#tennis

Cancel culture on centre court

It is hard to know where to start. A lack of professionalism? Bereft of understanding?What about a failure to ask the opinion of the very person John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova want the stadium renamed after?

FNF Media doesn’t much care for Margaret Court’s views on same sex marriage. They are her own. She has a right to hold those thoughts, no matter if others find them abhorrent. At 77yo, many of her generation probably have similar opinions. Doesn’t make it right or wrong. People should respect not everyone thinks alike. What have her views on same sex marriage got to do with tennis anyway?

Do the two former tennis champs think by staging a stunt that seeks to rename a stadium that currently honours Court’s sporting record will somehow cause her to yield on those views? Is that how society works now? Twist the arm of a septuagenerian until she squeals that she has conformed to the orthodoxy?

Let’s not forget that 38%, or 4.87m Aussies voted just like Margaret Court. Perhaps we should find out who they are and tell their neighbours. Inform their employers to ensure they are demoted, sacked and publicly humiliated.

The ultimate irony is that Evonne Goolagong Cawley said the following about Margaret Court in 2017,

“Margaret’s my hero…great player, wonderful champion and a true professional in every way.”

So McEnroe and Navratilova’s virtue signaling stunt backfired. Not only did the activists fail to gather the support of the very person they wanted to glorify in place of the one they wished to pillory, 2GB conducted a poll which found 91% of Aussies against changing the name. Double fault.

So much for two Americans trying to make a statement in Australia. Code violation – stupidity.

If FNF Media ran the network, the two would be sacked for hijacking expensive broadcast rights for personal political gain. It is an utter embarrassment to have them conduct themselves in a country they have no voting rights.

It takes some doing to be lectured by McEnroe, who personified disobeying the orthodoxy throughout his career. He cannot be serious!

Only recently, Navratilova was hung, drawn and quartered by radical LGBT activists for suggesting trans females competing in women’s sports was unfair. Court would no doubt agree with her on that score. So Navratilova better repudiate that commonality with the Aussie tennis great before smearing her on centre court if she wants to be consistent in her efforts to appear woke.

Identity politics is poison. Period.

ACF threatens Tennis Australia with Corporations Act

It was only a matter of time. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has regurgitated a report it wrote on the increasing risks of heat stress on cricketers during Boxing Day tests by applying it the Australian Open tennis.

It chose the same partial voice to undertake the study.  The Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub (MCCCRH) openly states that it “conducts social research and leads impact focused projects to build media and policy infrastructure that adequately addresses climate change in Australia.”

Not balance. Just agenda based.

The main points were as follows:

“The MCCCRH finds”:

“Australian tennis is already experiencing the impact of climate change, with smoke from bushfires and extreme heat driven by climate change increasing health risks for players and the likelihood of match disruptions.

Haven’t we worked out that dreadful bush management is a root cause, not climate change? That despite 57 inquiries into bushfires since 1939 we still haven’t learnt how to maintain our bush land despite aborigines being successful custodians for 1,000s of years before climate change was even a thing? Incompetence seems to be the issue, not climate.

“Tennis authorities should consider a series of actions to protect players, such as extending the length of the tournament — to allow games to be cancelled in the hottest part of the day if it’s too hot on court — or moving the event to November or March.”

Has the ACF considered some players are fitter than others? Shouldn’t the players determine such things with TA, not a bunch of alarmists with an axe to grind?

“Climate change threats may soon represent ‘material financial issues’ for Tennis Australia and its directors, who could face liability under the Corporations Act for failing to adequately address and report these risks.

Do we really need to have the ACF resort to threats via the Corporations Act to shame Cricket Australia and Tennis Australia (TA) with unsettled science? Does it realize that corporations reporting on climate change has fallen to 14% from 22% over the last decade? 1000s of Aussie directors are already well aware of their risks without having the ACF throw the rule book in their face. So they disagree with you.

Will the ACF insure the risk of lost revenue if its alarmism they predict fails to eventuate? If the ACF is so confident in its prophecies it should have no qualms backing such a notion. Put its science where its mouth is.

