ATP’s Tactics Questioned Before Talks

The secret meetings first took place last week behind the high brick walls of homes near the All England Club. Grand Slam officials were reaching out to leading management agencies, trying to see if the ATP had enough support for a boycott of the upcoming major tournaments.

By Wednesday, officials from the U.S. Tennis Assn. were meeting in full view with player agents on the grassy rooftop area one level below the players’ restaurant at Wimbledon.

Today, ATP Chief Executive Mark Miles is expected to meet with the Grand Slam Committee, which would be his first official session with that group since it rejected an initial $50-million request for the players in Paris and the controversial players’ meeting here in which the ATP proposed playing in alternatives to the Slams.

Some suggest this “one-two punch” has significantly weakened Miles’ position at the bargaining table.

Grand Slam officials have been buzzing about a letter, dated June 29, sent to Miles by Peter Lawler, a high-ranking executive with management group Octagon. Lawler criticized the “participation agreement” between the players and the ATP, describing the document as being closer to “the handiwork of “a failing first-year law student than a lawyer.”

“Mark, you made a commitment to me, and others, in Miami that the very idea or hint of idea of non-participation by the players in the Grand Slams would be a tactic of ‘last resort,’ ” Lawler wrote.

“Your first negotiating meeting with the Grand Slams was at the French Open. Two weeks later, we are using this threat of last resort, this spectre of all-out war, as a negotiating tactic? We are advancing this tactic by the creation and distribution for signature of a document, which is not only ill-conceived and thoughtlessly drafted, but is fraught with danger?”

Lawler indicated that the agents had stayed out of the process out of support for the concept but that the recent events had stopped the posture of “non-intercession.”

Representatives from the major tennis apparel companies have expressed concerns that a boycott could breach individual player sponsorship deals. However, an ATP spokesperson said Tuesday that the organization had been diligent in that regard in protecting its players.

Dianne Hayes of Reebok said she had a brief conversation with Andy Roddick’s agent. Roddick and Venus Williams are Reebok’s signature athletes.

“As important as the smaller tournaments are, the Slams are the primary focus,” she said Wednesday of a potential boycott. “It would be a huge disappointment if any of our players considered it.”

Adidas sent an e-mail this week to agents at the three major management groups -- IMG, SFX and Octagon -- hoping players who had signed the document could be persuaded to withdraw their support. It also cited a clause in a current agreement that states if the player is unwilling to compete at the world-class level he had at the beginning of the contract period, Adidas can suspend payment or reduce by 50% payment and supply of equipment.

The ATP is trying to get 85 of the top 100 players -- and 15 of the top 20 -- to sign the letter by Sunday, 50 days before the U.S. Open, which could be the first Slam to face a no-show.

“We’ll all know by Sunday, July 6,” Lawler wrote. “However, should you reach the required numbers by then, it will not deter us from continuing our efforts to inform our players of what has happened or how it happened. Should you not reach the number, please do not point the finger at us. Point the fingers at yourselves.”

*

WTA Chief Executive Larry Scott said Wednesday he is planning on conducting a review of the organization’s age-eligibility rule. The rule limits the number of tournaments players age 14-18 can participate in and has come into focus with the success of 16-year-old Maria Sharapova of Russia.

“I think it’s a great program and the principles of it are terrific,” said Scott, who has had discussions with the Sharapova family.

“Things change. While we haven’t formalized it yet, at the moment I’m inclined to step back and do a review of the program and to revisit some of the aspects.”