PACIFIC LIFE OPEN

March 14, 2003

Charlie Pasarell

CHARLIE PASARELL: Good morning. I'd like to start off by saying, "So what's wrong with American tennis?" And we don't even have our full sort of army here. You know, we have guys like Taylor Dent and Mardy Fish who didn't even get a chance to play here. So I think we're very healthy, very healthy shape. I'm talking about the youngsters. We saw it in Memphis. We had great results by Americans. We're starting to see it here in Indian Wells. I think we're going to be seeing it all throughout the rest of the year. Some of these guys I've never seen play before until here. Vahaly, is a perfect example. I've seen Robby Ginepri play a little bit but not really. I'm quite impressed. I'm really quite impressed. They are really cool, calm. I know they feel nervous, but just how they handled the nervousness and their sheer determination. I don't know the kids very well, but from what I'm reading in the newspapers, what they say, they seem to be really good personalities. These kids are coming around pretty good. I'll start with the men and then we'll get into the women. Hewitt-Ginepri. We'll find out. It's a good test for Robby. I think Lleyton, he breezed through this tournament last year, from my recollection. It's not happening this year. He really came from nowhere. I thought he was gone in that match he played against El Aynaoui. He's just the most tenacious competitor. This will be a really, really good test for Ginepri. It's going to be interesting to see whether Ginepri can stay with him. Obviously, I'll have to say Lleyton has to be the heavily favored player. Vahaly and Vince Spadea, I don't know, see what happens. Blake and Kuerten. I watched Guga play a couple of matches. I've been watching him practice. The other day he finished a match, which he won, and immediately he went to the practice court. Obviously, he's keen and eager. He wants to get back up there again. I went out and watched that match he played against Calleri, who I've never seen play before. Tremendous groundstrokes, that guy. I mean, it was a real, real good win I think for Gustavo because this kid gave him everything he could handle. I think Kuerten could be sort of what I will say would be the surprise winner here. I think he certainly could be. Now, James, I think he's played well at the right times. I think there's some lapses in some of his matches. Again, I think he's proving that he belongs up there. He's ready I think to crack the Top 10 possibly this year. It will be an interesting match. Roddick and Schuettler. Again, Schuettler, we've seen him play for a number of years. It wasn't really until the Australian Open that we noticed him. Andy, of course, has been having a pretty good sort of last 18 months. Certainly I watched that match last night against Grosjean. I thought that was a very high, high level, quality of tennis. Grosjean I thought played unbelievable. The only part of the match he did not play so well was the final tiebreaker. He made about three bad forehand errors, I thought. But it was a sensational tennis match. In fact, I think except for the final tiebreaker, I think Grosjean had the upper hand in that match most of the time. So Roddick-Schuettler, again, it's going to be an interesting test for both guys. Schuettler is also trying to crack into the Top 10, so to speak. Roddick is already there, but he's not satisfied at No. 6. I think he has higher aspirations than that. It's going to be a fun match to watch. The ladies. I think the real story here in the ladies is Conchita Martinez. Boy, I could not believe how well she played yesterday. I didn't get to see her, but I waited around the locker room a little bit and said, "How old are you? Are you 18?" She has totally rejuvenated her game. She played smart. Just a terrific tennis match. She's the real big story I think in the ladies' event. She's going to have her hands full with Kim. I mean, Kim, she's just a tenacious, tenacious competitor, just like her boyfriend. Unbelievable competitor. Capriati-Davenport, that's going to be a very, very interesting match. We'll see who can get through there. I think we have some pretty damn exciting tennis. That's my analysis of the matches. Fire away.

