently enough to join that party. But in reality, everything is about the financial bottom line. So to some degree, it really IS all about moving product. I meant it's not about Justine moving some non-tennis related products. Very few players can do that (Dinara, for example, also has no chance). Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 07:47 PM	#22
carlsberg21 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 475 Senior Member	The WTA is going to be in dire need of a new title sponsor real soon. The LPGA is in horrible shape, losing tournaments and sponsorships left and right. Tennis won't have the struggles ladies golf does, but it will still have a tough time getting a deal like they have with Sony Ericsson. Justine makes the product more competitive...bit it's the Serenas and Marias of the game that make it more valuable in the eyes of potential sponsors. And that's who the WTA needs to be focused on right now. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 07:55 PM	#23
Glanteeignile Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 565 Senior Member	Justine makes the product more competitive...bit it's the Serenas and Marias of the game that make it more valuable in the eyes of potential sponsors. And that's who the WTA needs to be focused on right now. And you do that how? It's impossible to manufacture "stars" out of thin air. If those two don't cooperate with superior results all WTA marketing campaigns won't be worth a paper they are written on. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 08:04 PM	#24
gardenerextraordinaire Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 709 Senior Member	And you do that how? It's impossible to manufacture "stars" out of thin air. If those two don't cooperate with superior results all WTA marketing campaigns won't be worth a paper they are written on. Except that both have loyal demographics that will buy, no matter what the results. But I agree that good results definitely help. But good results don't make one marketable, which is Justine's big limitation. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 08:05 PM	#25
bobibnoxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	More than anything else, the absence of Sharapova and the early retirements of Clijsters and Henin have hurt the WTA product. This point is really inarguable whether you are a fan of Venus or Serena or of the three absent players. Wozniacki has the potential to be a new star assuming her game continues to rise. As for the next prodigious talent to come our way, I firmly believe it is only a matter of time. I blame Ray-Ban Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 08:07 PM	#26
carlsberg21 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 475 Senior Member	And you do that how? It's impossible to manufacture "stars" out of thin air. You didn't read Agassi's book, did you. He was a manufactured star (admitedly, with a lot of potential) well before he was a success. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 08:16 PM	#27
bobibnoxx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 670 Senior Member	You didn't read Agassi's book, did you. He was a manufactured star (admitedly, with a lot of potential) well before he was a success. His competition (on and off-court) was Sampras and Chang Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 08:18 PM	#28
Peretool Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 516 Senior Member	By the rules laid down in this thread, is Fed marketable? The answer would be a definitive no - he sure the heck wasn't moving any merchandise prior to winning his first slam. However, he eventually did become marketable through his brilliant play. I think there is a lot to being ranked #1 and winning slams consistently that has been overlooked in this discussion. Sure there will always be the Kournikovas and Sharapaovas of the world who will remain marketable regardless of their results on the court, but the flip side is that simply being the best also makes one quite marketable. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 08:27 PM	#29
carlsberg21 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 475 Senior Member	but the flip side is that simply being the best also makes one quite marketable. I'm trying to remember Arantxa's and Marcello's big endorsement gigs, but nothing is coming to me. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-01-2010, 08:36 PM	#30
Peretool Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 516 Senior Member	I'm trying to remember Arantxa's and Marcello's big endorsement gigs, but nothing is coming to me. You're taking the discussion off topic. How long was Marcello's reign at #1, and how many slams did he win? How consistent was he? As for Arantxa, she won four slams over a 16-year career. Hardly a consistent slam winner year after year. Her reign at #1 was also a whopping 12 weeks over a 16-year career. Neither of these players meets the criteria I laid out in my post. Having said that, I'm sure Arantxa was making plenty of off-court money in her native land. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)