ATP Chairman: Players Inside Top 500 Should Not Be Able to Earn Living

[Bartelby]

Tennis, like a lot of sports, is simply wallpaper for television so physical people at events is becoming less important.

It is remarkable however that the Slams do get the people in whereas the ATP is struggling.

The ATP is however like a circus: it travels around to create local interest at different times of the year.

It works well enough that way.

And articulating the Challengers better into the Pro Tour is an excellent idea.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

This has nothing to do with money. Nobody ever solved anything by saying, well we don't have the money, so f# it. The world we live in was built by people who had a vision and went for it, despite incredible adversity, they took their hands and made the thing work. For this CEO to stand up and say he has no vision to improve anything is messed up and he should not be anywhere near tennis.

Ridiculous. First, it has a lot to do with money. You can't give out more money than you have. Tennis simply does not have the income to give the Top 500 players 200k a year(if expenses are 160-165k as has been mentioned, then this would be bare minimum for them to make a decent living). That's 100m a year. Total prize money from all ATP + Challenger events in 2014? About 140-150m. This would lead to a situation where the top players who bring in the crowds make very little more than a bottom-rung pro. That's just not tenable, and would be worse for the sport than the current situation. And even if so, what about the futures players? Why do Challenger players have a 'right to a living', but not the futures ones? The bottom line is they have to make do with what they have. I'd like to see more of the money shifted 'down' the rankings but there's a limit to how far you can usefully do this before destroying the earning power of the top players who bring in the fans.

Furthermore, he did not say anything like what you claim. The article lists changes being contemplated to the Challenger circuit. There's a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on here divorced from logic.

 

[TimothyO]

Ridiculous. First, it has a lot to do with money. You can't give out more money than you have. Tennis simply does not have the income to give the Top 500 players 200k a year(if expenses are 160-165k as has been mentioned, then this would be bare minimum for them to make a decent living). That's 100m a year. Total prize money from all ATP + Challenger events in 2014? About 140-150m. This would lead to a situation where the top players who bring in the crowds make very little more than a bottom-rung pro. That's just not tenable, and would be worse for the sport than the current situation. And even if so, what about the futures players? Why do Challenger players have a 'right to a living', but not the futures ones? The bottom line is they have to make do with what they have. I'd like to see more of the money shifted 'down' the rankings but there's a limit to how far you can usefully do this before destroying the earning power of the top players who bring in the fans.

Furthermore, he did not say anything like what you claim. The article lists changes being contemplated to the Challenger circuit. There's a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on here divorced from logic.

Wrong.

According to one study by the consulting firm AT Kearny tennis events generate about $1.6 Billion+ in ad revenue, ticket sales, etc. Again, these are revenues related directly to the tickets and ad sales for tennis tournaments.

You could take 0.5% of that revenue and cover the costs of the top 500 players for one year. That's right: one half of one percent of tennis event revenues would allow the industry to pay each player $165,000. Even at that point they're still only covering their costs and NOT buying a house, paying rent, feeding their kids. They're just paying for travel, hotels, meals, etc. It could even be done like a reimbursable stipend instead of a salary.

But the tennis event and league organizers don't want to do that because they make less money then. This is why Federer led a revolt a few years ago seeking a greater share of ad and ticket revenue for players.

The money is there. It's just that guys like Kermode feel entitled to $2-3 million per year while having the guys who actually do the work should earn nothing. It's a medieval attitude that has infected tennis for decades.

Remember, the clubs of England resisted the inclusion of professional tennis majors in the majors because they thought tourneys sbould be the exclusive domain of wealthy club members. That wall was technically broken down but they made sure that the economics kept it up for all practical purposes.

 

[tennisaddict]

Wrong.

According to one study by the consulting firm AT Kearny tennis events generate about $1.6 Billion+ in ad revenue, ticket sales, etc. Again, these are revenues related directly to the tickets and ad sales for tennis tournaments.

