Apophenia – now there’s a word.
Psychologists use the term to describe the way people often seek baseless connections and patterns between random events. Conspiracy theories would be one example. Garbiñe Muguruza’s April announcement that she would be prolonging her two-month break from tennis into the summer, skipping the clay- and grass-court seasons, would be another.
No sooner had Muguruza revealed the news on social media, than observers were rushing to join the dots. In an instant, the Spanish former world No 1 and two-time grand slam champion was cast as the latest in an illustrious line of top female players to fall out of love with the sport. In turning her back on tennis, Muguruza was following in the footsteps of Naomi Osaka, Ashleigh Barty, Serena Williams and Simona Halep, it was claimed.
Never mind that Osaka, Barty and, as we now know, Williams are all expecting children. Never mind that Barty and Williams have retired, or that Halep is appealing a provisional suspension from the game after being charged with a double doping offence. Women’s tennis was in crisis, we were told, with the growing absence of star attractions depriving the WTA Tour of the intriguing plotlines that attract sponsorship and fans.
It seemed an awful lot to extrapolate from a couple of brief sentences on Instagram.
“Spending time with family and friends and it’s really been healthy and amazing, so I am going to lengthen this period till summer,” wrote Muguruza.
“Therefore I am going to miss the clay and grass court season.”
In fact, Muguruza’s decision, which followed 15 months of mediocre results, hardly came as a surprise, even before last month’s announcement that she is engaged to Arthur Borges, her partner of two years.
The former Wimbledon and French Open champion hadn’t played since 30 January, when she was eliminated from the Lyon Open in straight sets by the rising Czech teenager Linda Noskova. The result did not qualify as an upset. Muguruza was ranked 82nd at the time – 26 places below Noskova – and has since fallen to 170 as a result of her inactivity, her worst ranking in more than a decade.
The Spaniard’s downward spiral began after her inspired title run at the season-ending WTA Finals in Guadalajara in 2021. When Muguruza declared herself ready to challenge at the majors again following that victory, it did not seem fanciful. The manner in which she secured her biggest title in four years, shrugging off an indifferent start to the group stage to capitalise on the “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” of playing a big tournament in Latin America, spoke of a player with newfound clarity about herself, her game and her goals.
Not for the first time in Muguruza’s career, however, the promised end failed to materialise. Instead, she won only a dozen of her 29 matches last year, failing to notch up more than two victories in a row at any tournament.
“It’s been a tough season, a little bit of a rollercoaster,” she said after defeating Despina Papamichail at last September’s Tokyo Open. “I [have been] trying and trying and trying… at some point I think that I will get rewarded.”
Again, Muguruza’s optimism would prove misplaced. That win over Papamichail remains her most recent, the Spaniard having lost in the opening round of each of the four tournaments she has contested this year.
“I’m feeling the toll of many years on tour,” she reflected at last year’s US Open.
Clearly something had to give. A player of Muguruza’s talent and standing could not simply plough on, accumulating loss after dispiriting loss. If a few months away from the relentless treadmill of the tour is what she needs to rediscover her energy and passion for the game, so be it. But let’s not pretend that decision has precipitated a crisis.
The women’s game would benefit from a fit and firing Muguruza, of course it would. At her best, the charismatic Spaniard is one of the sport’s finest ball-strikers. But the Muguruza who went off on sabbatical at the end of January is not that player right now, and hasn’t been for some time. In fact, consistency has never been her forte. As her results over the years suggest, Muguruza is a player for the big occasion; the week in, week out grind of the tour, not so much.
New rivalries and new blood
So while she will be missed this summer, women’s tennis is not about to implode in Muguruza’s absence. On the contrary. In the period since her WTA Finals victory, countless fascinating plotlines have emerged. Iga Swiatek dominated last season to establish herself as the undisputed world No 1, a position she underlined this month with a successful title defence at Roland Garros. Elena Rybakina won Wimbledon, defeating the ever-popular Ons Jabeur, who also reached the final of the US Open. Muguruza’s WTA Finals crown passed to Caroline Garcia, another 29-year-old enjoying a late-career resurgence.
In January, Aryna Sabalenka defeated Rybakina in a thrilling Australian Open final to join the Kazakh as a first-time grand slam champion. In Indian Wells, Rybakina hit back to deny the Belarusian another big crown, repeating her win over Swiatek at Melbourne Park along the way. Jessica Pegula, who scored a similarly emphatic victory over the Polish world No 1 at the start of the year, looks closer than ever to a major breakthrough.
