THE CONFLICT: WHO SHOULD BE RUNNING TENNIS? : Struggle for Control of Men’s Professional Circuit Winds Up in a Court of Law

NEW YORK — Let’s say there are two children who want to have parties. These are very rich children, and each wants to have the best party and the most popular kids in attendance.

These children have the means to pay other kids to come to their parties. They also own the catering company, the band, the jugglers and clowns. They are paid by the balloon suppliers, they get a cut from the manufacturer of the funny hats and their cousins work for the ice cream vendor.

No one really likes these junior tycoons, but they do have great parties.

That, in a sordid nutshell, approximates what is happening in the world of professional tennis.

No comparison could be too juvenile to describe the struggle for control of men’s tennis, a tug of war between the group that oversees the game--the Men’s International Professional Tennis Council--and the sports management companies and agents who seek to gain total control for themselves.

Since early last year, there have been claims and counter-claims, and both the agents’ groups and the Pro Council have begun lawsuits. The current litigation in New York’s Southern District of the federal court is an antitrust case not unlike the recent NFL-USFL trial. It is all about power and control. It is about who runs tennis.

“I think everything has to do with money, especially this litigation,” said Ivan Blumberg, assistant to Donald Dell, chairman of ProServ, the most successful management firm in tennis. “This is a very, very expensive lawsuit. We brought this action, but we did not bring it out of the clear blue skies. When the Pro Council passed rules that restricted us and restricted the players, it was a move to protect our business.”

The Pro Council is a nine-person committee that sets the rules governing the 70 Grand Prix tournaments. Last year, the Pro Council passed rules that sharply curtailed ProServ’s influence.

Among the Pro Council’s rules are those telling the top players how many Grand Prix tournaments they must play and, since other tournaments may conflict with sanctioned tour events, which tournaments they may play in.

The Pro Council believes that it runs tennis.

“That is our charter, that is what we have been doing all these years,” said Marshall Happer III, the Pro Council administrator.

But tennis does not live by the council alone. Besides ProServ, there are also the International Management Group (IMG) and Advantage International, which represent virtually all of the top male players in the world.

Mega-agencies such as ProServ do much more.

Dell, a Yale-educated lawyer often called the octopus of tennis and Donald Deal, is a former captain of the U.S. Davis Cup team. He got into the business end of tennis at the start of the open era, which proved to be marvelous timing for both tennis and Dell’s new enterprise, and has significantly shaped tennis into his own image. Dell thinks big.

ProServ is so big, in fact, that its prominence in tennis is threatening to undermine the traditional power of the Pro Council. It was in an effort to head this off that the council passed the rule aimed at curbing the movement of the management agencies.

That action caused an equal and opposite reaction from Volvo North America Corporation, a ProServ client that has invested heavily in tennis. The suit, a dispute over sponsorship of the Grand Prix, has since been joined by ProServ and IMG. Volvo had formerly been the sponsor of the prestigious circuit. Nabisco Brands is the current sponsor.

The council maintains that Volvo, along with ProServ and IMG, has tried to usurp the council’s authority. Further, it has said that Volvo, with its varied public and collegiate tennis programs, is misrepresenting itself as the sole sponsor of tennis in America.

Among other things that irk the Pro Council are that ProServ represents players, organizes and runs Grand Prix and exhibitions, negotiates for tournament sponsors, negotiates network television rights, and produces matches for its own ProServ Television. Dell, in addition, is a frequent color commentator on television.

As a management firm, ProServ also collects a fee for its services to tournament directors, and gets a cut from the sale of merchandise at tournaments.

Thus, if ProServ runs its own tournament, as it does in the Paine Webber event at Fort Myers, Fla., this is possible: ProServ negotiates a television contract, from which it additionally receives a royalty from commercial time sold, and brings in top players--its own clients--which helps the gate.

That’s all fine with ProServ, since it gets a cut of the gate, too. If a ProServ client wins prize money, ProServ gets a slice of that, and if a player gets an up-front money guarantee, ProServ gets some of that, too.

If Dell happens to be the color commentator and if he happens to say nice things about his clients while on television, something he’s been accused of, that’s fine, too.

As the tournament director, Dell also holds three to eight wild-card spots in the tournament. These wild-card berths, often given to either a popular older player or a promising newcomer, provide valuable exposure for players seeking either representation or endorsements.

The Pro Council charges that this holding of wild-card hostages is unfair. The council points out that ProServ may use the wild card to impress a young player.

Dell has been quoted as saying: “If I want to give a wild card to my dog, I can. It’s my tournament.”

Dell often skirts the conflict-of-interest issue, though, by saying that when he wears the hat of promoter, he does what is in the best interest of the tournament. When he is representing his client, he does what is in the player’s best interest. Full disclosure, Dell says, prevents hard feelings on any side.

“There are no secrets,” Blumberg said. “You can keep a secret in tennis for about 15 minutes. All the players know what Donald does. They know.”

The Pro Council’s counterclaim charges that IMG, Volvo and ProServ have conspired to monopolize men’s professional tennis in violation of federal antitrust law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Specifically, the claim charges the agencies with “holding the game hostage and seeking to strangle it in an illegal web of pervasive conflicts, intimidation, fraud and corruption.”

Fighting words, if ever there have been.

Said Mike Davies, whose contract as executive director of the MIPTC was terminated Saturday: “This suit says very plainly that the council has gone to war with the agents. Their conflicts and entanglements now threaten our sport to the extent that we feel the agents must choose whether they will represent players or tournaments. They can’t do both.”

But the agencies argue that they have done both, with success, for many years. They argue for a continuation of the status quo.

ProServ, fueled by Volvo’s corporate support, has without doubt brought money and exposure to tennis. It has also brought a business and marketing mind set to the game. All it wants to do, ProServ argues, is continue to do business so that the sponsors profit, the players profit, the game profits and ProServ profits.

“It’s an unfair situation for the players as well as the sponsors of competing tournaments,” Happer, the MIPTC administrator, said. “There are only so many top players in the world. That means tournaments around the world are scrambling like crazy to get guys.”

Happer sees the council as protecting the game from the agents’ predatory practices. With all the arguing from both sides, what potential sponsors and the public sees is a house divided.

“I think this will taint tennis,” Blumberg, of ProServ, said. “As the dirty laundry, which clearly exists, is dragged through the judicial system and the press, we may find ourselves in a position of not finding those (sponsorship) dollars.”

The players, who are most directly affected, are either uninformed or indifferent. Several players interviewed for this story said they weren’t aware of any of the facts in the lawsuit.

Jimmy Connors, a ProServ client, may be one of the best informed players on the subject but refused to discuss the suits when asked during the first round of the U.S. Open last week.

“I don’t pay much attention to it but I know a lot about it,” Connors said. “It affects me, and for me not to have an opinion on it, I would be a fool. But right now is not the time and place to discuss it.”

Blumberg is quick to point out that the sport of professional tennis is without a commissioner, possibly explaining how the lines of control might have blurred.

After nearly two years of bad blood, the division between the agents and the Pro Council might have grown too wide for an out-of-court settlement.

The only certainty is that is will continue to be a long and sluggish process. Whatever the outcome, tennis is likely to change dramatically. And whichever group wrests control will likely not give it up for some time.