You could take 0.5% of that revenue and cover the costs of the top 500 players for one year. That's right: one half of one percent of tennis event revenues would allow the industry to pay each player $165,000. Even at that point they're still only covering their costs and NOT buying a house, paying rent, feeding their kids. They're just paying for travel, hotels, meals, etc. It could even be done like a reimbursable stipend instead of a salary.

But the tennis event and league organizers don't want to do that because they make less money then. This is why Federer led a revolt a few years ago seeking a greater share of ad and ticket revenue for players.

The money is there. It's just that guys like Kermode feel entitled to $2-3 million per year while having the guys who actually do the work should earn nothing. It's a medieval attitude that has infected tennis for decades.

Remember, the clubs of England resisted the inclusion of professional tennis majors in the majors because they thought tourneys sbould be the exclusive domain of wealthy club members. That wall was technically broken down but they made sure that the economics kept it up for all practical purposes.

If the organizers are making profit like you suggest, then why have certain big tournaments in cities like San Jose, Los Angeles going kaput ? Tournaments like Atlanta, Houston barely survive and Washington lost its sponsor.

Blame it on USA tennis interest ?

 

[Bartelby]

America is not the world.

 

[Russeljones]

Wrong.

According to one study by the consulting firm AT Kearny tennis events generate about $1.6 Billion+ in ad revenue, ticket sales, etc. Again, these are revenues related directly to the tickets and ad sales for tennis tournaments.

You could take 0.5% of that revenue and cover the costs of the top 500 players for one year. That's right: one half of one percent of tennis event revenues would allow the industry to pay each player $165,000. Even at that point they're still only covering their costs and NOT buying a house, paying rent, feeding their kids. They're just paying for travel, hotels, meals, etc. It could even be done like a reimbursable stipend instead of a salary.

But the tennis event and league organizers don't want to do that because they make less money then. This is why Federer led a revolt a few years ago seeking a greater share of ad and ticket revenue for players.

The money is there. It's just that guys like Kermode feel entitled to $2-3 million per year while having the guys who actually do the work should earn nothing. It's a medieval attitude that has infected tennis for decades.

Remember, the clubs of England resisted the inclusion of professional tennis majors in the majors because they thought tourneys sbould be the exclusive domain of wealthy club members. That wall was technically broken down but they made sure that the economics kept it up for all practical purposes.

The costs are $ 140,000 and greater only for the top 100.

 

[TimothyO]

The costs are $ 140,000 and greater only for the top 100.

I've been told by people on the tour $165K per year.

Your comment about that being limited to those in the top 100 raises another issue related to money.

Many in the sport feel that because resources are concentrated at the top lower ranked players face even bigger hurdles breaking into the upper ranks. This is especially true in light of the punishing schedule they face. The players with more resources have access to the support staff needed to stay healthy and fit on the tour. Those with fewer resources face greater challenges when it comes to injuries, fitness, etc.

All of which means tennis is less competitive and less interesting than it could be.

Also, I made a mistake in the tennis sports event marketing revenue stream. In 2009 its estimated value was $2.7 Billion, not $1.6 Billion.

So tennis could invest a tiny fraction of a percent in making sure its top 500 players, male and female, could at least start from a break even position and maybe even pay them a little. They're the ones generating this cash since, in their absence, the business simply wouldn't exist.

But then guys like Patrick McEnroe and Kermode might only make $1 million per year and we couldn't have that, could we?

 

[Russeljones]

I've been told by people on the tour $165K per year.

Your comment about that being limited to those in the top 100 raises another issue related to money.

Many in the sport feel that because resources are concentrated at the top lower ranked players face even bigger hurdles breaking into the upper ranks. This is especially true in light of the punishing schedule they face. The players with more resources have access to the support staff needed to stay healthy and fit on the tour. Those with fewer resources face greater challenges when it comes to injuries, fitness, etc.

All of which means tennis is less competitive and less interesting than it could be.

