STRANGE TENNIS RULE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21921, 3 October 1934, Page 20

STRANGE TENNIS RULE

QUESTION OF AMATEURISM PERRY'S FILM WORK OFFER t AN OBSOLETE DISTINCTION The London Evening Standard published the following editorial recently on the subject of amateurism in the game of lawn tennis: — Fred J. Perry is an amateur player of lawn tennis. He holds that status by his obedienco to the rules of the Lawn Tennis Association. In this matter the rules of the association are as peculiar as they are strict. Their peculiarity is brought to notice by Perry's disclosuro that he was recently approached by an American film company who wished to enlist his services for a picture. "I at once referred them," he says, "to the Lawn Tennis Association, pointing out to them that if they could secure the sanction of the association, I might be prepared to agree with the proposal. The film company has been in touch with the Lawn Tennis Association, and there, so far as Perry is concerned, the matter rests until the association gives its verdict. Things Forbidden In Lawn Tennis Association rules an amateur player is "specifically prohibited" from gaining pecuniary advantage "by posing for or permitting the taking of lawn tennis action film pictures of himself." He is also forbidden to accept money for "giving instruction in the game by correspondence or lecture." But, strangely enough, he is permitted to profit from an article or book on the game, written by himself, even though that book contains advice on the playing of lawri tennis, and even though it is illustrated by pictures of the author showing the grips he employs, his stance when serving, and so on. We thus arrive at the extraordinary position that P<Jrry may not, for money, teach the restricted audience he can reach by correspondence or by a lecture, but he may teach the much wider audience he can reach by a book. He can profit from photographs of this methods when they are "stills" on a page, but not when they are in motion on a screen. Antiquated Attitude The truth is'that the whole attitude of the association toward questions of amateur status is antiquated and anomalous, vexatious to the players and not in the best interests either of the game or of the public which follows it. - An amateur player of any game isi one who does not make money out of playing it. But we know that there are lawn tennis players who quite honourably earn their livings in the employment of sports outfitters, selling rackets and balls of the brand which they use themselves. Obviously the reputation they acquire as amateurs recommends them to the firms which employ them. In that sense they are making money out of their playing. Sparing Permission There is no reason why they should not; but the situation is too absurd and contradictory to be allowed to continue. The effect on the public of: the Lawn Tennis Association rules ;:s that an obsolete distinction diminishes the interest of the game. The rules provide that no amateur shall play a match or demonstrate the game with or against a person who is not an amateur without the written permission of the council of the Lawn Tennis Association, and this permission is but sparingly given. As a result tho great amateurs have their tournament all to themselves at Wimbledon in June,, while this year the great professionals are going to have theirs all to themselves at Wembley in November. The public ought to have the opportunity of seeing the best professionals and amateurs matched together and it sees no reason why an out-of-date rule should prevent it from doing so.