CHARLIE PASARELL: No, no, one thing for certain is we will never stop talking about it and trying to hopefully bring the issue to a head until it really happens. I mean, I think it needs to happen. I think we need to -- first of all I think the issue is more fundamental than that. You've heard me say this for some time now. The game of tennis needs to get together. There's too much fragmentation in the sport. Certainly I think you should begin maybe with the ATP and the WTA getting together and trying to figure out how they can work together, do even -- I don't want to call them menial services, but there's no reason to have two, for example, receptionists at an office. They maybe should bunk together in an office together, have one receptionist, savings there, money that can be spent trying to do something else constructive. They should certainly coordinate their PR campaigns. While they could be a little bit different with the men and women, it's still tennis, and it's about promoting the game. The men should be saying how great women's tennis is, the women should be saying how great men's tennis is. It shouldn't be one against the other: "We're better to watch than you are. We're more exciting than you are." These things need to start happening soon. Every day that goes by that they don't do it is just one day lost. Then I think the Grand Slams need to come to the party. The ITF needs to come to the party. We've been talking about this for a long, long time. Everybody needs to get at a table, lock themselves in a room, put all of their cards on the table, go through all of the fights that we need to go through, come out of their with some agreements, some agreements as to how the game is going to continue to grow and move forward. We have a lot of competition out there. These are not the easiest times. Networks, television are key to any sport, any form of entertainment. At least in this country, in many other countries, even in Europe, tennis is not what you would call a prime sport. You get overshadowed by sports like soccer and auto racing, some other sports. Really tennis needs to get their act together. It has to begin with just a collective effort of all the forces. Are there always going to be fights? Absolutely. But at least if you can come out with some sort of a set of agreements that you can say, "We're going to try to do this together for the sake of everybody," I think we'd be better off. I'm very hopefully that that will happen. I think it's going to come to a head this year.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Certainly that would be one good thing to happen, but it's a lot more than that. It's not just about, "Let's get the best players to play the best events." It's a lot more than that. I just think we have to do this. I believe it's going to come to a head this year and everybody is going to get together. As most of you, the Grand Slams are meeting in Lausanne, and they're trying to structure their ideas as to what it is. I think all the parties need to come to the table and everybody give more than their two cents' worth and hopefully try to come with some sort of agreement. We need to do this. The game needs it.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Please do. It wouldn't be fun unless somebody did.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Well, I think they're kidding themselves, I'm talking about the Slams, if they think they don't need to promote the sport and pump money into the sport.

CHARLIE PASARELL: So does this tournament, the next tournament, all the tournaments before, the ATP and the WTA. The problem is, it is not a coordinated effort. Everybody's promoting this, promoting that. It is confusion out there. By comparison, it is minuscule of what we spend to promote the sport. For example -- not a sport, but another form of entertainment. I'm giving you sort of a very general, but pretty accurate example. If a producer goes out and produces a film, a movie for theaters, may cost him $30 million to do that film. Besides the $30 million he'll spend on producing the film, he'll spend another $30 million to promote it, to guarantee that the people will show up at the theaters, that the film will continue. That's only one film. I say, if you can do that for one film, imagine how many films come off. Golf just the other day announced, the PGA TOUR only, they announced they were going to spend $6 million to do nothing but to promote the telecasts, promote the TOUR, so to speak. The PGA TOUR has this big campaign, and it is about golf. They're going to spend $6 million to do that. It's a coordinated effort at least here in America. I think the game of tennis needs to coordinate their efforts. I think it is a complete waste for the Grand Slams, each individual Grand Slam, to do what they're doing - not a complete waste, but a bit of a waste. For them to spend what they think here, for the ATP to do this, WTA to do that, you send a lot of confusing messages. It is about coordinating whatever resources we have. I think the McKenzie report said, "Look, here's what's happening in sports. It's sort of a spiral. It's almost like going into a black hole. All events, including the Grand Slams, are starting to experience television problems that will affect sponsorships, that will affect the economics of the professional game, and therefore even the players are going to be affected". It was a telling message. We have to break that spiral. They even said, if you continue on status quo, basically the results should be it's a flat result. If you start looking by individual events, maybe some of the Slams will go up, even some of the Slams could go down, and maybe some tournaments will go up, other tournaments will go down. But the general industry of the sport, best-case scenario is it's flat. However, if you somehow can get together in a room, and this is what they -- they call this premium tennis. It's not about, "Here is the calendar, here is the format, here are the tournaments." It wasn't about that. It was about getting everybody together and trying to agree to do everything together, coordinate your efforts, use your resources. Within the next four or five years, you could double what you're doing. That's obviously very optimistic, but at the very least you could have a 30%, 40%, 50% increase, just by having a coordinated effort. That's the big message. The problem is there is great distrust between all these organizations. ATP distrusts the Grand Slams. The WTA distrusts this. Vice versa. Everybody distrusts everybody. They all think somebody has something up their sleeves trying to do this thing. The thing we have to do, we have to lock ourselves in a room, put all the cards on the table, have the arguments, "You did this to me, you're doing this," just go through this, air it all out. But make a commitment, come out of there with some sort of working relationship that you can at least agree on certain things we need to do for the sake of everybody. In spite of itself, the sport of tennis will continue to be there and continue to grow, but I think we're missing a great opportunity and I think the competition is getting tougher. I think everybody is experiencing that, including the Slams.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I think when you promote the game at the top level, I think you really are bringing more people into the sport. It's the showcase. I don't know the inner workings of the Federations that well. From what I hear, there are some big issues within the USTA here with our sections, that they don't think they're getting their fair share of "the profits" from the US Open. It's a big issue. I think the USTA board is having to deal with it now. Even at the grass roots level, this is not about promoting professional sport, it's about trying to promote the various sections and various people. I know that's supposed to be their mission. That is their mission. I'm not saying everything they do is wrong. I'm just saying they probably need to do more. But still, the revenue-producing part of the sport is the professional level. It's not just the US Open or the Grand Slams, it's all of the events. Every event here contributes. We contribute to development of tennis here from our proceeds. We do. So does every tournament. Cincinnati does it, Memphis does it, everybody does it. We're not saying, "Give us money so we can make our tournaments better." That's not what we're saying. We're saying, "We're going to spend money, you're going to spend money, let's do it collectively. Let's use our resources in a collective way that we can do the best damn job for the sport, then everybody benefits."