Also, I made a mistake in the tennis sports event marketing revenue stream. In 2009 its estimated value was $2.7 Billion, not $1.6 Billion.

So tennis could invest a tiny fraction of a percent in making sure its top 500 players, male and female, could at least start from a break even position and maybe even pay them a little. They're the ones generating this cash since, in their absence, the business simply wouldn't exist.

But then guys like Patrick McEnroe and Kermode might only make $1 million per year and we couldn't have that, could we?

Maybe my amount is dated, it was mentioned on the USTA site a while back. I mention the top 100 because around 100th you are at or above break even, usually.

 

[TimothyO]

If the organizers are making profit like you suggest, then why have certain big tournaments in cities like San Jose, Los Angeles going kaput ? Tournaments like Atlanta, Houston barely survive and Washington lost its sponsor.

Blame it on USA tennis interest ?

I live in Atlanta and have attended events here. If you're running a business and your product isn't selling at price X you need to reduce the price and/or change your cost structure.

The prices for main-draw events are insane as evidenced by the often empty seats. They continue to charge premium prices despite the empty stands. Maybe the sport would become more popular if it were more affordable to watch live?

Besides, even NFL teams fail to fill stadiums and still make money on ad revenue. In 2009 tennis events generated $2.7 Billion in ad and ticket revenue. To your point, maybe tennis needs to be smarter about how it runs the business. Currently it seems set on self-destructive behavior.

 

[TimothyO]

Maybe my amount is dated, it was mentioned on the USTA site a while back. I mention the top 100 because around 100th you are at or above break even, usually.

Yes, that's what I've heard too, maybe shaded a bit towards top 75.

And that's after many years playing at a huge loss that needs to be sustained by family, benefactors, etc.

Imagine how much better tennis could be if the tennis royalty (e.g. Patrick McEnroe) stopped acting like parasites on those who actually do the work (i.e. those in the top 500 toiling away week after week).

If those in the top 500 could actually earn a living maybe we'd attract better athletes. At this point we clearly don't have the best athletes in the sport.

My younger son is a natural athlete and, even without extensive tennis training, has an excellent record playing for his school and club teams. One day he asked about the requirements for making tennis a profession. I explained to him the numbers and odds and he quickly figured out what a foolish bet it would be.

Even tennis Spartans who start playing at age 6 and spend their year going from tournament to tournament instead of going to school full time will probably NEVER earn a living on the tour. Up through age 30 they'll need to be supported by the charity of family, friends, and benefactors.

There's something wrong with a business when its top workers can spend 24+ years of their lives and 10+ years of their professional lives preparing for and contributing to the business and they still can feed themselves.

 

[Russeljones]

Yes, that's what I've heard too, maybe shaded a bit towards top 75.

And that's after many years playing at a huge loss that needs to be sustained by family, benefactors, etc.

Imagine how much better tennis could be if the tennis royalty (e.g. Patrick McEnroe) stopped acting like parasites on those who actually do the work (i.e. those in the top 500 toiling away week after week).

If those in the top 500 could actually earn a living maybe we'd attract better athletes. At this point we clearly don't have the best athletes in the sport.

My younger son is a natural athlete and, even without extensive tennis training, has an excellent record playing for his school and club teams. One day he asked about the requirements for making tennis a profession. I explained to him the numbers and odds and he quickly figured out what a foolish bet it would be.

Even tennis Spartans who start playing at age 6 and spend their year going from tournament to tournament instead of going to school full time will probably NEVER earn a living on the tour. Up through age 30 they'll need to be supported by the charity of family, friends, and benefactors.

There's something wrong with a business when its top workers can spend 24+ years of their lives and 10+ years of their professional lives preparing for and contributing to the business and they still can feed themselves.

I agree, it's a huge bet for most families. Especially when they know so few make it to the promised land.