On page 16, TA got a slap on the wrist for having ANZ as a sponsor because it supports the fossil fuel industry at $7.70 for every $1 it does on renewables. Could that be because of the relative risk profile, ACF? Does ANZ dictate to TA what it must do with the tournament other than contractually honour advertising exposure? Does TA have any rights to tell ANZ how it, a bank, deploys shareholder capital? No.

Although we do note the ACF commended TA for joining the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework and urges it to raise its voice for strong, meaningful climate action from our government.

The ACF should demand that TA restrict the Australian Open to players who walk, cycle or sail to the tournament. As the UN sports body states,

“Sport is not just a victim of climate change; it is also a contributor, through greenhouse gas emissions.

What better way to mitigate the dangers and show the very actions that will stop the climate emergency dead in its tracks by making the tennis players ditch fossil fuel derived transport of any sort to any future events and give up their carbon rackets and naphtha based synthetic clothing.

In closing, FNF Media hopes for the sake of consistency, that the ACF will guarantee it will publish a report on professional skiing competitions where skiers may have to brave record cold temperatures to compete? If such an event comes to pass, we can guarantee it would never see the light of day. After all we just had the coldest maximum summer temperature in history at Thredbo late last year.

By the way, here is the Melbourne forecast for the tournament and the peak temp hit in 1939.

Greta Thunberg issues Roger Federer a code violation.

The 17yo pigtailed truant has taken to shaming tennis superstar Roger Federer for being a Credit Suisse ambassador because of the bank’s involvement in financing fossil fuel companies.

Activists launched the hashtag #Rogerwakeupnow on Twitter to hit the 20-title Grand Slam winner.

The article notes

According to Greta, the bank would be the largest investor in fossil fuel companies with more than $7.8 billion annually shared among more than 40 companies that most contaminate the planet.”

Sorry Greta, forget trying to get him to ditch CS. Demand he stop flying to tournaments around the world.

Federer said in response,

“I take the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously, particularly as my family and I arrive in Australia amid devastation from the bush fire…As the father of four young children and a fervent supporter of universal education, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement, and I am grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions…We owe it to them and ourselves to listen…I appreciate reminders of my responsibility as a private individual, as an athlete and as an entrepreneur, and I’m committed to using this privileged position to dialogue on important issues with my sponsors.

What a woefully soft and pithy stance. The only noble action is to stop playing tennis with multiple carbon rackets and clothes made from the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps he should give all of his fossil fuel derived sponsorship and tourney winnings to the UN so they can best advise him on how to save the planet.

Maybe Federer should educate Greta and her young activist mates on the following when reflecting on the recklessness of the older generations…or not…

At the store check out, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

The older lady said that she was right our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then. We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the “green thing.”

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much.

Once again it only highlights how the current generation believe that they’re smarter than the previous one as well as the one that will follow them.

As for Mr Federer. New balls please.

Naomi Osaka edition Nissan GT-R sells out

While Carlos Ghosn maybe wasting away in a Tokyo detention centre, Nissan is not wasting the talents of Naomi Osaka. At a puffy ecomentalist launch of the new Nissan Leaf EV, one of the board director’s asked the then just crowned US Open winner what car she’d like and without hesitation it was the GT-R. Why? “Because it is fast.” So despite breaking every politically correct rule as goes a green car launch, Nissan got religion and sold out 50 Naomi Osaka edition GT-Rs in a heartbeat. It looks like Naomi run #2 reservations can be made in Feb. Capitalism wins again. Surely the margins on Naomi GT-Rs will outstrip any margins made on Naomi Leafs.

Watch Japanese companies fumble over getting her to star in their commercials. You know what? Best to buy a basket of Naomi Osaka stocks on the TSE. CM wrote a piece on stocks and Japanese idols – there is correlation! Smaller caps tend to benefit more. Valuations largely irrelevant.

As CM wrote it is any wonder a financial institution hasn’t made a Naomi ETF?

Will financial planners bring out a Naomi Osaka ETF?

96D9068F-CBF1-4C2E-AF8A-06AF5664AA4E

Japanese investors can get star-struck with investments. In 2015, popular pop-idol band AKB-48 saw the stocks of companies it was sponsored by surge 136% relative to the market. Aggregate sales of those companies surged 46% and 30% over the following two years. Such is the ‘hayari‘ (boom) culture in Japan. Corporates know this.

