US Open 2011 Events Prove Why Players' Union Is a Must

Yesterday's court-related US Open drama was the tip of the iceberg: There must be a players' union created to act as a checks-and-balances system that holds tournament organizers accountable for their scheduling decisions.

Wednesday saw Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray complain to tournament officials after disapproving of the damp conditions they were sent out to play in, while Andy Roddick voiced his concerns after experiencing a very bizarre court switch.

Roddick and his opponent, David Ferrer, were due to continue their fourth-round match at Louis Armstrong Stadium, but water was soon found to be seeping through a crack in the court.

After court staff attempted to clear the water, Roddick and Ferrer were quickly called back onto the court. After discovering that there was still water on the court, a furious Roddick led his opponent onto Court 13 to complete their match.

In addition to the problems on the courts, the US Open's scheduling procedures have also received criticism from players. Having three days for first-round matches is not ideal for players, while the rain has now caused those in the bottom half of the draw to be at a disadvantage.

Wouldn't it have made sense for Nadal, Murray and Roddick—who only completed their fourth-round matches yesterday—to catch up before Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic strolled through to the semifinals with an extra day of rest already under their belts?

At the moment, players do not really have the right to complain about such matters, but the recent events show that a players' union is sorely needed in order for tennis players to hold a more advantageous position in the future against tournament organizers.