Tennis is a global sport, which is popular in developed countries and features prominently in local sporting life. Since 1972, the leading role in men’s professional tennis has been played by the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) (Chombart and Thomas, 1990). The first ATP world ranking list was published in August 1973. It has evolved from a 52-week rolling ranking (to 2009) to the current year-to-date ranking. The ATP also organises the ATP World Tour in 32 countries from seven world regions, offering a total prize money of over 150 million US$ across several tournament categories: ATP Challengers, ATP World Tour 250 and 500 series, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, and the ATP World Tour Finals (Association of Tennis Professional ATP , (2011). The International Tennis Federation (ITF) is the sport’s governing body and is also responsible for entry level professional competitions: the Futures tournaments that are held in 60 countries and account for more than 400 weeks of play each year. The pinnacle of this combined, global professional tennis tournament calendar is the four Grand Slam tournaments (Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open) that provide players the opportunity to compete for over 90 million US$ in prize money (International Tennis Federation ITF, (2011). Outside of the Grand Slams, ATP events are hosted in countries for a variety of reasons ranging from commercial or economic motives to their proposed positive effect on player development. With regards to this latter point, the inevitable question for policy makers in tennis is whether an increase in the number of professional events will yield a commensurate increase in the number of top ranked players from the host country.

According to De Bosscher et al., 2006 the factors determining top-level success in sport can be classified into three levels: (1) macro- level: the social and cultural context in which people live, (2) meso-level: sports policies and politics that may influence the long-term performance of the sport and (3) micro-level: the individual athletes and their close environment. The tournament structure adopted by a nation can be considered as a meso-level factor and was rated by De Bosscher et al., 2006 among the top five most important meso-level factors for international success in tennis. The other important meso-level factors, which also have an indirect impact on the long-term player developmental process, included: professionalism and structural aspects of the federation, departments, and clubs; the coaches’ education system; the training facilities for elite tennis; and the overall budget of the federation and budget for elite sport, which influences athlete support and the talent development system.

The link between the staging of international sporting events and the success of the host nations’ athletes has been explored in a variety of sporting contexts (Bernard and Busse, 2004; Clarke, 2002; Johnson and Ali, 2002; Kuper and Sterken, 2003), including tennis (Crespo et al., 2003; Reid et al., 2007a). Research has reported positive and significant effects for Olympics’ host countries that is based on the total percentage of medals won (Bernard and Busse, 2004; Clarke, 2002), as well as on participation (Johnson and Ali, 2002). Meanwhile Kuper and Sterken, 2003 have predicted that countries that will host the next edition of the Olympic Games will perform better than on previous Olympics.

De Bosscher et al., 2003 discussed how professional tennis rankings could be used to define international success in tennis and contextualised this link by proposing that a country’s number of ranked players in the top 1000 provides insight into the available resources of a federation and the popularity of the sport; while a country’s number of top 100 ranked players underlined the efficiency and effectiveness of that nation’s tennis policy. Crespo et al., 2003 and Reid et al., 2007a established positive and significant relationships between the number of ATP and WTA professional tournaments organised by a nation and the performance of that nation’s professional male and female players.

This article examines the relationships between the professional men’s tennis tournament structure, as defined by the number of ATP tournaments and average annual prize money of these events in the different countries and world regions, and the extent to which these countries and world regions produce top 300 ATP players. These relationships were studied from 1975 to 2008 so as to explore their stability over time.

Ranking, prize money, and tournament data (for the Grand Slams, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, and ATP World Tour 250 events) were acquired from the ATP website (ATP, 2011). This information was collected for the period from 1975 to 2008, with the exception of the year 1981, for which no ranking list was available. A customised database running on a MySQL 5.1 community server was developed to store and probe the data. Analyses were conducted with custom-made software in C# programming language, in a MySQL database, and with SPSS 18 software.

First, descriptive statistics for the following variables were calculated for each country: (1) the total number of top 300 players (PL-n; the same player was counted each time he was on the ranking list at the end of a year); (2) the average number of top 300 players per year (PL/y; PL-n divided by the number of years); (3) the total number of tournaments (TRN-n; the same tournament was counted for each year in which it was organised); (4) the average number of tournaments (TRN/y) organised per year; and (5) the tournament’s average annual prize money (PM-avg; the average annual prize money per tournament). Second, these data were summed across each of the seven world regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Central America, North America, South America and Oceania). The total number of players defines (PL-n) the tennis success of a world region, while the total number of tournaments (TRN-n) and the average annual prize money in a tournament (PM-avg) represent indicators of the type of tournament structure.