Since the US Open win by tennis star Naomi Osaka, sponsors are lining up to sign her. Prior to the win, Nissin Foods, WOWOW & Yonex were already sponsors. Nissan has just signed her. Since the win, the Topix has risen a tad over 6% while Nissan, Nissan & WOWOW have risen 7.5% in aggregate. Yonex has jumped 12.2% Early days to be sure, but the likelihood is that if she is sponsored by some smaller less liquid stock names these stocks could well fly.

Forget fancy models and esoteric investment strategies. Find whatever Osaka will be sponsored by in Japan and outperform through popularity over underlying earnings performance.

Any financial firm that launched a Naomi Osaka basket would likely see massive inflows and be able to charge higher fees on the back of it. Will the marketing departments wake up?

Tennis code violations – who is worse?

33AEE29A-5740-4EC5-A3BE-1B12B835C9A5.jpeg

Some argue that the 2018 US Open was biased against female players. In the singles men played 3,176 games in the recent tournament. Or 1.538x more than the 2,065 games played by the women. Yet the stats show men suffered 86 code violations vs 22 for the women or 3.91x. So on balance men 2.54x more likely to suffer a code violation than women on a per game basis. Is it the blokes are just more ill-tempered? If we use the 1.538x ratio of more games played, the boys get penalized (over the last 20 years of grand slam violations);

4.2x more for racket abuse

1.6x more for audible obscenity

2.8x more for unsportsmanlike conduct

2.5x more for verbal abuse

1.2x more for visible obscenity

1.5x more for time wasting

The girls get penalized more than boys in the follwing ways.

60% more for coaching

10% more for ball abuse

Although trying to compare ‘bias’ in tennis with respect to code violations is kind of irrelevant. Certain players ‘blow up’ more than others. McEnroe got many more warnings than Bjorn Borg.

Just for the record, at the US Open Djokovic had to play 136 games for his $3.8mn vs Osaka’s 86. So for each game Osaka earned $44,186 vs Djokovic’s $27,941. Maybe this is why he made his comments about men deserving to be paid more? If we look at the runner ups, del Potro won $17,961 per game vs Serena Williams’ $26,428. So Serena’s. 2nd place earned her almost as much as Djokovic win.

Naturally a better judge is not games played but viewership. The Serena Williams/Naomi Osaka final drew 3.1mn viewers on ESPN, more than the 2.07mn that watch Djokovic/del Potro the next day. If women get 1.5x the audience of the men in the final could one argue the men need to play 1.5x longer to earn the same? Arguably Serena was fighting to match Margaret Court’s record which was part of the boost.

To be honest women’s tennis can be more entertaining to watch in so far as frequent sustained rallies. Men’s tennis can often be a blast fest of aces and blistering returns of serve.

It is likely that Osaka will attract higher than average audiences going forward. Perhaps she is entitled to claim higher prize money than the men based on the extra attention she brings to the sport?

If we look at golf, Tiger Woods used to be paid $300,000 just for attending a tournament regardless of how poorly he finished. If Naomi Osaka helps click the turnstiles surely she deserves a cut of the gate?

More love for Naomi Osaka

96D9068F-CBF1-4C2E-AF8A-06AF5664AA4E.jpeg

20yo Naomi Osaka deserves every success she gets. She is without doubt the hottest marketing prospect globally. There is no media spin or polish with her on any level. She is authentic in the extreme. No prima donna antics or bragging. If anything her press conferences since returning have defined her as ‘what you see is what you get.’ Humility and grace. Pray we get more millennials like her. She shows one doesn’t have to beat their chest in ridiculous ways to get attention.

No wonder Adidas want to throw $11.9m per year to sponsor her. As a Nissan ambassador, despite her media appearance in front of the Leaf electric vehicle, when asked Naomi just let her inner petrol head scream her favorite car – the GT-R. Lucky for her she will get one in white.

The world of tennis couldn’t have a better ambassador for the game. Let’s hope that the media don’t pry too deeply into her private life (good luck with that) and her sports manager doesn’t put her on a multi-year roadshow from hell to please sponsors which would put any star to the test.