The Wildcard System Needs to be Abolished

Note: Upon discussing this article with Parsa I want to clarify that the del Potro article previously written was discussing how he deserved a wildcard within the current system.  Recently I have come to the conclusion that the system that del Potro would receive the wildcard in should be abolished.  If the grand slams, ATP, WTA, and ITF were to keep the current system, then yes, del Potro would still deserve a wildcard.

As readers of my blog know, I have been a vocal critic of the wildcard system currently in place for both the WTA, ATP, ITF and the grand slam tournaments.  I don't always think that the players receiving wildcard's results warrant the honor of receiving the wildcard, and perhaps that players just outside of the main draw cutoff (as it would be with wildcards) were getting screwed in place of a player who is almost certain to have a First Round exit.

As I read Parsa_Nemati's tweet last night, it dawned on me that something else really bothered me about wildcards.  I want to note that I am not blaming the players receiving these wildcards whatsoever, but rather, I am blaming the system that the ATP, WTA, ITF,  and grand slams have in place which makes it so tennis is not truly the meritocracy that, upon first glance, it seems to be, but rather that many players from countries with grand slam tournaments, or countries with lots of regular tournaments, receive a marked advantage just because they were born in one of these tennis-filled countries.

So, what am I exactly referring to?  In Parsa's tweet, he mentioned that American Reilly Opelka has moved up 69 spots in the ATP rankings and he is now a career-high number 295 in the world.  But, the difference between how Opelka moved from where he was for the August 1st rankings (seeing the week-by-week rankings is a really cool feature on the ATP's site and something interesting to look at if you have time!), at number 837 in the world, to where he is today, at number 295,  is totally different than most other players who have moved up in the rankings.  Because Riley Opelka has not had to grind it out on the ITF Future's Tour nor the ATP Challenger Tour in order to get to number 295, but rather, he has been gifted opportunities in ATP World Tour tournaments through the wildcard system.

Opelka received three wildcards to ATP World Tour events this season, in Washington, Atlanta, and Cincinnati, one of which lead to a special exemption into a fourth ATP World Tour tournament, in Los Cabos.  Now, Opelka did very well to take advantage of the opportunities given to him, making the Semifinals in Atlanta (which gave him the special exemption into the tournament in Los Cabos) and winning a match in Cincinnati, but the question becomes, should he have even received the opportunity to do this at this point in time, given his ranking?

Of course, while Opelka earned his way into the Los Cabos draw by virtue of making the semis of the ATP tournament in Atlanta, that opportunity would not have presented itself had he not received the wildcard into the Atlanta tournament.  And it's not like Opelka is really old and has been grinding it out on the ITF Future's Tour and ATP Challenger Tour his entire life.  He's only 18 years old and started playing in Future's events (qualifying draw included) in 2013.  Opelka still has PLENTY of time to achieve good results and work his way up the rankings.  But again, this is nothing against Opelka.  If I received a wildcard to Washington, Atlanta, and/or Cincinnati, of course I would take the opportunity given to me.  This article, instead, is an indictment on the system that tennis has in place on the whole.

I understand why tournaments grant "home" wildcards.  Having wildcards from the country that the tournament is in almost certainly increased interest, which will then increase ticket sales and revenue to the tournament.  However, there is too much money and too many ranking points at stake for wildcards to be given to whoever the tournament pleases.  Let's take a look at Cincinnati, a Masters 1000 event.

In the ATP draw, four wildcards were given out, including three to American players.  Number two seed in the qualifying draw, Guido Pella lost in the First Round of qualifying.  Had wildcards not been given out, Pella would have made the main draw, and even if he lost in the First Round of the main draw, still received $15,480 United States dollars and ten ranking points (as opposed to the $1,820 and zero ranking points that he received for losing in the opening round of qualifying).

So, y'all can see that giving wildcards does effect both the finances and rankings for players just outside of the main draw, who cannot make it through the qualifying draw, which given the depth on both the ATP and WTA tours, is a tough ask.  By having wildcards, again, this goes against the foundation of a meritocracy that tennis is built on.  Having a good ranking doesn't mean as much, when players are able to hop over you based on tournaments' decisions.  That just doesn't feel fair to me.

Therefore, I have decided that the wildcard system needs to be abolished.  Players should be getting into a tournament based on their ranking, not based on who a tournament wants to see in the main draw.