 

[sureshs]

Make all Challengers mixed-gender and mandate skimpy dresses

 

[okdude1992]

I think the ATP and ITF just need to work together and find a way to make the distribution of prize money FAR less top heavy for the good of the sport. The vast majority of guys who are making the semis (probably quarters too) or better at Masters 1000 tournaments and slams are making millions from endorsements. I don't think the top guys are as concerned about tournament prize money as they are about ranking points and adding to their resumes so it should be easy to trickle more money down if everyone is on the same page and the whole thing is properly managed.

If they could find 5 mil spread across all the slams and m1000 events, that could, potentially, be another 50k per guy from 101-200 for the year. Judging by the payouts, I think each slam could easily take 750k out of the total given to the final 8... that would leave about 2 mil for the collective m1000's to contribute which isn't terribly unreasonable, in my opinion.

Of course... this will likely NEVER happen because of all the red tape and the fact that everyone's interests aren't aligned toward the common goal of drastically expanding the number men's professional tennis players who can earn a decent living.

Wrong.

According to one study by the consulting firm AT Kearny tennis events generate about $1.6 Billion+ in ad revenue, ticket sales, etc. Again, these are revenues related directly to the tickets and ad sales for tennis tournaments.

You could take 0.5% of that revenue and cover the costs of the top 500 players for one year. That's right: one half of one percent of tennis event revenues would allow the industry to pay each player $165,000. Even at that point they're still only covering their costs and NOT buying a house, paying rent, feeding their kids. They're just paying for travel, hotels, meals, etc. It could even be done like a reimbursable stipend instead of a salary.

But the tennis event and league organizers don't want to do that because they make less money then. This is why Federer led a revolt a few years ago seeking a greater share of ad and ticket revenue for players.

The money is there. It's just that guys like Kermode feel entitled to $2-3 million per year while having the guys who actually do the work should earn nothing. It's a medieval attitude that has infected tennis for decades.

Remember, the clubs of England resisted the inclusion of professional tennis majors in the majors because they thought tourneys sbould be the exclusive domain of wealthy club members. That wall was technically broken down but they made sure that the economics kept it up for all practical purposes.

Nice to see that at least a few people know what is going on. The bottom line is that the governing bodies, tournaments etc get way too big of a cut. Slams have recently offered a bigger percentage to the players, which is good, but it's not enough.

Lets take the USO for example: http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/22/te...nnisbiz08-biz-sports-cz_ph_0822economics.html
this article is a bit dated, but it says that about 10% of revenue goes to prize money. I'd like to see the current figures, but the players should get at least 20-30% right?
The article also claims that the USO generates 85% of the USTA revenue for the year! What entitles them to that money? It's not like they are even putting it to good use and furthering US tennis either! PMac with a 3 mil salary as head of a nonprofit? In the words of his brother, you cannot be serious!

edit: to the posters who mentioned American team sports having more money...
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485
so NBA players get 49-50% of revenue, and NFL players get 48%!! no wonder the minimum salaries are around $500,000

 

[tennisaddict]

Can ITF take over ATP in the interest of the sport ?

 

[Bryan Swartz]

That's an excellent point about the revenue compared to prize money. Does anybody have any solid info or links about profit though? Events like the USO and Wimbledon bring a lot in no question, and I'm sure far more than they cost, but in order to really judge what money is there the number we need is profit not total revenue as operating costs are very considerable for a tournament as well.

 

[reaper]

I don't think the top 500 should be making a decent living. You need 128 for a slam, maybe another 64 for a decent qualifying tournament. They could maybe have a second tier circuit for another 64 19-23 year olds to keep them financially viable to progress to the main circuit. If you're 25 years old and ranked 300 in the world, usually it's time to get a job, as a tennis coach if that interests you. The circuit doesn't need that player.

 

[pame]

I don't think the top 500 should be making a decent living. You need 128 for a slam, maybe another 64 for a decent qualifying tournament. They could maybe have a second tier circuit for another 64 19-23 year olds to keep them financially viable to progress to the main circuit. If you're 25 years old and ranked 300 in the world, usually it's time to get a job, as a tennis coach if that interests you. The circuit doesn't need that player.

