The foreign invasion: is it a bad thing?

The last time an American-born player won the NCAA Division I men's singles title was in 2000, when Alex Kim of Stanford was hoisted on his teammates shoulders. The last six men's champions were all foreign-born (see this listing of NCAA Division I past champions). On the women's side, nearly half of the 64 players in the 2006 NCAA Division I draw were foreigners. This, according to a recent article in TENNIS Magazine by Christopher Chung titled, "The College Question" (November/December 2006 issue, not yet available online as of this writing).

What's more, many of these players are non-traditional students, meaning they are matriculating well after their 18th birthday. And some have played on a professional circuit, such as the highly competitive ITF circuit, USTA Futures and Challenger circuits, or multi-tiered club circuit in Europe. The latter, by the way, has traditionally been a proving and weeding-out ground for American college players and former college players who get a chance to try their hand against international competition.

But now, the foreign competition is coming to America's training ground, most on full athletic scholarships. The question is: is this a bad thing? Or, to put it another way, are foreign student-athletes impeding the career aspirations of American-born players? And if the answer is yes, should anything be done to curtail the practice of recruiting physically and mentally more mature and seasoned talent from abroad to the U.S. collegiate ranks?

For many concerned about the perceived dirth of American-born and trained talent entering the pro ranks with good prospects, the answer is a resounding "Yes!" For my part, I'm not so quick to judge this a bad thing, although I think some restrictions should be applied. My reasons stem from personal experience and from my sense that as the college playing field becomes more "internationalized," it will in actuality prove to be a better barometer of a young (and not so young) player's future success on the ATP and WTA tours.

It should be pointed out that the last five great male champions to rise through the ranks of American junior tennis to take their place among history's elite have all either foregone their secondary education or made a brief cameo appearance. Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Jim Courier, Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi are Hall of Fame players who, in sum total, spent two years in college. Connors won the NCAAs in 1971 as a freshman at UCLA and McEnroe in 1978, while a freshman at Stanford. Both then wisely rode their successes straight to the pro tour. Sampras and Agassi never even attended high school, opting instead to train at tennis academies or with personal coaches and receive their diplomas through correspondence courses. Andy Roddick has followed a simliar path and seems headed for the hallowed Hall. Bob and Mike Bryan both played tennis at Stanford, capturing the doubles crown in 1998 as freshmen. Bob also won the singles title that year, by the way. But they, too, went their merry way after their highly successful freshmen years. So, most of the uber-successful U.S. men's singles players have seen little return on their investment in a college tennis career.

It's ironic that so many bemoan the fact that highly recruited high school basketball players are jumping ship for the fame and fortune of an NBA career earlier and earlier, when tennis has been witnessing this for decades, albeit on a much much smaller scale. That trend may be changing, however.

With the influx of foreign talent to the college scene comes increased competition for the top flights on the six-man rosters. That ratcheted-up competition undoubtedly makes the collegiate experience more valuable for players who aspire to the professional tours. Provided the American kids can make the team in the first place, of course. And therein lies the rub. At what point are we unwittingly enabling the National Collegiate Athletic Association to become the INTERnational Collegiate Athletic Association? Is the trickle-in effect overwhelming us? Or are we simply seeing the net result of a certain few programs who are perennially guilty of "abusing" a system that has few checks and balances?

I can clearly say that the practice has become widespread, and not limited to the Baylors and Pepperdines. In fact, I saw it happening at the small-college level as early as 1981, when I was competing for a Division I school made up entirely of American-born players. One of our local rivals, a national team-title contender in the NAIAs year after year, was made up entirely of foreign-born players, plus one or two token Americans who played "exhibition" matches outside the six flights that counted for team points. And a couple of local traditionally black colleges in the area (Raleigh-Durham-Greensboro, North Carolina) are also heavily weighted with foreign talent. In part, this is a natural consequence of programs that have successfully recruited one or two young foreign players from a particular region, greasing the skids for others from that country or training area to follow.

Personally, I believe my college tennis experience was enriched by the presence of foreign opponents. I thought so even then, when most of my teammates were mumbling under their breaths about how they had no chance against "the Swedish team." I had the good fortune to go toe-to-toe against Australian, Indian, South African, South American and Swedish players — players whom I'd never have had the chance to test my skills against were it not for the recruiting practices of a few coaches in the area and conference. Of course, this one player's positive take on the situation doesn't justify the practice, it merely serves to provide a different perspective.

When all the data is weighed in, I fall somewhere in the mushy gray middle. I firmly believe our young American-born players can benefit from exposure to the often older, tougher, hungrier foreign-born recruits, many of whom have grown up playing on red clay or grass courts. At the same time, I don't particularly like seeing these tour drop-outs taking up precious court time that rightfully belongs to a kid from College Park, Maryland, or Raleigh, North Carolina.

I hope the NCAA will approach this issue with some common sense, and allow for continued recruitment of foreign-born players with some deinitive limitations. For example, limit the number of foreign-born players on each roster to two, and the number with extensive "circuit" experience to one. Anyone who has achieved an ATP or WTA tour ranking above 600 should be barred from matriculating. So, every coach can be free to fill one-third of his six-man roster with two non-Americans, one of whom is a "ringer."

Let's allow the B. Beckers to play collegiate tennis in America, so long as none of their first names is Boris.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.