INDIAN WELLS, Calif.—Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have both said they have received no explanation for why ATP CEO Chris Kermode is being ousted, but want to help decide where the tour goes next.

Federer and Nadal have both been on the ATP Player Council in previous years, but are not among the 10 current council members of whom No. 1 Novak Djokovic is president.

"It's hard for me to express a detailed opinion because I am no longer politically involved. Actually, I want the people who are in control to do that," Federer told press from Switzerland following his opening-round victory at the BNP Paribas Open. "For me, it's just important to know why it happened, and what happens now. I want to know what the motivation was, what Kermode has not done. I would have more of a tendency to be for him."

The comment follows Djokovic's refusal this week to say whether or not he had been in favor of the move.

There have been previous complaints from Federer and Nadal about not being consulted, to which Djokovic countered, "They could also approach me." But Federer said the Serb turned down a request to meet before the ATP meetings at Indian Wells, where the ATP board voted not to extend Kermode's tenure.

"I tried to meet Novak before the decision," he said. "Unfortunately, he had no time. That's hard for me... to understand. But that is okay. He definitely had a lot to do with the whole story.

"I asked if he had time to meet me.... He suggested we meet the next day, but then everything had been decided. We have not met yet, and in the meantime, the tournament has started."





Nadal, who before the tournament had expressed opposition to changing CEOs, also said he had still not had a conversation with any members of the player council, who elect the player reps on the ATP board.

"Nobody came to me to explain why this stuff happened," Nadal told press at Indian Wells. "I have my phone with me. So nobody text me to speak about or to ask me about what's my thoughts about that decision.

"Being the same time I can say nothing, because was my decision to [stop being involved] of the politics. But at the same time, of course, I am disappointed that nobody came and explained why, what's the real reason of we don't have Chris continuing running our sport.

"Probably somebody have a different plans for our sport, but is true that the guys who are in the council represent the rest of the players. They don't represent their opinions only."

Several other players who are not on the council, including Stanislas Wawrinka, have also said they have not received explanations.

"So probably the guys who are running the council, they didn't make the right job, because when they are there is they are there representing us, so normally they have to ask what's our opinion," said Nadal. "Not in every small decision, but in big decisions, probably, yes. In my opinion, this one was a big decision."





While not commenting on the decision, Djokovic said this week that the structure of the ATP board, which consists of three tournament reps, three player reps and the CEO, was "a bit flawed" and required change. He also suggested that tennis "could learn from other sports" in terms of the way it is organized.

Federer and Nadal also indicated that they would like a say in where the sport goes next, with Federer having told Tennis Channel that the two had a coffee-meeting at Indian Wells.

"I have to think about whether to get engaged again, for the good of the tour, or whether I should just get involved a little bit not within the politics," said Federer. "I cannot just look away and say I'm not interested. I have to inform myself, and I've done that these few days. I also talked to Rafa. We are on a similar viewpoint, and that is important to him and me."

Nadal agreed that he would still like to be consulted about such issues.

"Of course I will be happy to know where the sport is going," he said. Not... for personal interest, but yes, because I really believe that after 18 years, 17 years around this sport probably I have a good perspective of the things that can work well, other things that don't work that well.

"I will be happy to heard why that happened, and of course what's going on now."