CHARLIE PASARELL: First of all, it has to be a very complex and well-detailed plan. It's not, "This is how you can do that." I'll answer that question by saying what McKenzie did, they didn't just outline a plan saying, "Here it is." They said that, "We at least can identify six levers, six things you need to start help grow." They identified them by categories. They said, "I think you need to address your public relation efforts, your television issues in a more cohesive, coordinated way." Whatever that is, you have to develop a plan, how you promote the game. Two, I think as far as the tour, you need to work in a better calendar format type of structure so that you have something people can follow a lot easier. I'm trying to do this from memory. They identified about six different levers, and there may be others. All I'm saying is McKenzie has identified areas that at least you guys can start dealing with and try to develop what are the best plans, how can you do these things to help the game grow? That's what premium tennis was all about, what they called it. If you can start addressing these things, they say you will grow. They showed something that was really very talented. It's an example. It's not that the numbers are significant, it's just that it shows what the trends are. Here is what they did: They put a column and said these are eyeballs for sports. They picked NBA basketball as one league. They picked tennis. They picked auto racing. They picked soccer. They said, again, there's like two billion people that watch these events in total around the world. The next column was capitalization, how much money these sports make. It's $2 billion being made. The numbers are not important. That was the second column. Then they said that of these 22 billion eyeballs, soccer gets 47%, 49% of the eyeballs watching soccer. 35% watch auto racing. 2% watch the NBA. 8% watch tennis around the world. Tennis was about four times bigger than the NBA. Then they drew some lines and said, how does that relate to the $2 billion generated by these four sports? What percentages are they getting? Soccer, exactly what their eyeballs. If they were getting 49%, they were getting 49% of the money. Auto rating, exactly the same. NBA, they were getting 16%. Excuse me. I have the numbers wrong. It was 8% eyeballs for tennis and 4% for the NBA. NBA was getting 16% of the money and tennis was getting 2%. You ask the question, "Why?" We're not even monetizing our potential. To me, that was very telling. Even if we don't grow the audience, we're still not capitalizing the sport the way it should be. To me, that's something we need to start thinking about. Unfortunately, we need money to help grow the sport.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I think you need that, but that's not all of it. I think it takes a hell of a lot more than that. Look, you can pick the names out there, what kind of ratings you're going to get. Agassi-Sampras, what kind of ratings are you going to get? They don't even get ratings that are by network standards profitable to the networks, not even that, not even the two biggest names in America could not drive the ratings there, by comparison of what other sports get. The point I'm trying to get is, yeah, you have to have the top players playing the events. That's an important part. But it's a hell of a lot more than that. It's about really promoting it. You can have the greatest thing going somewhere, but if you don't get it out there, and you assume everybody should know about this thing, but the truth of the matter is people don't know about it. Again, just to go back to what I said about the film industry, you can have Richard Gere, a well-known actor in a film, they can spend $35 million in doing a film, I guarantee you they're going to spend $35 million promoting Richard Gere and the film, even though everybody knows him. That's my point. You can't just assume that they show up, everybody will show up. It's just not going to happen. It takes a hell of a lot more than that for us to really, really become competitive with other forms of entertainment. We have to compete with other forms of entertainment and sports for air time, newspaper time. I really believe we have to pool our resources and do a coordinated effort. We are spending money, everybody is spending money. We're not saying the Grand Slams are not spending money. We know they're spending money. By God, let's try to figure out how we can do something that's coordinated and we have a clear message to the public that this is a great sport. And it is. The eyeballs tell us. We're not even living up to our potential.

