The ATP Chairman, Andrea Gaudenzi, has refuted recent reports that the tour's biggest tournaments would be "bought" by the four Grand Slams and leave the ATP landscape.
A few weeks ago, the Athletic revealed that the four Grand Slams are fostering a deal to revolutionize the sport. The plan is to partner with a collection of the ATP's most prized tournaments - the Masters 1000s - and take the majority controlling interest away from the ATP's hands.
In an interview with The National, Gaudenzi emphasized he had read the article but had taken a completely different approach to the idea. According to Italian, the so-called "premier tour" is meant to be a unified product, which would align with his OneVision plan to pool all of tennis's central bodies together.
Even though the ATP and WTA tours have worked in close alignment in the past few years, the divisive nature of its leadership, governance, and structure means that it is far from Gaudenzi's ambitions.
"No, in my opinion, absolutely not (whether ATP. would forfeit control of Masters tournaments). I think that generally there is a lot of noise in that regard. I think what I've been extremely vocal about the last four years with OneVision is that we need to figure out a way to work together, right?"
"Because ultimately, whatever was written in that article, it's definitely the concept of focusing on a premium product, which will mean the Slams and the Masters and the premium product, all together combined, is a very powerful proposition for the consumers. That I agree with 100 percent, that's what we are trying to do with OneVision."
Furthermore, the 50-year-old who was re-elected as Chairman of the ATP in June, stated that tennis should leverage its value and compete with other sports instead of "destroying and creating disruption" as it is nonsensical and warned of the dangers inherent in a possible spin-off tour.
"Ultimately, I think you can get there by building on top of the value that we have today rather than destroying and creating disruption, which I think ultimately, it's always more expensive, it’s time and energy and money-consuming, it’s not necessary."
"I'm 100 per cent pro unity and pro finding solutions through conversations in a room. I strongly believe we can agree a lot more than we actually believe, when you're together."