My name is Ana Vrljic. I am a professional tennis player from Croatia. My career high ranking in singles was 180 and 149 in doubles.

With 17 years on tour and a ranking held between 180-279 throughout my career, I have a breadth of experience on tour. I was also top 30 in my junior career. Most of my career has been at the ITF stage, but I have also competed at WTAs and Grand Slams. I have experienced all the major changes, from entering and withdrawing tournaments by fax to having everything online just by one click. I witnessed the bonus points, trying short sets to 4, and playing without lets, just to name a few. The list is endless. For example, when they changed doubles from a full third set to a match tiebreak it came as a huge shock to players, but with some time we have adapted and are now happy with it.

Every year we get updates about rule changes, but with the ITF and WTA/ATP coming up with different rules it makes it hard to keep up with the constant change. Over the years there has been a lot of chop and change to the rules and with time the players have come to accept them.

But the new rules have been a different thing entirely. We cannot accept this new system, and the frustration, sadness and anger is consuming for the majority of players. Just by reducing the draw size, players’ freedom to participate and compete on the professional circuit has been wrenched from their grips. Tennis is a sport where anyone can play, and anyone can beat anyone. When players can’t get into tournaments, it seems that the ITF wants to reduce participation – which to any organisation or business would be madness and baffling.

The players do not receive any help from tennis organisations . We players pay an annual membership fee, we pay an entry fee every tournament, and any fines from violating rules is pocketed by the organisations, so why would it make any sense to reduce the number of players? What is the logical explanation for creating new rules that do not seem to benefit anyone? What cost do the ITF endure to have a tennis player pursuing their dream? Does it cost the organizations anything? Players pay their own way entirely, from travel to accommodation. If a parent wants to invest in their child and their child’s dream of becoming a tennis player I believe it should be allowed.

The tennis organizations need to be focusing on increasing participation. Why would you take away a sport that can enrich lives? Just one year on the tour can teach a player lessons that (s)he can apply to all aspects of life. I believe tennis players learn so many life lessons and skills on the professional tour that it is important to allow as many people as possible the chance to experience the tour and use those skills later in life.

Have any one of you who were involved in this rule change ever been at a tennis tournament? Have any of you been on court with us to see the struggle we face every week, every day? I don’t think any of you are aware of what is really happening on court, so you don’t really know our point of view. Similarly, I don’t know what is happening in board meetings, so I cannot understand your point of view or for whom your decisions are made These changes certainly are not for us, the players, as they are forcing us not to play.

We are aware of some of the discussions that are happening in meetings with the ATP and WTA but we don’t see any effort from the ITF to work together with them. It seems to us that what is happening is for the wrong reasons; signing contracts with companies that only bring trouble to players is not “caring” for players’ wellbeing. Since live score started , most of the players have received life-threatening messages—killing their whole family, wishing them cancer, and many more awful sentiments. Everyone is allowed to enter tournament sites and we don’t know who is capable of actually doing something harmful to us.

Meanwhile, the ITF are gathering profit from the companies they have contracts with. That is why I decided to write you this letter. This letter is coming from all of us. Each player had a word, thought, idea that I tried to put together into one letter. So this is not just one player voicing her sadness, confusion, and frustration. It is from all of us. I believe that we players are, in a way, family. We all share a lot of experiences, some highs and some lows. This letter even comes from top players – even though they aren’t directly affected by these rules, they want to stand behind us to improve the sport, not ruin it.

We cannot accept the following and we are asking for urgent action and an adjustment to these rules:

1. From two different ranking systems: (ITF transition tour and WTA or ATP ranking) to just one WTA or ATP ranking.

Explanation from the players’ point of view:

Let’s say a player is starting out or they are injured and have to start from $15,000 tournaments. To transition from this level, they must climb approximately the top 30 ITF ranking spots in order to play the $25,000 level. If there are three $25,000 in one week, only 15 players from the ITF transition tour will have a spot. On top of this problem you did not put any limit on tournaments for those players, so it means the same names will take those spots until they lose their ranking. After this cruel climb to top 30 she/he has to start again from zero to climb in the next ranking. Why do we have to do the same job twice?