The PL-n:TRN-n and PL-n:PM-avg inter-relationships were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients, where PL-n, TRN-n, and PM-avg for countries were used. An analysis by countries was used due to the larger number of cases compared to the analysis by world regions.

Due to the long time span of the observed period, the analysis included the average number of top 300 players per year, the average number of tournaments per year, and the average annual prize money for the organised tournaments (average values and percentages) for the following time periods: 1975-1979 (P1), 1980-1984 (P2), 1985-1989 (P3), 1990-1994 (P4), 1995-1999 (P5), 2000-2004 (P6), and 2005-2008 (P7) and for the countries grouped in seven world regions.

The descriptive data for PL-n, the TRN-n, and PM-avg for each world region during the 1975 - 2008 period are presented in Table 1.

Europe and North America are the first and second highest ranked world regions across all five variables. The PL-n during the period from 1975 to 2008 showed differences between the world regions (Table 1). Specifically, most of the players were from countries representing Europe (5,020), with the fewest players from Africa (366). Similarly, the most top 300 players per year come from Europe and North America and the fewest from Central America and Asia. The TRN-n from 1975 to 2008 revealed that most of the tournaments were organised in European (53%) and North American (27.9%) countries. In fact, 36 tournaments (2.5%) were held in South America and 22 tournaments (0.1%) in African countries. The variation in the number of male professional events between world regions is depicted in Table 1, with 22.47 tournaments organised in Europe, 11.32 in North America, and 0.5 in Central America. The annual PM-avg per world region shows that North America has a larger number of male professional events in higher tournament categories.

Table 2 highlights the correlations between PL-n and the TRN- n, and the PM-avg of the countries across the seven time periods. The PL-n shared the strongest correlation with the TRN-n in P2 (0.95), and the lowest association in P6 (0.61). The correlations between the PL-n and the PM-avg displayed similar trends (P1 - 0.95 and P6 - 0.57).

Table 3 shows the number of countries, belonging to a specific world region that had their players ranked among the ATP top 300. From P1 to P7, the number of countries with top 300 players increased from 47 to 63, while the percentage of professional tournaments organised in specific world regions remained almost unchanged. The number of countries producing top 300 ranked players in Oceania reduced from 2 to 1, with only Australia still producing top 300 ATP ranked players. In Central America and Asia, the growth in the number of countries with top 300 players is clearly evident. In South America, the number of countries with top 300 players declined from 1984 to 2008, while the number of countries producing top 300 players peaked in P4 in Africa. An increase in the number of top 300 players from different countries was most evident in Europe where 21 nations were represented in P1 and 34 in P7.

Table 4 and Figure 1 show the presence of inter-region differences in PL/y throughout the seven time periods. The number of North American players decreased from 98.2 (33.7%) in P1 to 29.5 (9.8%) in P7. In contrast, the number of top 300 ranked European players increased from 100. 2 (33.4%) in P1 to 196 (65.4%) in P7. Approximately two thirds of the players in each player group between P5-P7 originate from Europe. The number of players from Asian countries increased from P5 to 4.8% (14.5 players) in P7.

The number of top 300 ranked Central American players was low in all periods observed, ranging from 0.75% (2.3) to 2.35% (7) of the total number of players. Top 300 ranked players from South American countries increased from 9.4% (28.2) in P1 to 14.6% (43.8) in P7, while the opposite trend was observed in top 300 ranked African players (4.9% in P1 to 1.7% in P7) and Oceania players (15% in P1 to 2.9% in P7).

The TRN/y and the percentage of professional tournaments in world regions show (Table 5 and Figure 2) that most of the tournaments were organised in European countries (51.5%- 54.4%). In Europe in P1, a mean of 11.8 tournaments were organised annually, growing to 30.8 per year in P7. In North America the percentage of ATP tournaments decreased from 34.5% in P1 to 23.4% in P7, but in absolute values, the number increased from 7.8 to 14. Similar changes occurred in Oceania, where the average number of tournaments increased from 2.6 to 4, yet their percentage contribution to the calendar dropped from 11.5% to 6.7%. In Asia, 0.2 tournaments (0.9%) per year were organised in P1 and 6 events (10%) in P7. In P7, only 3 tournaments per year (5%) were held in South America and 1 tournament (1.7%) in Africa and Central America.

