Tennis tournaments for adults only - the dirty little secret of the tennis event industry

Big tennis tournaments and their prices have always been a concern of Racket Business founder Rich Neher.

The reason for this is that I grew up in a modest environment where our occasional luxury was a chicken dinner once a month on Sundays. In those days, I had to walk to school as there was no school bus. Our family of 8 was limited to one car, a Volkswagen Beetle with seating for 5. We played on the streets and were expected to be home by seven pm without fail. You get the picture.

​You may question the justification for paying $60 for a ticket to watch qualifying events, such as in Delray Beach. Or wonder about paying $30 for a glass of Champagne at the BNP Paribas Open. You might even question the practice of requiring children over 12 months old to pay for an adult ticket at the Cinci Open. Or, how about ALL CHILDREN pay adult ticket prices in San Diego? I believe there are significant issues with all of these practices. 

​Let's try to deeply dive into the reasons behind those exorbitant ticket prices and particularly keep an eye out for children's tickets.

Ownership needs to make money

The four tournaments mentioned above serve as prime examples of owners striving to achieve a favorable return on their investments. Understanding the ownership of the three privately owned events is quite straightforward. BNP Paribas Open is owned by Larry Ellison, the Miami Open is owned by IMG and Stephen Ross, the Cincinnati Open is owned by Beemok Capital, and the Delray Beach Open is owned by Ivan Baron. These owners have made significant investments in their tournaments and are committed to implementing a strategy akin to that of the US Open to generate sufficient profits. The fact that fewer and fewer people can afford tickets or food at their events is not a big concern as long as luxury sponsors pay their fees.

As for the US Open, it is owned by our National Governing Body (NGB), the USTA. However, matters become somewhat complex since the USTA is designated as a nonprofit organization. Or so it seems. In reality, their nonprofit status is primarily for tax purposes and on paper. In actuality, the USTA is a profit-driven institution that allocates the majority of its profits toward payroll, rather than fulfilling the intended purpose for which the IRS granted it tax-exempt status: promoting the growth of tennis. Curiously, the USTA probably views compensating their CEO with a salary of $1.4 million and granting him a $235,000 pay increase during the Covid-19 pandemic as a means of advancing tennis.

But why does the USTA possess such a voracious appetite for money? The answer is quite simple: extravagant spending. To alleviate a portion of their staggering $726 million debt, the USTA willingly sold the Cincinnati Open last year. And you can already see the writing on the wall in Ohio: Beemak is making millions of dollars in improvements and the prices will go through the roof.  Nevertheless, the USTA execs continue to incur expenses, providing substantial salaries in Orlando and supporting the financial needs of the 17 sections every year. The USTA's financial endeavors are driven by a seemingly unstoppable need for cash. Consequently, in an effort to appease the IRS and critics alike, they make token contributions to the USTA Foundation, offer grants to certain Community Tennis Associations (CTAs), and distribute a huge number of awards to friendly clubs and individuals who are not critical of their operations.

Is the growth of tennis a significant concern?

Certainly not for the owners of those and most other tournaments. For the USTA, the growth of tennis is their stated mission, but the US Open is primarily seen as a means to generate revenue to fulfill that mission. Therefore, it is important to understand that its primary purpose is to generate financial profit. This is an important clarification to make.

​Are any of these tournaments positioned to foster the growth of tennis?

Unfortunately, no. And here's why: They are intentionally not structured to promote the growth of tennis. To understand that, let's take another look at the US Open, as other tournaments often tend to emulate its strategy.

==> Target audience is not a growth demographic

The USTA leadership, including the Board of Directors, acknowledges that the organization has missed opportunities to foster the growth of tennis. Over the past 15 years, it has become evident that the average age of tennis players is increasing, exceeding 60 years. Regrettably, efforts to make the sport more appealing to younger generations have not materialized. However, the organization's financial objectives remain a priority, necessitating a strategic approach. 

==> Luxury brand sponsors to the rescue

To ensure the financial viability of the US Open, it became crucial to secure well-paying sponsors who can contribute to its success. Notably, the sponsors that possess substantial financial resources often cater to an older, affluent demographic. Given that the aging tennis-playing population may not always have the means to purchase luxury items like Rolex watches or Cadillacs, USTA leadership recognized the need for a slight pivot. 

==> Affluent ticket holders needed

In order to attract a wealthier audience, the USTA positioned the US Open as an exclusive event where children are not present*, catering instead to companies interested in purchasing expensive tickets for their executives and clients. This arrangement is further enhanced by the USTA's nonprofit status, allowing ticket purchases to be tax deductible. It is interesting to observe how circumstances can come full circle in unexpected ways.

​Paving the Path to Professional Coaching

The double whammy for regular people: They can't afford ticket prices and they can't write them off.

​==> Cadillac proves I'm right

Here's what Jack Morton Worldwide, the branding agency for General Motors wrote about Cadillac at the US Open. "Cadillac is not on the radar of many luxury buyers because they consider the brand to be second-tier. To change this and create emotional demand, we built a partnership portfolio to connect with luxury buyers through their passion for tennis. In 2022, we executed a multi-year agreement to add the iconic U.S. Open Tennis Championships to Cadillac’s portfolio of marquee events like the PGA Championships – major partnerships our target audiences know and love and will help Cadillac’s mission of championing big dreams and bold ambition and build “brand for me” desire among fans.

