WTA - why non-mandatory ?

Efforts from several well meaning individuals and groups, to address the long running sizeable gap between men’s and women’s  sports in terms of opportunities and outcomes, have achieved some limited progress. 

However, much work needs to be done

In professional tennis, the 4 ITF run Grand Slam tournaments are all equal in prize money and promotion for the incorporated men’s and women’s events. Media coverage may remain skewed, but that is another discussion. 

One problem in tennis lies with the tournaments managed by the ATP (men) and WTA (women).

The tournaments second only to the majors in status and points allocated are, for the ATP calendar, contested throughout the Masters 1000 series.

There are 8 of these annually, and they are mandatory for all players with automatic entry qualification. The points on offer are consistent across the board, beginning with 1000 for the winner. 

Recently, the WTA changed the branding of its tournament titles to align with the ATP.  Internationals became WTA 250, Premier became WTA 1000, etc.

This merely papered over what remains a mess in terms of how the WTA treats the various tournaments one level immediately below Grand Slam status. 

This is the 2022 scenario:

February: Qatar Open (Doha) non mandatory (winner 900 points)

March: BNP Paribas Open (Indian Wells) mandatory (winner 1000 points)

March: Miami Open (Miami) mandatory (winner 1000 points)

May: Madrid Open (Madrid) mandatory (winner 1000 points)

May: Italian Open (Rome) non mandatory (winner 900 points)

August: Canadian Open (Toronto) non mandatory (winner 900 points)

August: Cincinnati Open (Cincinnati) non mandatory (winner 900 points)

October: GDL Open (Guadalajara) non mandatory (winner 900 points) 

Confusion exists with this requirement for ranking purposes: 

‘Subject to the Long-Term Injury Rule and Special Ranking Rule, a player’s WTA Singles Ranking is determined by calculating her total ranking points, including any applicable zero (0) ranking point results pursuant to Section II.A, from sixteen (16) Tournament results during a rolling, 52-week period, which must include:

· four (4) Grand Slams;

· four (4) WTA 1000 Mandatory Tournaments;

· best two (2) WTA 1000 Non-Mandatory Tournaments;

· best six (6) results from all Elite Trophy, WTA 1000, WTA 500, WTA 250, and WTA 125 Tournaments and ITF W15+ events; and

· if she played the WTA Finals, the player’s results will be added to her total points as a bonus Tournament.’ 

For me, it’d be better to drop the dichotomy and change to all mandatory, as currently for ATP.

This would guarantee stronger fields for tournaments, as the top players then risk 0 points from non entry.

It would also simplify rules such as that noted above. 

A cleaner more consistent approach to tournament prestige and player eligibility, leading to a public perception of WTA closer to that of ATP, is a goal worth pursuing.