Table 6 and Figure 3 demonstrate the PM-avg for the world regions across the different time periods. The analysis of the differences in percentage throughout the observed periods (Figure 3) shows relatively constant shares of annual prize money for each world region, with the exception of Europe (with a slight increase from 49.5% to 51.4%) and North America (with a more notable decrease from 39.2% to 29.6%). The shares of Europe equate to 50%, North America 30%, Oceania 10%, and Asia 4%, while shares of other world regions are equal to or smaller than 1%. Table 6 illustrates the growth in the annual value of prize money in professional tournaments across Europe, North America, Oceania, and Asia. The highest increase of prize-money value occurred in the P3 and P4 periods.

TCompetition is considered to play an important role in the long-term development of male and female tennis players (Crespo et al., 2001). This assertion was generally supported by the findings of the present study, which revealed correlations between professional tournaments and the number of top ranked ATP players in the periods P1 to P7 to be gradually decreasing but still moderate to high. Over the 33 years under investigation, the total number of countries with players ranked among the top 300 increased from 47 to 63, while the number of ATP tournaments and prize money available increased in each world region. In P7, 94.6% of the top 300 ranked players represented Europe (65.34%), South America (14. 6%), North America (9.8%), and Asia (4.8%). Between 1975 and 2008, the relative share of top ranked players increased the most in Europe (33.4% to 65.4%) and South America (9.4% to 14.6%), and declined the most in North America (32.7% to 9.8%) and Oceania (15% to 2.9%).

The correlation between the total number of players ranked and the total number of tournaments steadily declined from P1 to P7. The correlation between the tennis success, the total number of tournaments and the annual tournament prize money was higher from P1 to P3 (from 1975 to 1989), before gradually decreasing in P7 (from 2005 to 2008). The change observed in the correlation between the total number of top 300 ATP ranked players and the number of professional tournaments from P1 to P3 implies that it may have been more important for the development of top tennis players to be able to participate in professional tournaments in their own country or world region early in the professional tennis era. In a similar study, Crespo et al., 2003 reported a correlation of 0.82 between the number of professional tournaments and the number of all players ranked on the ATP list in 2002. A lower correlation (0.74) was noted between the number of professional tournaments and the number of ATP ranked top 200 players. Reid et al., 2007a found a similar correlation between the number of women’s professional events and the total number of professional players ranked on the WTA list (0.60) and the top 200 ranked players (0.60). A well-structured tournament system is important, but it is not the only factor which influences success in male and female professional tennis. The results of the correlations emphasize the importance of a nation’s professional tennis tournament as it relates to that nation’s number of top ranked tennis players.

An interesting finding was that 53% of the professional events on the current ATP calendar are held in Europe and almost 28% in North America. European players appear to have a substantive advantage. To this end, Crespo et al., 2003 showed that the countries organising more than 20 professional events annually (many of which were European including Spain, France, and Germany) not only had a higher number of ATP ranked players, but were also more successful in the Davis Cup team competition. Indeed, the benefits associated with organising professional tournaments in one’s own country or world region are vast: firstly, it provides players with the opportunity of playing at home. Secondly, organisers can award the most talented young players with “wild cards ”and thus help them to win ATP points. Thirdly, media coverage at the tournaments can indirectly influence people’s awareness of tennis and its popularity. Finally, most of the professional tournaments are ideally suited for the commercial and promotional activities of tennis federations, companies, and individuals.

It must be noted however, that only the strongest tennis federations have a tiered structure of national, junior, entry level, and professional tournaments. Indeed, Reid et al., 2007b highlighted a positive and significant relationship between success on ITF boy’s junior tournaments and professional rankings to suggest that access to these events might be important to aspiring tennis professionals. Significantly, smaller tennis federations often have neither their own tiered structure nor even any entry level tournaments (Crespo et al., 2003). Further, due to limited financial, human, and infrastructure resources, some national federations do not have their own player development programmes. As such, they merely become one of the observers in player development, together with parents, tennis clubs, and management agencies.

The level of development of national and regional tennis federations is strongly related to the economic development (De Bosscher et al., 2003). An increase in the number of professional tournaments and average prize money in professional events in the period from P1 to P7 is noted in all world regions. These investments in the professional tournament structure showed positive results in the number of top 300 professionally ranked players for Europe, Asia, and South America. From P1 to P7 absolute annual values of prize money of professional tournaments increased in Europe from 1.5 million US$ to 41.4 million US$, in Asia from 25,000 US$ to 4.3 million US$, and in South America from 0 to 1.2 million US$. For a more detailed analysis of developments in individual world regions it is necessary to use the information on changes in the tournament structure, organization, and activities of tennis associations, private academies, and players in individual countries within that world region.

