The reported "premier tour" that is being explored by tennis' Grand Slam tournaments "sounds logical," but is "extremely difficult to imagine," according to Steve Tignor of TENNIS. The positives would be a sport that is "simpler to follow for fans; less of a grind and a risk for players; more appealing to streaming services; and easier to sell as a package to sponsors." The Slams are the "most successful events in the sport by a wide margin," and having them lead the change from within is "preferable to having it done by an outside force." The super-tour would also "presumably unite men and women in dual-gender events, and align their financial interests for the first time." But the Slams have "always been a separate entity" from the ATP and WTA, so it is a question of where this would "leave the ATP and WTA, and the dozens of 500- and 250-level events that fill up most of the current calendar." If those smaller tournaments continued to exist, the new super-tour would not "end up looking all that much different from the circuit we have today." The Slams and most of the 1000s also presumably would "stay in roughly the same spots in the calendar, and be played in the same locations." So other than the term "premier tour," it "might be hard for most fans to tell the difference from what we see now" (TENNIS, 12/2).