Maybe the circuit doesn't need you as a fan either. Just sayin'

 

[reaper]

There's nothing personal in this. Having me as a fan doesn't come at a net cost to the tour. Having guys down to a ranking of 500 paid professional salaries does, because guys ranked that low don't generate revenue. Nor do they feed into the higher ranking tournaments other than when they're young guys on the rise.

 

[easywin]

I feel like tennis would benefit from a stronger league system in countries.

I've been to some first league matches in Germany and there are like 20 people watching - which might be because you could also watch the French Open on TV with bigger names and while sitting on a comfy couch at the same time.
Why would you want to go and drive a few kilometres to see some dude who is good but no Federer while Federer is playing too ?

Throughout the year, you can see top players nearly every day.
I am quite sure that the only way for a sport to become really really big is to involve people that don't even play it or don't build there lives around the sport themselves. The sport doing that the best is football, at least in europe.
How nerdy, fat, unathletic, stupid, intelligent,whatever someone might look like (or actually is) - there is quite a high chance they watch football on saturday/sunday and the people of the level of interest that we have in tennis even visit local clubs and look at those teams even if they are playing 6/7th division. Because they want to see more of the sport.

Of course the gap in skill between A top20 player and a player ranked 2000 is too big to create an exciting match but people also look at FC Bayern vs Paderborn where the difference is just as great. Additionally, lower ranked people (way outside 1000) won't ever be able to challenge the top guys without money.

The whole point is that a national league system with additional tournaments where the best guys clash would provide more attention towards lower ranked players and spread the money. There would be less clashes of the great players but people could identify with clubs of their hometown (or close to it).

I don't suggest that system because tennis will not be able to coexist besides the other major sports that broadcast weekends only (or mostly) but the system we have right now will never ever make tennis a viable sport to earn money if you are ranked outside 500. I'd like tennis to extend the coverage on Davis Cup. Just look at the atmosphere in those matches and compare them to a Grandslam quarterfinal. You have to grab the average fan by the pride of his own hometown/nation - thats why teamsports are more successful, they are at least just as much about the sport as about the atmosphere and the fans being a part of it while tennis fans mostly shut up and the obligatory clap between points.

Well the post didn't turn out how I wanted it to but now that I wrote it, I might as well post it

 

[West Coast Ace]

I'm on the minority side and more or less agree with Kermode. For those of you saying it's a sport, that's not really true. It's a form of entertainment (it competes with both other sports and movies, shows, amusement parks, etc) that happens to have an athletic component. The bottom line: the top guys are the attraction - without them there is no pro tour. We hardcore fans (at least me) who would pay to watch Youzhny and Golubev trade 1HBH's at the practice courts are the exception and there are not enough of us to finance the tour.

The top 16 could quit and start their own traveling tour and bag all the money. The tour would die quickly. Like it or not, the big names are the show (which should worry the ATP given the ages of the Big 4).

Having said all of that and now being pretty well of but wasn't when I was a kid, it is worrisome that tennis requires a lot of money. While there have been exceptions to the rule, Tennis is still considered an elitist, rich person's sport.

 

[wangs78]

I'm on the minority side and more or less agree with Kermode. For those of you saying it's a sport, that's not really true. It's a form of entertainment (it competes with both other sports and movies, shows, amusement parks, etc) that happens to have an athletic component. The bottom line: the top guys are the attraction - without them there is no pro tour. We hardcore fans (at least me) who would pay to watch Youzhny and Golubev trade 1HBH's at the practice courts are the exception and there are not enough of us to finance the tour.



The top 16 could quit and start their own traveling tour and bag all the money. The tour would die quickly. Like it or not, the big names are the show (which should worry the ATP given the ages of the Big 4).