CHARLIE PASARELL: We agree. I wish I had the newspaper man here and the television people on the other side and let you debate it.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I understand very well. This is an issue that happens at just about any tournament you go to. It's something that we have to try to deal with the best we can. I don't know the answer to that. I honestly don't.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I think you guys, we've debated this.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Look, I'm not going to shift the attention, but it goes to the scheduling meeting. I stopped doing that 15 years ago because the players want this, the WTA wants this, the ATP wants this, television wants this. The night crowd, the day crowd.

CHARLIE PASARELL: The economics of the event is that unless we're able to provide some television to the event, not because we make money from television. In fact, we don't make money from television. It costs us money to put it on TV. But sponsorships are driven by the TV coverage. I would love you to go out and sell me some sponsorship based on coverage.

CHARLIE PASARELL: What's the word? We are all slaves - I don't know the word - to the television. Perfect example. I have to play my men's final at 9:30 in the morning. From a players' perspective, you don't think these guys are going nuts in the locker room? I don't even want to go to the locker room, they're going to jump at me. What do we do? Unless we can say, "Screw television, we'll have a nice amateur event here with some local players." That's about all we could do.

CHARLIE PASARELL: When we do have our scheduling meetings, we do have international television participation in those scheduling meetings. Maybe you need to send a better representative.

STEVE SIMON: There's a couple things. They do have contracts in place that you have to honor to deliver because there are international television revenues coming in. They have to deliver to the windows that they've contracted for. You also have to address the audience and what time matches are play, especially when you have marquee players. The third side, getting into the newspaper articles, when you're out selling, too, one of the biggest challenges we have with newspapers is many, many newspapers for commercial reasons don't call it as the tournament's name, they'll refer to it as the city. That causes us problems with the sponsor. We go through this, huge arguments with Pacific Life all the time, because they refer to the tournament as Indian Wells and not the Pacific Life Open. Those are the challenges we have. It's a very fair debate. They're all very good. There's a lot of factors that you're balancing there. The attending audience is part of it. You can't play some of those marquee matches at 10 in the morning.

CHARLIE PASARELL: If we could have this not be so subject to sponsorship, I think these problems could be solved a lot easier.

STEVE SIMON: Absolutely.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I'm not telling you you're wrong. You have a damn good point. As Steve says, we have to balance all this stuff. Like anything else, you can't make everybody happy. At the end of the day, you've really got to try to throw up your arms and say, "That's the best we can do."

CHARLIE PASARELL: That's right.

CHARLIE PASARELL: What you're saying may sound a little bit crazy, but I think that's some of the stuff we need to start looking into, is there a different way of marketing this sport, different way of generating dollars? I'm one that wakes up in the middle of the night in cold sweats trying to figure out if we're doing this right. Are we caught in a vicious cycle we can't get out of? Pacific Life is an unreal sponsor. If you look at what they've been doing, not only do they sponsor this event, they will pump, like with the television commercial, they spend $8 million to $10 million just in that one commercial alone in the United States. They also happen to be the largest sponsor of the Australian Open broadcasting in the United States with ESPN. They're really getting behind us. We want sponsors like that. But at the same time, you know, as Steve says, you have to really come in. They're looking for impressions, looking for the thing. Television is absolutely critical for that. How do we deliver network? We got to put our matches at 9:30 in the morning here on Sunday. It's the only way we can do it. That's not a very happy thing for players. It's not even a happy thing for our spectators or staff or everybody. By God, what choices do we have? Again, it gets down to this sort of vicious cycle thing. If somehow we could break the mold, start promoting the sport, maybe networks would cover us instead of having to cover IRL or whatever. We are a better product. I believe we are. So maybe they'll give us a better time. Maybe there will be a better way to schedule matches. It's a lot of things. I mean this sincerely, one of the beautiful things about Wimbledon is that Wimbledon is probably the tournament that is least dependent on sponsorships. That's why Wimbledon in so many ways is maybe the crown jewel of them all. I don't know what the sponsorships at Wimbledon are.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Their scheduling, their programming of the matches, their programming of the event is not driven by sponsorships. I would love to be that way.