Exciting young talents have emerged like Noskova – who began the season by defeating Daria Kasatkina, Victoria Azarenka and Jabeur to reach the first WTA final of her career in Adelaide – and her compatriot Linda Fruhvirtova, also 18, who marked her Australian Open debut with a run to the last 16. As for the old guard, how about former Wimbledon champion Petra Kvitova winning her first Miami Open at the age of 32?
Detractors of the women’s game tend to portray this strength in depth as weakness. Where are the rivalries, they ask, the big names who define the sport and create the kind of storylines provided by Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer on the men’s side? The obvious answer lies in the burgeoning three-way rivalry between Swiatek, Sabalenka and Rybakina. Sure, the critics will say, but those players lack the bankability of Muguruza, Osaka, Barty and company, all of whom come from big markets with big commercial pull.
Again, that rather overlooks the fact that many of the sport’s greatest champions – Martina Navratilova, Monica Seles and Justine Henin among them – hailed from smaller countries. Nor did a Swiss passport seem to harm Federer’s popularity, for the simple reason that commercial clout owes more to quality and charisma than nationality.
So while Muguruza may have left the sport for the time being and, for all we know, taken her 887,000 Instagram disciples with her, Swiatek, with her 1 million-strong following, has ably filled the void. So too has Coco Gauff, the American world No 7, with 887,000 followers. That Sabalenka hails from Belarus, a far smaller market than Australia, has not prevented her from amassing more devotees than Barty (619k to 526k). And while Osaka, with 2.7 million fans, is always sorely missed, the presence of the convalescent Emma Raducanu, a fellow former US Open champion with 2.5 million Instagram acolytes, will no doubt afford the WTA’s marketing department more than a measure of solace.
It might be argued that social media presence alone is a less reliable indicator of marketability than factors like success and personal values. Yet, with the exception of Gauff – who, at the age of 19, has time on her side – each of the aforementioned athletes is a grand slam champion.
Swiatek and Gauff, in particular, have shown a refreshing willingness to speak out on social and political issues, from the Ukraine war and mental health in the Pole’s case, to gun violence, women’s reproductive rights and racial injustice in Gauff’s. It is hard to imagine better role models. As for marketability, Raducanu, whose sponsorship portfolio is estimated to be worth in excess of £10m annually, has shown what can be achieved with a big title and a winning personality.
Strength in numbers
There are a number of reasons why the women’s game is struggling to make the numbers add up, not least the WTA’s now-reversed decision to pull out of a lucrative series of events in China over allegations by Peng Shuai, a former world No 1 doubles player, that she was forced into a sexual relationship with a former Chinese government official.
What seems equally clear, though, is that the problem lies less with individual athletes like Mugurza than with the way they have been marketed. Which is precisely why the WTA has entered into a $150m (£118m) commercial partnership with CVC Capital Partners, a global private equity firm, aimed at improving the profile and profitability of the organisation and its stars. Under the terms of the deal, CVC will acquire a 20% stake in WTA Ventures, a new business arm of the WTA. Improved commercial rights – and parity with the ATP on prize money – will be high on the agenda.
CVC previously transformed the fortunes of Formula One, making billions for the sport – and itself – in the process. In 2021, the company spent roughly $700m to acquire the Indian Premier League cricket franchise Ahmedabad; in 2022, the IPL sold its media rights for a record $6.2bn, triple the value of the previous deal. In short, CVC are not noted for backing losing propositions. CVC’s recognition of the commercial potential of the women’s game, and willingness to back that recognition with big bucks, says more about the true value of the WTA than any number of cheap shots.
And yes, of course they’ll be looking to make money along the way. That tends to be how private equity firms work. But the opportunity is there to grow the game not only for investors, but also for the benefit of male and female players alike. According to estimates, tennis has about a billion followers worldwide – and generates roughly double that amount in dollars. Yet there is a chasm between the sport’s appeal and the money it pulls in, both for itself and – even in an era of all-time greats like Williams and Rafael Nadal – its stars.
By way of comparison, American football generates an estimated $18bn annually from a fanbase roughly half the size. Baseball and basketball, meanwhile, both of which have a following of roughly 400 million people, bring in an estimated $10bn a year each. No wonder venture capitalists are united in the belief that tennis is ripe for long-term investment.
Part of CVC’s strategy will reportedly involve forging closer ties with the ATP Tour, eventually enabling the sport to sell itself as a combined package. No doubt cynics will point to this as further evidence that the women’s game is “in crisis”.
An alternative view would be that there is strength in numbers; that by presenting a united front, tennis will be better placed to capitalise on its position as a sport with a rich and storied tradition of combining men’s and women’s events at its biggest, most historic tournaments.
That tradition does not rest on one player – be it Muguruza or anyone else.