A men’s example of how difficult making the transition from futures to challengers has become:

First you need to build an ITF ranking and become ranked in the top 20 approximately to be able to compete in some challengers. That means you need to earn 730 ITF points. Therefore, you need to win 7 $15,000 men’s tournaments to be top 30. If a very good player is able to do that in half a year, he can compete the next half a year in the challengers. Then he needs to perform so well in the challengers that he makes enough ATP points (115 makes you ranked 300) to stay in the challengers based on his ATP (!) points. If he doesn’t make enough ATP points in those 6 months, he has a problem, because after 12 months his ITF points start to drop, and the cycle starts again. The player needs to defend his incredible run from the year before in the futures to be able to enter the challengers again.

And how many players can win 7 futures in half a year AND position himself in the challengers in the 6 months after?! Only very, very few. If you can’t do this in the same 12 months, you won’t break out of the transition tour. The ITF official statements claim you care about players breaking even and moving up more quickly, and yet this system is PROHIBITIVE to players even playing. The old system was flawed, but at least we had a chance.

2. Give the tournaments choice over the size of their Qualification draw and do not ever limit tournaments to a 24 player Qualification. Open mens challenger draws to 32 and not limit to 4.

Explanation: On average there are around 4–6 tournaments of $15,000 and 2–4 tournaments of $25,000 a week worldwide. If the draw is limited to 24 this means 80– 120 players have the opportunity to play $15,000 and 40–80 players have opportunity to play in $25,000 and above. Here we are talking about 120–200 players for qualification and what are the rest of the players supposed to play? I am not going into detailed math predictions, because it is not my area, but merely simple math gives me those numbers which are way below what we need.

Why is the incentive for tournament organisers? If there is a reduced draw size, there are fewer players, and therefore less promotion and money. If this is the case then surely the natural progression is to cut down on tournaments, and if that is the end result you are further decreasing participation, and the status of the sport.

You (the ITF) have provided a quick and sloppy fix to this issue of there being too few entry spots. For the moment, you have “solved” the problem by giving organizers choice to make pre-qualifying. Making pre-qualifying is not fixing the problem. It is unsustainable and risking harm to players for multiple reasons. A few reasons are as follows: many players are forced to go on court after 10 min notice for their 2nd or 3rd match in a day due to enormous draw size and therefore volume of matches, some sites do not allow players to play pre-qualifying if they are not paying for the host accommodations, and many tournaments either do not have pre-qualifying or it is not open and available for all players! This is not a long-term solution or a picture of professional sport. It is exploitation.

3. Qualification: play one singles match per day.

Explanation: These matches may look insignificant after they have been reported and written down on paper, but we put everything into these matches. One match can be incredibly physically and mentally exhausting. As far as I know, every other professional sport plays only one match per day. This has been compensated by playing a third set tiebreak, a problem which I will discuss later, but we should still only be asked to play one match. Furthermore, we are umpiring our own first round matches, so we are not adding any costs for umpires. Why not play one match per day or have the last round of qualification on the same day as the first round of main draw and split the first round of main like most tournaments do anyway? The organisation does not have to pay an extra day for personnel, and players can focus on putting all of their energy into one match in a day.

This way our bodies have a chance to recover and we won’t be destroying them. Two matches per day will bring many more injuries and misfortune to players. If you care for our, the players’, wellbeing you should know what this does to our health.

4. Full third set in Qualification stages instead of a match tiebreak.

Explanation: Anyone who knows tennis understands that tiebreaks are very stressful and a bit of a lottery. It is a 50/50 chance, a mere coin flip, which is not right after battling for 2 sets. A match should be based on actual skills. It takes away the mental, physical and tactical side of the game and therefore leaving the tiebreak down to a lottery and lucky momentum. We did not travel all the way to a tournament to play 2 sets and a tiebreaker, so at least give us the chance to fight for the match in a full third set and test our physical and mental resilience.