CHARLIE PASARELL: They'll go out and play. Maybe the guy that loses is going to complain about the fact that he had to play at 9:30. These guys are starting to understand there's certain things they need to do. It's not going to be like they're going to walk out or anything, I hope. You know, they'll do it. But, yeah, it's something that they know. It's not their preferred time. They wish they could play at 11 or noon or some more reasonable time so they can have a little bit more rest. Also it's hard to get people here at 9:30 in the morning to see the men's final, Sunday morning. We didn't do this because we thought it was a good idea.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I think so. I think team sports will get great following from their regions in some respect. Super Bowl, everybody watches that, get tremendous ratings, even though your team may not be playing in it. Every single game that you see, I don't know how many people are watching the Lakers in New York unless they're playing New York. Do you understand what I'm saying? I don't know how to answer that question. I think we really are a much more international sport, one of the biggest international sports. It is about penalties. Perhaps we need to introduce a little bit of nationalism into the sport. Certainly you see it. I think one of the tournaments I really think is one of the -- I think they probably do it better than anybody, those of you that go to all these events, is the Australian Open, how there is unbelievable nationalism in the Australian Open for all the various nations. When the Swedes play, there's all these guys with painted faces, the Dutch with orange faces, Germans, certainly the Australians. There's a great spirit going on on the grounds with people following players from their countries. I'd like to figure out a way how to do that here, too. In fact, we think about it all the time. We're trying to spur that on. It is about how you organize and promote it. I think we should get a little bit of team, your nation is playing. I think that would help.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Basically the men will start on Friday. We'll have a 96 draw. We'll play qualifying probably Wednesday, Thursday.

STEVE SIMON: We're still possibly looking at a Wednesday start. Working on a schedule now.

CHARLIE PASARELL: It's something that we've wanted to do. I believe what Butch did with the Nasdaq in Miami, Key Biscayne, is the right thing to do. Certainly made the investment to allow us to be able to do that, investment in the grounds and stadium, so we could hopefully get it, and we got it. I think events like this can only help, can only help. Certainly won't hurt the Grand Slams. It can only help them. I think we need to do more of them. I think Europe -- the other European events should get their act together and do this kind of stuff, too. I'll be the first guy to support that, and so will Butch.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Well, there's a lot of stuff that's been discussed about the Australian Open going into March. In fact, both Butch and I have had discussion with Paul McNamee about it. We're receptive to the idea. I think it helps us certainly in the television period. We start getting away from the NCAA basketball.

CHARLIE PASARELL: In February. It's critical for that that they don't go too early in the March, because then we have to put Miami and Indian Wells into January, then we start running into some weather problems, Super Bowl problems, all that kind of stuff. I've done the calendar, if they were to do that. Miami is in weeks 12 and 13 at the moment. I always think about the weeks. So many of you understand this. If the Australian Open were to go -- the first calendar I showed Paul was, "Why don't you take Miami's week, 12 and 13," which is the third and fourth week of March. Paul then said, "We would have a problem because our final weekend for the Australian Open would conflict with the opening season of their Australian Open football." Could go a week earlier. We've done a calendar like that, but haven't discussed it with Paul.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I find it hard to believe they would want to move.

CHARLIE PASARELL: It's not broken. They're in their holiday season.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Can I tell you something? Everybody says, "We have to end the tennis season earlier." You know what, there will be tournaments in November. The guys will be going out and playing. They're not going to sit home for three months doing nothing.

