Daily Bagel: U.S. Open women’s final grabs higher TV ratings than men’s

Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

• Video: A fan-made song about Roger Federer called “Swiss Chocolate”. It’s quite something.

• Serena on a Sunday is an event: The U.S. Open women’s final got higher ratings than the men’s final.

• The ITF finally speaks: Marin Cilic has been found to have failed a doping test in May, suspended for nine months and eligible to return January 31, 2014. I’ll have more on this when the full decision is released.

• Matt Cronin reports the WTA’s Carlsbad tournament will move to Tokyo beginning in 2014, leading to a shuffle of the WTA’s summer schedule.

• Bethanie Mattek-Sands tore her MCL in an indoor carpet tournament last week and is out for the season. Bad luck.

• Petra Kvitova was on-hand to cheer on the Czech Republic in their Davis Cup win over Argentina this weekend.

• The Spanish Tennis Federation won’t comment on some media reports that Spain’s Nuria Llagostera Vives may have failed a doping test at a tournament in Stanford this summer.

• From espnW, a Q&A with Sloane Stephens.

• Some public courts in Portland, Oregon are getting a makeover in honor of Alex Rovello, a University of Oregon standout who died in a cliff-diving accident.

• Yevgeny Kafelnikov is shooting to make the Rio Olympics. In golf.

• Non-tennis: Inside Canelo Alvarez’s dressing room after his brutal loss to Floyd Merriweather.

  • Published On Sep 16, 2013

    I wonder what Gille "women should be paid less" Simon would say?  Oh wait, Gille who?

    I am sure Mr. Wertheim will come up with mathematical, sociological and economic reasons why the women's final got more ratings and conclude that a multifactorial algorithm is to blame.  Here is my take:

    1) Entertainment factor: I am sorry, the men's final was somewhat boring.  Actually, except for the Australian Open, ALL the men's slam finals this year have been boring.  Masters have been more interesting.   Let us admit that the USO women's finals have been more interesting these recent years because of the appearance of SW, date, promotion and potential of an upset.  Clijsters, Stosur were great stories as well which lend well to good TV.  Murray's 2012 win was good but not that exciting.  Nadal vs Djokovic was just boring.   I appreciate being fit and all but I really don't have time for a 54 shot rally in a match that has the potential to go to 5 sets.  Why?  Winners are called winners for a reason.  Don't turn men's tennis into a Wozniacki/Errani specialty of just defending forever. Place a shot, be strategic, make a winner.  I had to turn off the TV to study for a while.

    2. Day:   Yes, Sunday is more likely to get viewers than Monday.  Period.

    But, note that you have to compete against football and Sunday primetime.  So, Sunday can also be the kiss of death.  Those are two powerful monsters so pulling off anything over a 4.5share is huge.

    3. Marketting: everyone likes new blood and upsets but the following names are money: Serena Williams, Roger Federer, Nadal, Sharapova, Li Na.  Djokovic?  Not so much (and that is sad because he has potential.  Mention him to an average fan and they have no clue.  His sponsors are not known much in the US.  Nike promote the heck out of SW (plus Gatorade in her case), MS, RF and RN.  Li Na is a market in China on itself.  I bet you more people know Wozniacki than Djokovic  People will watch the familiar.  Stations will promote their matches because ads will earn more.  Got it?  Star name =more ppl watching =more ads=more $$$.  

    Case in point: 2013 Bastad.  That place was sold out every freaking Serena match. Even I wanna go to Bastad now.

    And when they are not playing: Maria Sharapova made more headlines than most tennis players just for strolling in New York.

    Urrgh...the players people tune in to watch are those who know how to market themselves and have a good relationship with their audience for a particular tournament.  Djokovic is not well known in the US and for some reason, this is not being discussed.  He has had a strained relationship with the USO in the past and was never a fan fav but he has changed and I wonder why his marketing has not changed?  The only thing I hear about are his charity (good) and his diet (#goodluckwiththat).

    This is not just a male vs female thing.  It's more about off-court public presentation.  Raise your hands if you watched Wimbledon's women semifinals and finals?  No one?  Oh, I didn't either.  Boring. AND  I rarely miss any match during the slams.  Rarely.

    4. Competing games: no compelling football on either night so this debate is a joke.  There were football games but nothing exciting.  Well, I think the Mannings were playing that Monday so maybe...

    5. Nadal fatigue? 


    From the linked article:

    "Sports Media Watch also reported that the last six U.S. Open men’s finals played on Sunday from 2002-2007 ranged from 3.3 to 7.9 rating, while the six Monday finals from 2008-2013 were in the range of 2.2 to 2.8."

    Yeah, let's not go with a misleading headline or anything...


    "The 2.8 rating is the highest for the men’s final since a 4.2 rating for the 2007 final when Roger Federer beat Djokovic. That was the last time a men's final was played on a Sunday afternoon."

    You were saying? So the men's final ratings have pretty much sucked, regardless of when they've been played.


    The 4.9 rating was also the highest for any U.S. Open final since Roger Federer beat Andy Roddick in 2006 (5.1), according to Sports Media Watch.

    7 years since the men could beat this.