5. Remove discrimination against those wanting to pursue only doubles and forcing them to play singles.

Explanation ($15,000 Transition Tour tournament): If someone wants to play doubles only, why would that person be obligated to enter (and be accepted to) singles in order to have priority for doubles acceptance? This potentially takes the place of someone who wants to play singles, if that player did not want to play singles originally. This only further reduces the opportunity for singles players, amplifying the reduced qualification size problem. We are not juniors where our doubles and singles ranking count towards one ranking; some want to pursue a career in doubles, either because of their love of the game or because maybe their body cannot withstand both singles and doubles.

If that doesn’t already sound ridiculous, consider the following:

A player is an alternate in singles and doesn’t get into qualifying. To play doubles, this player can only play doubles with a wildcard. In order to play doubles you HAVE to be in a singles draw or you can’t play without a WC? This causes a lot of problems because some players have higher doubles rankings and don’t get into singles so they can’t play anything. Yet anyone in singles gets double the matches. What is the use of doubles rankings, then?

For example, from a recent tournament, one team won the doubles tournament one week and then the following week one of the players from the champion team was an alternate in singles and the team didn’t get a WC. Without both players in singles or a WC, they couldn’t enter the doubles draw, even though they proved they deserved to be in the tournament by WINNING the previous week’s tournament. None of this makes sense.

6. Eliminate using singles ranking to enter doubles in all ITF tournaments.

Explanation: We understand why singles rankings are used to enter doubles at WTA as it is covered by the media and attracts a lot of sponsors. But where will a player who wants to play doubles only start their doubles career? Maybe that player has had multiple surgeries and their body doesn’t allow them to have a singles career but it can survive a doubles career. Why are you removing that opportunity from them?

How do you plan to solve this issue for a doubles player who only has an ITF doubles ranking? There are no spots in $25,000 events for anyone but WTA ranked players, so how would a doubles player with an ITF ranking climb up the rankings when (s)he can’t even play entry level doubles events ($15,000)? The only chance (s)he has to play in $25,000 or above is by receiving a WC (which is limited per year and requires connections to the tournament) or with a draw that is not full, which does not happen often. There are alternate lists in the hundreds for the bottom level of the tour, and it is prohibitive to play. Even if (s)he is number 1 in ITF doubles, (s)he has least priority while entering $25,000 and above. It makes it impossible to know what tournaments (s)he can play. And what about every other player with or without a doubles record? What are they supposed to play?

7. Eliminate ITF authorisation code.

Explanation: Entering ITF and WTA/ATP (Challengers) tournaments the same week can result in fines from $500–1000 if we decide to play a WTA /ATP over an ITF (mens side futures to challengers).

Playing WTA/ATP should be encouraged because there are more points and money for players and is a positive move in order to climb up the rankings. We understand the ITF does not want to lose players from their lists, but we need to be able to enter ITFs alongside WTAs/ ATPs without the risk of a fine in case we do not get into the WTAs/ATPs.

8. Establish a limit on hotel rates.

Explanation: We have seen great effort to get higher prize money, like cutting $10,000 tournaments and having $15,000 minimums. That was a step in the right direction. But what actually happened with tournaments after that—all the resorts raised their room rates. Often, if we do not stay in the official hotel we cannot practice, or we are given limited times and on a court with no maintenance. Therefore, in order to even get proper facility access, we are forking out more for a bed to sleep in and we do not earn more. Is there not a way to put a restriction on how much a hotel or resort can extort a player? Not having an established ITF policy or agreement allows resorts to “penalise” any player not staying in the resort by unacceptable restrictions such as requiring an entrance fee, restricting entrance to the club more than 2 hours before their match, revoking eligibility to receive a WC, and others.