CHARLIE PASARELL: They're not going to be in their backyard. They have to travel to Timbuktu to play a $1 million exhibition. "Too much travel. Too hard on us." They'll be doing it, trust me. Been there, done that, okay?

CHARLIE PASARELL: I don't think we want to prolong the season. I think we can maybe shorten the season by a week or two. But this business about ending it in October is nonsense. I guarantee you there will be so many events, exhibitions, whatever you want to call them, all over the world, paying players millions. Every one of them is going to go out and play them.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I think you're absolutely correct. Are Miami and Indian Wells going to fight? "No, let's work it out." I said to Paul, "Are you sure you really want to do this? If I was you, I wouldn't do it. If you want to do it, fine, we'll work it out."

CHARLIE PASARELL: Going to try to answer. I think weather-wise and season-wise and everything, it's where we are now is perfect. Television-wise and US newspaper-wise, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's better for us to go into February because we're staying away from the final conclusion of NCAA basketball, right?

CHARLIE PASARELL: We look at it and say, "February would be good." Weather would be a little cooler, maybe a little shakier. From a media television market, not such a bad deal. We would work it out.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Same thing, identical. He's identical as we are.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Never heard it put that way. That's very good (laughter). Most definitely the WTA is -- nobody is holding the rudder. They got to find somebody ASAP. We tournaments, I'm sure players, too, "Who do we talk to? Who do we go and speak to?" They need to get somebody on board as soon as possible. I'm I think they'll do that. I think we'll know in the next maybe even couple weeks who that person will be. Regarding the so-called player organization, I've looked into it a little bit in the last few weeks, I think it's really more of an expression of their frustration. They feel that the players have not been represented properly in many things, but in particular they think -- I'm trying to put this in a diplomatic way. They want to go after the Grand Slams. That's what it's all about. That's not just a faction of players, that's an overwhelming majority of the players.

CHARLIE PASARELL: They feel that the Grand Slams, they say, "Look at all the money they're making, look at the player compensation." I think some of their criticism -- well, I don't think they see the whole picture. At least from a player compensation standpoint that is the thing that gets them going, they see that as an issue. I think what they have tried to do is they said, can the ATP as an organization go do that? The ATP is not a union. I think Mark Miles, our CEO, is trying to manage that very well with the players. I think he's going to do a very good job with that. The players just can't go in and say, "We're going to boycott, we're going to play another event because you guys are not paying enough money." They'll get killed. It's not the right thing to do. But I think what will come out of it, that's why I say I'm very optimistic, maybe the threat will cause, make the Grand Slams to come down and sit down and figure out, "How do we work together?" Player compensation is something they need to address. It's more than that. It's more than that. It's about how to participate, how they're involved, how they try to coordinate schedules. Too often we work in isolation. That group, which is led by Wayne and Jeff, I think it really is saying, "Come on, do something, or we're going to go out and form our own players union." Yes, it was sort of going after the ATP, but it was going after the ATP because the ATP wasn't going on their behalf addressing the Grand Slams. That's really what's going on. Every so often we hit one of these crises in the world of tennis. Interesting thing, in spite of what some people may think, I can tell you this, this is not something that the ATP leadership, Mark Miles, the board, anybody has come out, this is really driven by the locker room. They're telling Mark and the board that, "You guys have to do something." We're trying to say, "Look, slow down. Don't just go out there saying that you need more money. That is not a responsible way of doing it." We have to address player compensation at the Grand Slams. I think there's ways of solving that problem. You can do that through a lot of other leagues. You can do that through some sort of revenue-sharing programs that can be done. Everybody says that every so often there's a strike by the players, they want to change the revenue-sharing program. Sure, maybe they fight about it once every five years, a fight between the players and the organization. But I say it would be a hell of an improvement for tennis. We fight about this every day. We're sort of living in limbo out there. I think at least we need to get everybody at the table. There are always going to be differences. There are always going to be arguments and fights. We have to at least figure out a way of how to deal with them through strong agreements, agree on a philosophy and policy of how we're going to grow the sport. Everybody is going to want to protect their territory. I understand that. We need to band together and try to do it better.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I would hope this doesn't become something that is debated and negotiated in the newspapers. I hope this is something that we can try to bring in a boardroom of some sort, try to really figure out what is a fair deal, try to really work it out. That's really what we're trying to do. We're saying, "Don't go out there and say that you want money for this and that." Ultimately, there's got to be a plan. It's going to be negotiated. At the same time I believe the players do understand what it is that the Grand Slams do, what they do with that money. They need to understand we need money not just for player compensation, but we need money for other things, the sport. I'm talking the sport needs money for other things. We talked earlier about PR campaigns, trying to grow it. I think that's an investment to grow it even further. That's why I say revenue sharing. The revenues get bigger, the players get more money. You got to come up with a business plan, a strategy.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Again, you can debate it any which way. You may know what it is. I don't think the players know what it is. Maybe you sit down and show them what it is, where it's going.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I understand that. I think there's never been any way to communicate that. It's not like the Grand Slams are saying, "Here what is we do, guys." I think you're right. I for one say, I know what it is, at least I have a hint. We're sort of not -- we're on the other side of the fence trying to do the very same things. I don't mind sitting down with them and say, "You tell me, how are we doing? Are we being fair or unfair?" I think at least with some logic, and getting the right people because you really can't expect - this is not meant to be demeaning - if you have a 21-year-old, 22-year-old kid that doesn't really have the experience to really truly understand. I think what Wayne and Jeff were trying to do is saying perhaps what we need to do is put on the board some representation, people that are more understanding of what it's all about. I think they underestimate the job that the player representatives like Gary Muller and Tomas Carbonell are doing. These guys walk in there, and they can absolutely get it. The problem is that -- I can tell you at many board meetings, I've been on the board longer than anybody, and they say, "We can't just go back to the locker room because they'll kill us." We understand. Sometimes it takes some leadership to do that. I try to encourage them. Sometimes a strong leader, as we're witnessing today in the world, has to go against public opinion, majority of the public opinion. That's what a leader is all about. It will be an ongoing thing. That will never change. It's 22-year-old, 21-year-old kid in the locker room, he doesn't understand what it's all about. As I said, I've been trying to say to the players, "Don't just pump your chest out and think that you're going to get this. You've got to be responsible, you've got to be right." They maybe need to sit down with the Grand Slams, maybe they have been unfair, but they have to figure out.

