This is the final installment examining a question that was surfaced in the Facebook group for USTA tournament players in Texas. A rule was proposed to the Capital Area Tennis Association (CATA) in Austin that would restrict players from captaining multiple teams within the same league.
Over the previous two days we have examined whether there is a conflict of interest concern over non-playing captains in USTA League tennis and determined that there really isn’t much of a concern that would prompt the USTA from banning the practice. Additionally, we have examined the practice and rules that allow players to play on multiple teams as long as those teams are in separate flights or divisions, with the same conclusion.
Those preliminaries are required to establish a basis for examining the original question that sparked this thread in the first place. Specifically, should a person be allowed to captain several teams in the same flight of a league. In other words, does that raise a potential conflict of interest concern.
Captain Restriction Rule Proposal
The specific rule that was proposed to CATA was worded as follows:
a. A person may only captain one team in the same league. (ex: 4.0 USTA weekday women)
b. A person may not play on a team and captain a different team in the same league. (ex: 4.0 USTA weekday women)
Rule Proposal Submitted to CATA
CATA has considered this proposal twice this year and voted it down on both occasions. That was most likely the impetus for the thread of discussion in the Texas tournament player Facebook group.
The hallmark of Fiend at Court is overthinking various organizational constructs associated with tennis. This includes the rules of the game as well as the rules that govern the structure of competitive play. The dynamics of this situation are too fascinating to pass up as a case study to think through the complexity.
In the process of examining this topic, I discovered that the USTA league structure definitions vary from area to area. For example, in Fort Worth the scope of the league is the overall season of competition such as “2019 FW Adult 18 & Over League – Ladies.” In Austin, the league scope is more narrow, such as “2019 Spring 40 & Over WeekDAY.”
After publishing the previous two posts in this series, I came to realize that the division/flight nomenclature presents some ambiguity. In Austin, a player may play more than team at the same level as long as that team competes on different days. The context distills down to teams that compete head to head in regular season league play.
Considering the Exceptions
When implementing a new rule or regulation, it is helpful to consider when exceptions to that rule would be required. A good rule will not have a lot of scenarios that would require a waver process. Any exception should be simple enough to be included directly in the rule.
The problem with the proposal is that extensive exceptions are likely to exist. In fact, those exceptions seem to outnumber the concern that the rule is addressing by a fair margin.
Implementing a blanket rule as the one proposed in CATA, is challenging due to the assumptions about why a person would want to captain multiple teams in the first place. If a person captains multiple teams in the spirit and interest of promoting tennis and creating more playing opportunities, there is really no issue. It cannot be safely assumed that a captain at the helm of more than one team is doing so for their own nefarious benefit.
As I wrote about two days ago, there are examples where players from higher levels have captained teams at lower levels to ensure that the pipeline of players in the USTA league system remains intact. If one person stepped up to captain multiple teams in that scenario, I doubt that there would be any objection.
I have also previously defined “Tennis Wastelands” on this site, which are CTAs which struggle to have enough teams to conduct a league. I have no issue with a person captaining multiple teams in the same league if it is in the interest of having a league at all.
The people who captain teams are the lifeblood of league tennis. When a captain steps aside, it is not a safe assumption that someone else will step into the void. For this reason, the CTAs which run leagues are generally going to be reluctant to put rules in the books that create additional hurdles that would prevent willing captains from administering teams.
Conflict of Interest
The concern behind the submission of the rule seems to be based on a case where a person who captains multiple teams might be doing so to create a competitive advantage for one of those teams. In essence, that the person could manipulate the lineups so they were stronger or weaker given the current opponent.
I can see how this can occur. At the same time, there are a lot of moving parts that make this pretty hard to pull off in practice. For one thing, my experience with captaining is that no matter how large the roster is, that the captain never has all of players available for any given week.
Another concern would be over the player experience of those on a “shill” team. Those players might be tacitly OK just having an opportunity to play some matches. If not, then one or more of those players will wake up to what is occurring and either step up to captaining or vote with their feet. So while there may be an issue, it is transient in nature.
CTAs that administer leagues should be alert to unethical behavior and directly address any concerns that arise on a case by case basis. I do not think that it makes sense to put rules on the books that discourage teams from forming which in turn reduces playing opportunities.
The League Advancement Incentive
One of my recurring radical ideas that surfaces on this site from time to time, is that advancement to Sectionals and Nationals is an incentive that creates less than desirable behavior from USTA League players and captains. When the debate over this rule emerged a couple of weeks ago, I was surprised since there is no advancement beyond the local level in 2020.
Without advancement to Sectionals or Nationals, my thought was that there must be some crazy good league championship swag in Austin that makes winning a good return return on investment. I personally cannot imagine expending the time and effort to captain more than one team to improve the odds of winning yet another league champion towel.
Alas, based on the timing of when CATA took up discussion on the proposed rule, it is likely that the concern arose from advancing leagues prior to the COVID-19 disruption. Thus, I still contend that both the motivation to game the system as well as concern that people are doing so would be eliminated if advancement were not a thing.
A Final Story
In writing about this topic I encountered a few accounts of people who were asked to play on a team, only to find that they were the “shill” team in a two team league. This generally comes from a place of frustration or irritation. It is also a great canvas for illustrating how intent factors in to this scenario.
Let’s say a captain assembles a team for a league. In the waning days of the registration window it becomes apparent that no other teams are going to register and that the league will not make. That captain can either accept that the league will not happen or pound the pavement to form another team.
There may be frustration in retrospect that the second team was formed so the first formed team can advance. In fact, that is quite likely. However it cannot be assumed that the first team was formed with the explicit intent that there would be two (or more) teams under the same captain.
In this scenario, the captain of multiple teams is acting in the very way that the USTA would want them to: Creating multiple teams and making league happen. In other words, promoting tennis.
That is why I am not surprised that the CATA voted down the proposal. It is simply not possible to legislate intent.
Referenced Sources
- 2020 USTA League Regulations, https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/pdfs/190517_2020_National_Regulations.pdf
- 2020 Operating Procedures USTA Texas Section Tennis Leagues, https://www.usta.com/content/dam/usta/sections/texas/pdf/2020_League_Operating_Procedures.pdf
- 2020 CATA League Regulations: A handbook for captains and players, Capital Area Tennis Association, https://www.austintennis.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CATA_League_Regulations.pdf
- How the USTA Works for You, USTA National Web Page, viewed 9/11/2020.
- 2020 Greater Fort Worth Tennis Coalition League Regulations, viewed 9/11/2020.
- USTA Dallas Local League Rules & Regulations, 2020, Dallas Tennis Association, viewed 9/11/2020.
