Gilles Simon attacks Roland-Garros and the governance of tennis

• Gilles Simon thinks for 20 minutes at the end of the crisis for tennis if the epidemic stops (or not)
• The 54th player in the world, former member of the players' council, is very strict with the different entities that govern tennis
• The three-color player fears head-on competition between the US Open and Roland-Garros at the resumption of the circuit

We thought we'd find a Gilles Simon pulled up like a cuckoo clock and it didn't disappoint. From his new residence in the south of France, where he quietly tapped the ball for confinement with his wife and children, for fun more than anything else, the 54th world player, known for his fixed positions on rivalries between major bodies in tennis, noted with bitterness that the crisis caused by the Covid-19 had changed nothing. Even stopped, the circuit remains torn by the divergent interests of the Grand Slams, ATP, the International Federation, with only one loser: the game and the players. Simon even fears a trench war between the US Open and Roland-Garros at the start of the school year.

🎾 The resumption of tennis in clubs is official this Monday, May 11!
📺 Discover good practices with @ ppauline86 and @julienbenneteau ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/YvLBBwLBJU

Since this week, you finally have the opportunity to train. Is it a relief for you?

Yes and no, it felt good to sit down and leave the racket a bit even if I have a tennis court at home with a basket. Given the events, I had left in my head on something quite long. I see some who train at the cleat and who send videos, I want to tell them "if it happens we will not play the year, so if at the time of the resumption you trained to melts for 8 months, you will be burnt direct! " I'm going to go back to Paris to train at the CNE, but the freshness will be important when we are going to replay, finally it's my opinion.

Does that mean that you don't plan to replay an official match in 2021?

Here we are in divination. What is paradoxical is that tennis is one of the most affected sports, and at the same time we start again before many others, since from the moment we remove the contacts and each one takes his balls, we can to play. But on the other hand tennis is a sport where you travel, and where suddenly you are subject to the restrictions of different countries. It goes far beyond tennis. When we are going to be able to revive freely, we don't know. For now, the circuit is suspended until July 13, there may be a fairly long period during which we will have to be content with training, and perhaps national championships here and there.

What could it look like?

All pro players will want to play games again. We see Thiem going to participate in a local tournament in Austria, we are lucky in France to have a lot of academies in the South and a lot of players who live in Monaco. If they have not all left I think that small tournaments will be organized. There will be no ATP points, it will not be official, but fans will be able to watch some great matches. It will be a small summer circuit in France, certainly.

Is the short circuit, to compare with food, a path for the future? Tennis is one of the major sports most affected by the pandemic. Isn't this an opportunity to review the organization of a discipline where you travel everywhere, all the time, with dozens of tournaments at the same time?

On the contrary, I think it is one of the strengths of the circuit. We are a sport that is played on all continents, that's why we have a base of more than a billion fans worldwide. Tennis is a sport which carried well and which is simply impacted by an exceptional situation. But the second it is over, it will resume as before.

After 15 years playing against each other ... We had the first meeting between @RafaelNadal & @rogerfederer in @instagram! 😍
Say you enjoy it? 😊 pic.twitter.com/5Pe7gwwB5x

You are not worried about the future of your sport if the competition cannot resume for several months?

Again, I am fairly calm. When life begins again, people will come to see tennis. Inevitably, small tournaments will disappear, as in real life, small businesses will suffer much more. But if there are some who have to go bankrupt, others will replace them. From this point of view there, there will be no before or after epidemic for me. On the other hand, I am very critical of the governance of tennis during the crisis, with so many entities that think only of them, that is the biggest weakness of tennis. Everyone wants to save their skin in their corner.

You think of Roland-Garros, which chose before everyone the date of its postponement (September 20 - October 4)?

Roland made this decision because we give him room to do it. The rest is the false ass ball. All the others were asking themselves the question of positioning themselves on these dates. The US Open will try to save itself in the same way, we do not yet know how. By moving Roland-Garros, the Federation did not think of saving the circuit, but of saving the tournament, the jobs, and I understand. The problem is that no one can afford to stop them.

Have you been surveyed by the FFT before it made this decision?

You know, I'm an infrequent anyway (laughs). More seriously ? Yes, the Federation called us to explain without putting any pressure on us, like "if we have to defend the decision of the tournament, defend it". The movement is not very classy, ​​but from the moment the door is opened, it makes sense.

