A few weeks ago, as I often do, I went to the Tennis.com site to get an update about a match and to check out the commentary from my fellow tennis journalists. I was taken aback when, instead of the usual colorful graphics and info, I was greeted with a rudimentary-looking homepage that displayed only scores and rankings.
At first I thought it was a glitch of some sort. But sadly, no. As it turns out, Tennis.com, originally the online site of Tennis Magazine, is under a complete overhaul and will no longer be the home of esteemed writers such as Steve Tignor and Pete Bodo, robbing fans of unique and personal takes on the sport. It appears the longest running American tennis-specific publication is no longer alive in any form.
Tennis Magazine started in 1965 (with the Tennis.com website starting in 1996) and existed in print form through 2022. Its previous owners included Golf Digest and the New York Times Company. But when Sinclair Broadcast Group, the controversial conservative-leaning media company, bought the site in 2017, merging it into one entity with the Tennis Channel, the writing – that is to say the eventual dearth of writing – was on the wall.
Read more:It’s a miracle: Natalie Harp has turned Republicans into feminists | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian
Tignor told me that “in some ways, I feared this day for 25 years”, acknowledging that people are consuming news and information much differently than they did even 10 years ago. And, more to the point, “having Tennis.com owned by a broadcaster [Tennis Channel] wasn’t a perfect scenario to begin with since they intrinsically have different goals.”
I emailed Jill Dortheimer, vice-president of communications for Tennis Channel, for comment on the changes and she wrote back saying, “Tennis.com is in the midst of a full rebuild and the first priority for us is to deliver fast, comprehensive match and tournament schedules, scores, draws, etc. But there is much more to come in the future to improve the experience for fans.” She didn’t respond to my specific queries of whether there was an issue with page views or if there were any plans to reintroduce written commentary.
From my perspective it appears Sinclair is more interested in having its on-air announcers debate gambling odds during matches to please advertisers like BetMGM and FanDuel than having insightful and independent-minded commentary on the Tennis.com website.
Once upon a time, a time that suddenly feels long ago even though it’s only a couple of decades past, if one was an avid fan of tennis who also enjoyed reading articles about the sport – not just coverage of matches – there were a plethora of American publications focused solely on tennis: Tennis Magazine, World Tennis Magazine, Tennis Week, along with a few others. The abundance of publications coincided with the so-called “tennis boom” in the United States in the 1970s and 80s.
Further, not only were there plentiful magazines devoted to tennis, but several newspapers in the United States had a dedicated tennis writer, with bylines and datelines from all four grand slam events. Today only the New York Times-owned Athletic employs full-time tennis writers, most notably Matthew Futterman. That’s it.
What makes this slightly curious is the fact that the UK continues to have tennis beat writers (including the Guardian) at its major newspapers and significant tennis readership. Is it a case of “out of sight, out of mind” in reverse? The more coverage the media gives to tennis will then therefore generate more interest? In the US at least, the rich get richer; football has an obscenely massive and still-growing presence in the sports media world whereas more niche sports have dropped significantly.
Steve Flink, one of only a handful of journalists enshrined in the International Tennis Hall of Fame, has more than a half century of experience working for a variety of publications. He still believes there is a desire for more tennis coverage in the print world but his outlook isn’t optimistic.
“Tennis followers who are 50 and older do thirst for good writing on the sport and their favorite players. I believe they almost yearn for it. But the younger fans seem to only want videos. Is it a case of the scant coverage from the media only feeding into this problem? From my viewpoint the answer is an emphatic yes,” he told me.
Read more:Emily Wilson’s ‘Odyssey’ became a cultural flashpoint. Now, she’s retranslating the whole thing
Flink, who has spent a great deal of time in England throughout his life, added: “I have no doubt that the British tennis fans are considerably more interested in reading daily accounts about tennis in their newspapers. Their newspapers have maintained more prominence in terms of sports coverage overall and tennis specifically. Until about 10 years ago or slightly longer, many US newspapers still sent reporters to Wimbledon but now very few are there. Now with AI spreading like wildfire, the battle could be permanently lost – at least in this country.”
Golf and tennis are often twinned in the public consciousness; rightly or wrongly both are considered elitist, often cater to wealthier demographics and are individual sports. But golf still has two legacy magazines online – Golf.com and golfdigest.com – that appear to be doing just fine. While golf coverage across newspapers’ online coverage has dwindled significantly, the fact the sport still has a huge online presence with well-known publications leaves one wondering why tennis can’t do the same?
One of the more disturbing aspects to all this is that without independent voices providing insightful and at times controversial commentary on the sport, there’s the risk of not challenging the status quo, so the media becomes just an extension of the tournaments that they televise and a slave to their advertisers. (For example, the aforementioned Futterman of the Athletic just wrote a piece exposing the ridiculous pricing policy at the US Open which will shut out the majority of fans.)
Read more:World Cup star Vozinha makes Colo Colo debut in Copa Chile match
Finally, with a pivot towards more visual or audio programing – be it match highlights or podcasts or not-exactly-penetrating interviews with players on social media – the public is losing out as the written word is threatened with irrelevance. Study after study has found that one processes information more comprehensively and has better recall when reading text, either on the printed page or a screen versus watching video.
Will there be a backlash against AI-generated articles and video-only content? One can only hope. Maybe some sites should advertise themselves as “AI-free”. Will independent journalism and the written word survive? Or will insightful analysis become niche? The way things are progressing, at least in the United States, isn’t all that promising.