CHARLIE PASARELL: It's in the air right now. He pointed out there's a strong player movement out there that is saying things.

CHARLIE PASARELL: I haven't seen it this strong since our boycott of Wimbledon. It's the strongest player, cohesive player group, that I've seen in a long time. They are in a sense giving the ATP leadership, Mark Miles and the board, a mandate to do something. We're trying to act responsibly. Mark Miles at the helm is trying to act responsibly.

CHARLIE PASARELL: We are in the process of doing that, and it will, yes.

CHARLIE PASARELL: That's part of it. But that's almost a symptom. From my conversations with those guys, they essentially say people are misunderstanding of what we're doing. Somebody said it right, why do we want to go after the organization? What they're saying is that they want the ATP to do something about it. They don't want to form a new group. But if the ATP is unable to do it, essentially that's what they're saying. It takes that kind of a threat to get something going.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Yeah. They said to address player compensation at the Slams. That's a big part of the whole thing. I think they're starting to understand it's not just about player compensation, it is about coordination, getting together, working together, working towards the future. My idea, not that it's not only my idea, but I think what the players would expect, "Show us what you're doing, but let's work on a scheme, revenue-sharing formula, however you want to do it, so that if the sport does grow, if the Slams continue to grow, we're going to get our X percentage in growth." I think the Grand Slams every year continue to increase their prize money. It's not like they have been completely unfair. I think the players, they just don't know. The time has come that everybody needs to sit down and try to figure it out. And we have to have responsible people that understand it sitting at the board talking to the Grand Slams and talking to everybody.

CHARLIE PASARELL: You may not be able to. It's how you define it. Maybe the issue is not getting a percentage of profits, maybe it's the issue of getting a percentage of growth, which affects the profits. Same thing.

CHARLIE PASARELL: If Wimbledon tomorrow decides to increase their prize money, but just to make this point, if Wimbledon announces they're going to spend another 5 million more in prize monies, their profit also go down by 5 million.

CHARLIE PASARELL: Of what the prize money is?

CHARLIE PASARELL: In Wimbledon's case, you have to negotiate with the All England Club and the LTA, as well.