Read Part I
Email Luke

St. Onge Speaks Out: Part II
Interview with former Executive Director Luke St. Onge

Why are the pros important to racquetball and to the USRA? The U.S. is a pro-sport society – you have the final four, the NCAA, the bowl thing in football — but outside of that, there’s little recognition for NCAA sports or [any sports at] that level. We look for the very best, and you will not attract good athletes to the sport if they can’t make money. Take any of the top pros – men and women – they all could do well in other sports. Andy Roberts could have been a wide receiver on any NCAA football team, and could have gone on to pro-football. John Ellis to Sudsy [Monchik] – they’re overall great athletes – why do they stay on in the sport? They can excel and there is possibility of making money.

L-R: St. Onge and IRF President Keith Calkins sign international legislation.

Also — the pro-end of it – allows people to stay in a sport much longer on a competitive level. People will come to see the best, and be inspired to keep playing. Doug Ganim has proven that people … our own people … will pay to come and see the pros. But seven years ago if you said we’d have 1200 people pay to see the pros play – they’d have called you nuts. It’s not the case now, you have a good product and they’ll come — but you have to get the word out, outside our own market. And that’s what Doug is trying to do with the U.S. Open – expand the sport – but it’s hard to do with one television broadcast. So, hopefully, with Doug’s ability to showcase and sell the pros, we’ll get recognition.

Even more important right now is the women’s end of it – if there weren’t a women’s pro tour, you wouldn’t have elite athletes playing women’s racquetball – that’s just a reality. How many professional sports [are there] for women? Basketball, and volleyball aren’t going anywhere for women. Golf is doing fine; softball is trying, with good athletes, but can’t get outside the box. Racquetball is one of the few that has maintained a competitive, professional level —whatever that might be at this point in time — since 1976. That’s a pretty nice run – 25 years — that we’ve had a women’s tour, at one level or another. And the USRA’s involvement in that has been looked on as extremely important. The USOC has also looked at it and agreed to allocate some of the funding that comes to us to go towards a women’s pro-tour, just to maintain the ability of women to stay in sport.

Why is there resistance to the USRA being involved with the pro tours? I don’t know anyone who has been involved long-term that has an objection once they know what the facts are concerning this. There is great misconception that membership dues are going toward the pros – but this is just not the case. The board made it very clear that no membership dues go toward that end. Monies coming from USOC – [to support] agreed-upon goals within the USOC – along with sponsorship monies going back in and monies from pros going back in, make up the prize money.

What is the USRA’s level of involvement? The USRA has made a commitment, in the case of women’s pro tour, to bring it back to respectability and to operate it for a three-year period. Currently, we are one and one-half years into that and have seen dramatic change in attitude by manufacturers towards women’s racquetball, by the media towards women’s racquetball and by women towards women’s racquetball. That draws of eight one and one-half years ago now are seeing draws of 32, [creates] excitement among junior girls that there is a place for them to go if they excel. They don’t have to go into soccer, or basketball, or volleyball. There’s a home for them in racquetball and they have a future to be able to not only win money and sponsorship on the pro-tour which keeps them in the sport but also represent their country in international competition. The men … that’s another story.

What’s that Story? From my standpoint, I think that we have to be very careful – speaking from a sports standpoint now – that the leadership of the IRT has a vision — not just going from tournament to tournament – but developing the men’s pro-tour into something that’s viable, something that’s fun to come and see and that is orchestrated on a very strong commercial basis. One of the things I think the IRT is missing completely is the opportunity to have their athletes represent the United States in international competition.

It’s a philosophical boon-doggle [which is] contrary to the future of almost any sport. Look at the professionals in any sport right now – be it the National Hockey League, the NBA, baseball – all representing their country. Those pro organizations are using the red, white and blue to promote their athletes and to promote their sport. But ours is going in the opposite direction. I think it’s flawed from the IRT standpoint in thinking that their athletes will somehow be watering down their professionalism if they compete in USRA national events. Now that might be valid if these same professionals were playing to 10,000 people and all of a sudden going and playing quote-unquote “USRA” events.

How would you change that mindset? Being able to play off of the red-white-and-blue and the American flag and represent their country is huge. It’s beyond my comprehension at times that manufacturers don’t trade off of it. They actually have world champions and they don’t recognize it. I just don’t understand the thinking that goes on – because it’s certainly important to our members as to who’s a world champion and who’s representing us. Our people buy the product. Anyway, I think they [IRT] are making a terrible mistake and if they continue that type of thinking, and that kind of promotion, they will remain one of the best-kept secrets of the sport. Only a very few people will ever hear of them or know where they are competing; they’ve got to break out of that mode.

It will help to just stop using the term “amateur.” The word “amateur” doesn’t exist [in this context] and hasn’t existed since 1985 even though that’s still part of our culture and I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of it. We are not an amateur organization, and anyone can compete in an Open and earn money – those are the facts of life of this country. If people want to turn the clocks back, that’s fine – you can try to, but they’ll get run over by a big train doing it.

How do you deal with the “us” versus “them” mentality, in terms of strictly-pro, and strictly USRA competitions? I think there is a place for both. Look at the U.S. Open – that integrates both types of competition. It’s the same in the Doubles – aside from calling it a “U.S. team qualifier” the people playing are certainly elite athletes. They might not make the big money in the sport but they are elite athletes. It’s kind of interesting, sometimes you go to a master’s event and, aside from saying “it’s good to see you again” and all of that – there’s a wide range of conversation concerning the pros. The pros are an integral part – you see their athletic ability and you’re able to translate that into your own game.

I think the “we” and “they” is a lot less than it was a short time ago. The U.S. Open has made a big difference in that area, by allowing us all to work together for a common cause. Certainly our own members — we and they – are coming to see the pros. You go back 15-16 years ago, that was against the “bible of racquetball” — that if you paid your entry, you got to see the pros. Well, that’s all changed and it certainly makes the sport much more respectable and certainly much more desirable if you’re willing to pay to see someone play. It makes a big, big difference.

We’ve done this on the international level as well. In Bolivia of all places, the promotion within that country – and it’s only a country of 4 million people – built an eight-court facility, with seating for 1300. Every person who came in there (for the World Championships) paid to see this event – screaming and yelling and excited about watching their international team. That’s what it’s all about and we have to create that excitement for the sport. I don’t mind paying to go and see John Ellis or Sudsy or Cliff Swain play. They’ve made a commitment to the sport and they will put on a heck of a show and I’m real proud to see it – and those who don’t want to pay don’t have to. That’s the way the sport is going if we want to be competitive with other sports.

What would you like to see for the future of the sport? I’d like to see us take our rightful place in the sporting market – it’s a tremendous overall sport and I also believe that it has a very important part in our society from a standpoint that we deal with the physical and mental well-being of our population. That’s the bottom line as I see it. I’d like to expose as many people [as possible] to our sport. It’s not for everybody – because it takes effort to play it and fun and all that – but it is an aggressive sport, no question about it, and it does fit our society, our culture, and certainly it fits the American mentality.

That’s the way I see it and I think that this is all dependent upon our leadership. It’s absolutely critical that board members have a vision for the future and see this vision for the sport – and that we have to be very careful not to fall under the trap that many sports, and many corporations, fall into … all bottom line. If that becomes the case, then we’ll become a shadow in a shell of what we could be.