What is the players' share?

[PeteD]

Also it's too bad they only had top 100. There are 128 players, plus qualifiers = maybe 160 players travelling around the world, usually with at least one coach or team member, to the big tournies. Would be interesting to see how much they all get in prizes and appearance fees. Wouldn't surprise me if many names we know in the draws are running at a loss.

[citybert]

Let's face it, and it's sad but tennis is really a sport on the decline overall. Very Rarely does the best athlete in school play tennis, it's usually soccer or football or basketball. Not saying that the best athlete is the best tennis player but only an indication of the popularity. Walk into a foot locker in the 90s and they have a bunch of tennis sneakers, today, they don't carry any.

Coming from a tennis lover here.

[Tshooter]

Originally Posted by PeteD

Fascinating and helpful information! It is amazing what you can get online these days, and of course from knowledgeable people.
Question remains, though, are the players getting shafted?
Figures are murky. USTA reported in 2011 Total Revenue of $205M. I really doubt NTC revenue is in there -- why would they report it twice? NTC revenue should be added (as is prize money), giving revenues more like $230 milion, closer to what Wall St. Journal reported in their article. USTA financial statement for 2008-9 is online at:
http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/15/U...IGNED_COPY.pdf
It lists US Open alone as generating over $200 M. The same statement says USTA owns most of Cincinnatti and some of Indian Wells, which may also be separately reported. So without more information, I don't see that we have a fair idea of USTA revenues.
On the player payout side, USTA reports "event prize money/other." I would take the published prizes list, as the articles originally cited did ($7.5 M), rather than USTA's unclear "prizes/other" figure, which is (surprise!?) much higher.
Maybe I am favoring the players, as clear underdogs in any contest against the owners, but so far my best guess is, player take = about 5%, or even lower.

$205 M total revenue in 2011 ? What 205 M are you referring to ?

Yr 2010 Form 990 "total rev" = $205 but it includes non-USO revenue (most notably USTA membership fees). Which is why I went with 177.

2009 GAAP income statement shows $205 "US Open" revenue and "total op revenue" of $267 (includes non-USO revenue).

We're not the only ones struggling to nail down the precise number. Check the city of NY audit completed in 2005. The landlord (NYC) and the tenant (USTA) were about $20 M apart on the revenue number even after the first round of back and forths (though to be fair they were interested in the calculation of revenue as it was defined in their lease not for purposes of either a Form 990 or GAAP financial statements. So you might expect some differing opinions on what the lease intended to include.)

But we should at least be able to nail down the USTAs position on revenue. A reconciliation between the item "Program Service Revenue" on the Form 990 and the income statement item "US Open" would be helpful.

If you do add in the NTC number you get about $224 M for 2010.

The players take would be about 11%. So at least we should agree it is between 11% and 14%. And should be able to nail it down with a little more investigation.

Your post got a little garbled at the end, I think. You went from USO numbers to including another event (the O2 event) when you referred to
7.5 M prize money. Hence, your 5% is way off.

The $25 million prize money appears accurate. It's right from the Form 990. The USO daily draw sheets actually breaks it down in detail. The total at approx $25 million is actually under reported because it doesn't include the USO Series bonus payouts which typically get paid to some extent. For example, this year Djoker won the US Series and made it to the USO finals so he got extra cash. The rich get richer....

[PeteD]

I see your point on the 7.5 M. Interesting that NYC had a hard time determining USTA revenue -- Maybe Cincinnatti or IW money was an issue -- if you have a link for that handy, sounds interesting. Anyway what kind of lease involves off-site revenue? Sounds like the landlord from hell!

The tennis magazine article may have had info that they don't want to attribute, so for now I think estimates of 8%-11%-14% will have to do. But the fairness of that is only one issue. Like Federer has been saying, the distribution of prize money, and making it possible for new players, is a huge issue.

[Tshooter]

"Interesting that NYC had a hard time determining USTA revenue "

There is no evidence the City had a hard time. I was making light of the disagreement between the two parties on the revenue number as it is defined under the lease agreement. The lease is a tangent. But I don't mind talking about it. The lease plays an important part in the anals of NYC political history. It was used and abused for political purposes by ex-Mayor Giuliani.

-- Maybe Cincinnatti or IW money was an issue --

No, for reasons you won't find surprising. The lease involves use of a city park. Rent is based on revenue derived from activities at the tennis site located at the park.

" Anyway what kind of lease involves off-site revenue? "

It doesn't from what I can infer of its terms from the audit report but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "off-site revenue." For example, the City took the position that revenue included the sponsor money generated by a broadcast of matches to a screen set up at Rockefeller Center. Is that "off-site" revenue to you ? Incidentally, given the lease provisions each cited I thought the City had the (much) stronger position.

"The tennis magazine article may have had info that they don't want to attribute, so for now I think estimates of 8%-11%-14% will have to do."

Remember when you mixed in O2 prize money instead of USO ? You're mixing again. Let's set aside that her methodoloy is flawed. It might make sense to guestimate revenue if the numbers didn't have to be provided to the IRS and made available to the public and if GAAP financials were't out there. She is talking about singles prize money.

Our 11-14% range is based on total prize money , about $25 million prize money. If you look only at singles that number was about $19 M this year so let's call it $18 M since we're looking at either 2009 revenue (GAAP income statement) or 2010 revenue (USTA Form 990 w/o including NTC money) . That would be a range of depending on which revenue figure you use, $177 or $205, of 8.8%-10% (she may get 8.6% because she is using actual prize money not estimate of a prior year prize money like I did). So if you adjust total for singles, she is within the same range.

The reason for a discrepency on the two forms and the resulting range would come down to differences in the rules for preparing the two documents and/or my lack of knowledge as to why they did or didn't carve out ticket revenue from the USTA 990 and stick it in the NTC 990. So that's my project. Because we shouldn't have a range. Unlike the city and the USTA we aren't negotiating what a lease term means. We are just taking numbers off a financial statement.

"But the fairness of that is only one issue. Like Federer has been saying, the distribution of prize money, and making it possible for new players, is a huge issue."

Yes, I agree. But I stick with my previous comment, I think it's involved. But speaking of fairness how about the money paid (or not) to refs, linespeople and volunteers.

Here is your link to the audit report. Go crazy.

http://tinyurl.com/bwoz72f