An annual tradition at the tournament now known as the Tennis Masters Series of Indian Wells, just completed last weekend, is a wrap-up session for the media called "Breakfast with Charlie". There is only one "Charlie" during the Indian Wells tourney -- well, there are probably other Charlies but only one CHARLIE -- and this is Charlie Pasarell, the tournament organizer and driving force behind the event.

This year, there were some interesting exchanges between Pasarell and the media -- particularly the European reporters -- regarding some larger issues in tennis, notably the Davis Cup.

Tennis has become big business, and the tennis industry, especially in the USA, is as much about branding and merchandising as it is about the action on the court. Huge tented areas can be found, where various merchants hawk their wares and diverse culinary experiences are offered by restaurants, vying with the tennis matches for the spectators' attention. A major tournament is not just a one-week or two-week deal, it is a year-long labour of marketing and promotion culminating with an event seen on tel evision around the world.

By contrast, it seems that increasingly the Davis Cup final is a minor league event. Once it was a happening that interested tennis fans around the world. But now the Davis Cup final now draws limited interest in nations not competing for the coveted trophy.

Charlie Pasarell is part of a USTA committee preparing a proposal to improve what they see as flaws in the Davis Cup. The USTA feels that the Davis Cup is ill, and that the "extravaganza approach" to tennis marketing is the cure. They think it shameful that the organization of what should be a great event such as the Davis Cup final is left in the hands of the national tennis federations, who are often ignorant of what it takes to put on a successful tennis event.

The proposal that Pasarell and company would like to promote is to make the Davis Cup final a four-team, round robin event lasting two weeks. It would take place in the home country of the defending champion, and involve three other teams emerging from a "challenge round" taking place over the course of the year.

The final would be organized not by the national tennis federation of the host country, but by professional sports marketers who understand what putting on a big tennis show is all about, and the planning and promotion of the event would be a year-long activity, much as is the case now for a major pro tournament.

Some European reporters, as one might expect, reacted negatively to this solution. Their point of view is that there is nothing wrong with the present format. It is not a money-loser, they claimed: Davis Cup in its current format generates substantial revenue for the national federations and the International Tennis Federation (ITF). And Davis Cup also generates intense fan and media interest in the participating countries. In other words, why such a radical, all-encompassing solution for what is esse ntially an American problem?

Pasarell had these responses. On the money question: "If you want to talk money, take whatever revenue is generated by the present format, and I guarantee our idea would generate five times that." On the question of it being an American problem: "If it's America's problem, it's everybody's problem."

Once I would have scorned the idea advanced by Pasarell as an unnecessary innovation dreamt up mainly to please the United States. But I have now come to see that the Davis Cup final does need a boost and is out of step with the times, and I now think a format such as the one Pasarell outlined at Indian Wells would be a splendid idea. Granted, a match between, let's say, France and Sweden played in Australia might not draw many fans. But then again, if the event is promoted properly, it might. Let's g ive it a try!