No Nadal, no deal

Number 1 seed Rafa Nadal has withdrawn from the Wimbledon tournament due to a knee injury. Number 2 seed and chief rival Roger Federer responded by saying: "I'd love to play him. He's my main rival.....we've had some wonderful matches over the years, including last year, so that we can't repeat that is obviously sad." But who is more sad, Federer or the Wimbledon organisers? In sport, when a star player or the best player in the world at that moment withdraws from a tournament or event, what is the economic, commercial and financial impact of the withdrawal? Will Nadal's absence undermine Wimbledon's revenues? Will ticket sales fall? Will sponsorship revenues be affected? Will broadcasting contracts be worth less? Will corporate clients be less receptive to buying hospitality packages? And in this year more than in any other year, due to the downturn, will Nadal's knee especially undermine Wimbledon's performance? That said, given the 128 male singles players who are turning out at this year's Wimbledon, will Nadal's absence be economically, commercially and financially imperceptible? Taking domestic hopes for Andy Murray out of the equation, is the prestige, status and general appeal of the tournament such that the absence of a player, even the Number 1 seed, is insufficient to reduce demand for tickets, hospitality packages etc? Indeed, this raises an interesting question, what would it take for the impact of a tennis Grand Slam to be seriously affected? A global economic downturn? The absence from a tournament of the top two seeds? The top three seeds? Or is the nature of these sporting properties so unique, so robust, that they are essentially immune to the same kinds of pressure that might undermine the performance of organisations one might observe in other sports, or in other industries?