In Europe, the high number of professional tournaments, two Grand Slam events (French Open and Wimbledon) a strong tennis tradition, a high-level of organisation in clubs and at regional and national levels, a tiered system of national and regional junior tournaments, as well as a high- level of sports science and coach education, are contributing factors to the success of European players (Reid et al., 2007a). A high standard of living, public and private investments into sport, as well as excellent transport connections, could also be interpreted as offering players from developed European countries an advantage over their counterparts from less developed European nations.

Asian players, mostly from India and Japan, were successful on the ATP ranking list in P1. Investment in professional events started in P4, leading to a 100% increase in the number of elite Asian male tennis players in P5. In Asia, the reasons underpinning this progress are related to the growth of private investment in tournaments, together with well organised national federations, clubs, and centres (Japan, Thailand), a growing tennis tradition, and a large population (India). Menon, 2004 suggests that Taipei’s recent production of top ranked juniors is among the early signs of blossoming and sustained player development in the region, while it has been suggested that the education of coaches will play an increasingly important role in the future (Crespo et al., 2001).

The leading countries in male professional tennis in South America include Argentina, Brazil, and Chile; all of which organised their first ATP events in P4. Argentina has a rich tradition of developing professional players. Segal, 1999 has attributed this success, in part, to popular club competition in Argentina, complemented by the strong tennis tradition, and a determination to travel. It should be noted that two number 1 players: Marcelo Rios (in P5) from Chile and Gustavo Kuerten from Brazil (in P6), increased media attention and popularity of tennis in South America. In the P6 period, the prize money of ATP tournaments increased fourfold, unfortunately, without positive effect on the success of the players in the region.

North America has an extensive professional tournament structure both in men’s and women’s tennis. The United States Tennis Association (USTA) has organised the US Open since 1881 and had several number 1 ATP players (i.e. Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, and Agassi). Canada, on the other hand, has experienced comparatively little success in men’s tennis. While North American players in P1 were as successful as their European counterparts, their numbers began to decline through to P6. The reasons for the negative trend are complex and might be found in the policies of the tennis federation, as well as the more competitive international tennis landscape. Crespo et al., 2003 reported that the USTA in 1999 clearly outlined the intention to increase the professional tournaments opportunities for its players. The growth was marked and in 2002 there were 20% more men’s professional events held in the USA than in any other country. This may relate to the rise in the number of top 300 US professional players that has been noted recently.

Oceania has only organised four ATP events since P4; one in New Zealand, one Grand Slam, and two ATP events in Australia. In P1, 15% of the top 300 professional tennis players came from Oceania, which contrasts with only 3% in P7. Despite the decline in this world region’s tennis success, P5 and P6 periods were extremely successful due to two top ranked Australian players; Patrick Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt. The geographic isolation of Australia, which can limit its players’ access to international competitions (De Bosscher et al., 2003), and the increasing number of sports that are competing for the typical adolescent’s interest, are believed to have contributed to the decline in this nation’s success (Tennis Australia, 2002, Fèderation Française de Tennis, 2001).

Africa and Central America are the world regions with just one ATP event per year and lower values of prize money. While Central America has never been particularly successful in men’s tennis, Africa in P1 had 5% of the players ranked among the ATP top 300. More recently in P7, South Africa, Algeria, Morocco, and Ghana had players ranked among the top 300. South Africa, as the most economically developed country in Africa, has consistently produced tennis players. However, many African nations are still in the early stages of their domestic tennis development (Reid et al., 2007a), partly the result of political and socio-economic factors, which in turn influence tennis success (De Bosscher et al., 2003).

This study investigated the relationships between the number of professional tournament opportunities in men’s tennis and the number of top 300 professionally ranked male players within different world regions and countries. Interestingly, correlations between the tournament structure at country level and the number of top 300 ranked professional players reduced from nearly perfect in P1 - P2 to very high in P3 - P4 to high in P5 - P7. In the periods P1 to P3, the majority of top 300 ranked players originated from European and North American countries. From P4 to P7, the highest increase in the number of countries with top 300 ranked players was observed in Europe, mainly due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

At present, 53% of all professional events take place in Europe, which intuitively offers an advantage to European players hoping to break into the ATP top 300. Leading tennis countries, such as France, Germany, or Spain, each organise over 20 professional tournaments per year. Countries such as Argentina, the Czech Republic, or Russia organise 10 or fewer professional events, yet still have many top ranked players, which might suggest that players from these countries extensively use the tournament structures of their neighbouring countries.

The authors believe that the observed correlations are likely to plateau or continue to weaken over time as other factors like a high level of coaches’ education; more sophisticated talent identification systems; flexible and individualised player development pathways; improving sport and tennis infrastructure; and an interdisciplinary approach to athlete support exert growing influence on success of the professional players.