If resorts have special rates for the rooms, why do they have to make doubles or triples price per player? For example, if resorts quote a room rate at 40–50€ a night, why can they inflate the rate up to 160€ a night? This is not fair to the players who have no option but to stay on site; it is simply extortion to make money off of the players.

What will happen if we continue with the rules as they exist now:

Deter players at all levels from pursuing the professional circuit

– There is chaos among players right now because no one can schedule anything: tournaments, travel, training, and all other arrangements as professionals on tour. This is because players don’t know if they will get into any tournament.

– A lot of players will be forced to stop playing because they cannot get into tournaments consistently and will not be able to justify the cost of training more than competing. On top of the financial cost to players, tennis players are a very specific type of people—we are professional athletes. We thrive on competing and improving; our goals can only be achieved by going out and playing matches.

– Players will still not be able to become financially independent unless they are inside the top 200, coach not included. Only players who have support from federations, agents, parents, and sponsors will have the ability to travel and compete. This further dis-incentives participation and will make tennis even more of an elitist sport. In one word, discriminating against the majority of players! Instead of developing and growing the game, these changes are degrading the majority of participants and limiting the sport to only independently wealthy individuals.

– College players have no way to play professional tennis after their studies. We will not have players like John Isner, Danielle Collins, Nicole Gibbs, Maria Sanchez, Michael Russel, Kristie Ahn, Mackenzie McDonald, and many others…and these are all just top 100 players or ex top 100. There is no path for them except 1 spot per year for the NCAA champion. And even that does not guarantee you will make it out of the $25,000 tournaments after the US Open debut–everyone still has to play that level with this new system. Some former champions and high-level players who are inside the top 200 or 300 are even playing this level! And this is the entry level from the Transition Tour.

Questions:

– Why are you enforcing rules that cut players’ possibilities to play and develop?

– If the sport is growing, why are you trying to make it smaller? We are all aware that big tournaments bring the most profit, but you can’t have a sport and ranking system with only 100 players. Your job is to care and find ways to make our sport better for the majority, not the few at the top. The changes you made don’t make it better, they make it harder and they make the process an even bigger grind than what it already was.

Conclusion:

Any organisation knows that grassroots are the key to excelling. On the professional circuit, there needs to be more nurture for the players starting from the bottom and incentives to work hard and push to improve their ranking. At the moment the system is protecting the top 450 (aprox womens side), and that is a generous cutoff. If players cannot get into the tournaments they want, for example a player ranked 450 should be playing $25,000 or above, but right now this is proving difficult.

The only options are:

– Sign in as an alternate and waste money and time flying across the world where the few tournaments are held to potentially not get in AND not play a tournament for another week

OR

– Play the $15,000, and push all other players ranked lower out of their only chance to play tournaments. Clearly this new system has had a negative chain reaction that has shuddered through the ranks, affecting the majority of us.

We are aware that it is not just the ITF, and that the ATP and WTA have been involved with these changes, but the ITF is where the change has occurred and it is where we will look for answers and solutions.

We understand you have had a lot of feedback, and we hope that you will see our point of view and how desperate we players are to see positive changes. There have been numerous petitions signed, some with thousands of signatures, not just from players but coaches, spectators, fans, parents, and everyone who sees and experiences the changes first hand. We can provide you with links to all of these petitions. We can provide the Facebook groups where the men and women players have banded together. We can provide stories from hundreds of players and their negative experiences so far in 2019…and it is only February. We can only see the circumstances and stories worsening through the year, so we hope amendments will be made promptly. At the end of the day, we should be trying to promote and grow the sport, rather than deter people from pursuing it.

In summary, we hope this letter reaches your ears and that you take time to listen to your players. This letter was written to give the thousands of players, whose livelihoods are affected by your decisions, a voice that is hopefully loud enough to be heard to affect change.

Kind regards,

The players