Wimbledon however preferred to cancel rather than to position itself on another niche in a cavalier way, it was thus possible?

When you have taken out pandemic insurance with the greatest chance that will bring in 140 million whatever happens, it's easy to have the good role and to give moral lessons to others.

How Wimbledon came up with the idea of ​​insuring themselves against a pandemic via @ 20minutesSport https://t.co/atPhnxfns3

The Roland-Garros organization finally decided to reimburse the ticket holders and the president of the FFT for the first time envisaged a closed-door tournament. Would you be in favor of such an outcome?

Economically, the interest of the Fed is that it plays out, and if it can recover a little income from TV rights, I think it will. In camera it can be a lesser evil at first. There are Olympic sports where nobody is going to see them play but the guys are passionate and thoroughly into their stuff. We all prefer to play in a full Central, but sometimes there is not a rat on court 18, well I go anyway because I love tennis. The real question is rather that will decide Roland if all the players cannot come because of the sanitary rules. Is it going to play anyway?

That is to say ?

It’s quite simple. If you have to do 14 days of quarantine in a hotel room when you arrive somewhere, you will need to train 15 days behind to be a bit close to attack. That means a tournament every month and a half. And three weeks before Roland, there is the US Open, which will also ensure that its tournament takes place. How are we going to play both? The American federation will approach the players, canvass some top players so that they come and we will end up with on one side all the Americans who favor the US Open, on the other the French who go to Roland, basically . So ATP can choose to sanction one and not award points, but if Rafa decides to do the other and the prize money is as important, what do you think will happen? Everyone thinks only of him.

The current crisis is therefore further proof that the shared governance of tennis, between the ITF, the Grand Slams, the ATP, is an absolute failure?

This period should have been used only for that, to see that it does not work as it should and to modify the system in depth. Except that everyone is thinking about cosmetic additions. The coaches on the field, different formats, a great tie-break in Australia, then a stop at 12-12 at Wimbledon, it makes me want to cry because it's so stupid. For me tennis is going well, it continues and it will continue to please. The big problem is that no one is thinking about promoting the sport as a whole. For tennis to get better, people have to work together. As for the players, I don't even talk about it.

The tennis authorities set up a common solidarity fund via @ 20minutesSport https://t.co/271LGrtutr

However, on Djoko's initiative, the best players have decided to raise funds to help those who find themselves in financial difficulty?

The reality is that there are not enough professional tennis players who make a living. Tennis generates billions of euros, but the problem is the curve between what wins the first, the hundredth, and the thousandth. In football, a replacement for L2 earns a good living, in tennis the n ° 1 takes everything compared to the number 100 which is however a monster in such a competitive discipline! Whether a Grand Slam winner wins 3 million or 4 million, we don't care, he will win ten times more behind with the sponsors. The 150th worldwide who arrives alone at Roland to play a Federer who has 50 people in his staff, necessarily he has no chance. These guys we need to pay them so that they can progress.

You have been holding this speech for years. What can the appearance of the Covid-19 change?

What happens with the forced termination of the circuit has brought to light so much that players are not protected that in the end, it is up to us to pay those who do not earn money! I want to tell them "you realize that when you stop playing, you disappear, it's like you no longer exist. Roland changes his dates and doesn't even wonder if you can come for the qualifiers? How many examples does it take for you to understand? " When players have no representation, this is what happens.

When we find doctors who say that playing at 45 degrees is not dangerous at the AO and referees who say that the wet grass is not slippery at Wimbledon, we must be able to find an expert who certifies that the air quality is sufficient right?

Despite everything, Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are very involved in the proceedings. Does that mean they don't do their job?

They do not all follow the same strategy. What is needed is a single representation, which gives a common position, as in the NBA when there is a lockout. Smoke in Australia remember? It was still everyone for himself, of course a player could boycott but what was going on? Package, prize money for the opponent, and a trip to the end of the world without compensation. No, an expert representing the players should have said "we are not playing". Because if we ask the tournament expert, at Wimbledon, the grass never slips, and at Roland, it is not dark. If the US Open requires quarantine, what do we do? If Roland does the same, what do we do? There is no authority above that can prevent them, and players will have to decide individually, without knowing what others are doing. That's what hurts tennis.

Sport

Coronavirus: Tennis solidarity fund endowed with 6 million dollars

Sport

Coronavirus: But how did Wimbledon come up with the idea of ​​insuring itself against a pandemic (and not Roland-Garros)?

• Sport