The pinnacle of the US Open experience is the VIP hospitality suite, the highly-coveted asset within Arthur Ashe Tennis Stadium where VIPs are treated to exceptional viewing of world-class tennis and elevated hospitality. We gutted, redesigned and rebuilt the space before the start of the tournament and delivered an experience that blew people away with many fans saying they “would buy a Cadillac just to spend another session in the hospitality suite!”.

The US Open Tennis Championships delivered on our goals, engaging over 850,000 fans onsite and providing the brand with nearly 64 hours of branded television exposure through the camera-visible signage. Most importantly the brand impact study showed that the three most important metrics – “brand for me”, “brand opinion” and “likely to consider” – all posted double digit increases blowing past ingoing benchmarks."

==> However, I think Jack Morton was wrong

Here's why:

1. "Brand for me?" I have reason to believe that the majority of Wall Street ticket holders prefer luxury vehicles such as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche, Tesla, and Lexus, rather than a Cadillac.

2. "Double-digit increase?" If none of the 850,000 fans have ever considered purchasing a Cadillac and only 22 individuals showed interest in the spacious interior, can that be considered a significant double-digit increase?

3. "Blew people away" It is highly doubtful that someone would claim they would buy a Cadillac solely to have access to the hospitality suite. Their statement seems unlikely and lacks credibility.

In my opinion, placing trust in Lew Sherr's rhetoric and considering the US Open as a worthwhile sponsorship investment for Cadillac was a mistake. I anticipate that the agreement with the US Open will not be renewed in the coming years because the very fans the USTA is targeting don't drive Cadillacs and probably will not buy them.

Here's why I call the US Open the most family-unfriendly grand slam!

It appears that the primary audience for the sessions at Arthur Ashe Stadium consists mainly of business professionals from New York, who may not prioritize bringing their children to the event or having kids running around while they enjoy their overpriced Honey Deuces at their company's expense. It wouldn't be surprising if Lew Sherr devised a strategy to ensure that Rolex and Cadillac, the event sponsors, enjoy his measures to minimize the presence of children during the main matches. These measures include the introduction of Fan Week and Kid's Night, as well as the decision to charge full adult prices for children over the age of 2. Voila! Problem solved.

The big "Adults Only" tennis conspiracy

What do the US Open, BNP Paribas Open*, Cincinnati Open, Miami Open, and San Diego Open (and likely other U.S. tournaments) have in common? They do not cater to children in the main draw matches. It is important to reflect on this observation. You are skeptical? Do you believe that Kid's Days, Fan Weeks, and other related events before the main draw are sufficient evidence of their inclusivity towards children? Reconsider. These seem to be intended to encourage adults to attend the main draw matches without their children. This fact is worth noting.

Here are the policies of some tournaments that seem to have adopted the USTA's stand on rejecting children. Mind you, not all post their policies on their website. I had to call Miami and San Diego.

The individual on the phone in San Diego seemed rather uneasy while informing me that all children are required to pay the full price at the SD Open. It is quite surprising to learn that if I attend the event with a 5-month-old and wish to purchase a $90 ticket for a moderately good seat during the quarterfinals, I will be charged $180, along with a $29.70 fee and a $2.06 "Order Fee." This accumulates to a total of $211.76, all while I hold the toddler in my arms. Do you find this to be an appropriate pricing policy? Imagine a family of five with kids aged 6,8,11. They would pay almost $500 for the pleasure of showing their kids some great women's tennis. (To the ignorant tennis pro who questioned on Facebook why a 5-month-old baby should be at a tournament while he can write off all expenses, I say: tell that to mothers with children who want to see tennis and don't necessarily have money for babysitters like you.)

Here's an example of the Cincinnati Open and their stated children's policy. I can only shake my head at this terrible policy.

In Conclusion

The USTA leadership and the Board face challenges in their flawed strategy. It is evident that the target audience they should attract find it difficult to afford the US Open. The reliance on increasing prices and securing large sponsors to sustain the financial aspect of the US Open is precarious. The potential consequences of the cash cow failing, for any reason, would lead to the collapse of the entire system, with a dwindling fanbase to rely on for support. However, it appears that their fervent pursuit of Pickleball may be driven by this very concern.

Tennis tournament organizers find themselves in a challenging predicament. With the average age of tennis enthusiasts increasing each year, there is a lack of younger individuals being drawn to the sport in sufficient numbers to foster its growth. High-end sponsors are primarily interested in targeting older individuals and business professionals due to their higher discretionary income. Consequently, these demographics are more likely to purchase expensive tickets and indulge in overpriced food options. Conversely, children and younger individuals often struggle to afford attending main draw matches. It is reasonable to assume that tournament owners are aware of this dilemma and can envision a future where the older generation fades away, leaving empty stadiums devoid of spectators. Large numbers participating in the Free Fan Week and Kid's Night events will not be sufficient to prevent the tournaments from facing financial difficulties.

*As for other events, I have been attending the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells for more than two decades, and I genuinely appreciate the tournament. In recent years, I have been fortunate to receive media credentials. Nevertheless, I cannot ignore the steep prices of tickets, food, and even a bottle of water, which can be quite unsettling. What speaks for the BNP Paribas Open: parking is free and it is without a doubt the best non-Grand Slam tournament in the nation. Ground passes start at $10 and give you access to Stadium 2, all smaller stadiums, and all practice courts. You can see a ton of amazing tennis for a pretty good price! Also, students get a 30% discount on tickets.