Having said all of that and now being pretty well of but wasn't when I was a kid, it is worrisome that tennis requires a lot of money. While there have been exceptions to the rule, Tennis is still considered an elitist, rich person's sport.

Totally agree. While in spirit it would be nice if the top 500 can make a living on the tour it's just not practical. Even at the Slams only the top 128 or so are admitted into the draw and who really watches first, 2nd and 3rd round matches??? The reality is that only the top 20 or so garner profit making audiences and a its really only the top 10 that get the big audiences. Whoever thinks that no. 500 should be able to make a comfortable living is ignoring the economics of the sport.

 

[okdude1992]

Totally agree. While in spirit it would be nice if the top 500 can make a living on the tour it's just not practical. Even at the Slams only the top 128 or so are admitted into the draw and who really watches first, 2nd and 3rd round matches??? The reality is that only the top 20 or so garner profit making audiences and a its really only the top 10 that get the big audiences. Whoever thinks that no. 500 should be able to make a comfortable living is ignoring the economics of the sport.

Actually I've attended the USO and Indian Wells, and pretty big crowds show up even in the first few days. I think you underestimate the appeal of a slam tournament. Even people who don't know tennis go. If the distribution of money was more fair (at slams and otherwise), I'm sure everyone in the main draw could make a bit more, and the tour could subsidize challengers so that they offer more money as well, and become a sort of farm system for the ATP. I'm not saying the players from 200-500 should be making much, because its true that the big names bring in the money. But they should at least be able to survive and keep playing. That will add competition to the game in the long run.

 

[okdude1992]

That's an excellent point about the revenue compared to prize money. Does anybody have any solid info or links about profit though? Events like the USO and Wimbledon bring a lot in no question, and I'm sure far more than they cost, but in order to really judge what money is there the number we need is profit not total revenue as operating costs are very considerable for a tournament as well.

I can't imagine the operating costs being substantial enough to justify such a huge discrepancy in how much of the revenue the players get. Almost all sports I could find the numbers for, the players get a nearly 50-50 split, while apparently in tennis its more like 90-10 or 80-20 for the organizers

 

[mmk]

.

Amazing thread, so much assumptions I can only summarize that you want to disagree with whatever he says and blame him for everything wrong in the world. He says he wants to increase money to help players cover their costs which is a lot better than what players have to scrap by on these days.

Comparing tennis to other sports, especially more popular or popular American team sports is ridiculous, for one they're teams not individuals. Let's put it this way; the 500th best whatever in whatever sports league/association doesn't make a living. We don't even have that many countries in the world and there are national sports teams that are amateurs who make no money. That's not even mentioning boxing, you don't even want to know about the pay there for the lower ranked if this upsets you, you'll have to be a bit better than 500th (more like 50th) to make any money there.

There are 32 teams in the NFL, each with a roster size of 53 players, meaning 1696 players. NFL minimum is $420,000/year. And NFL players don't pay for their own travel, coaches, physical therapists, trainers, etc. So the 500th best player in the NFL does make a living.

I'm not arguing that the 500th best tennis player should make a living playing tennis, because tennis just isn't popular enough. I've watched ATP and WTA (not challenger) finals that were nowhere near full capacity, and the earlier rounds are near empty.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Actually I've attended the USO and Indian Wells, and pretty big crowds show up even in the first few days. I think you underestimate the appeal of a slam tournament. Even people who don't know tennis go. If the distribution of money was more fair (at slams and otherwise), I'm sure everyone in the main draw could make a bit more, and the tour could subsidize challengers so that they offer more money as well, and become a sort of farm system for the ATP. I'm not saying the players from 200-500 should be making much, because its true that the big names bring in the money. But they should at least be able to survive and keep playing. That will add competition to the game in the long run.

Good post. But...

How long should the tour have to divert funds to let guys toil in the Challengers (or getting bounced out R1/2 in the main draw)? Can they tell a guy 'sorry, time to go be a club pro' if by, let's say 26, he hasn't gained a footing on tour?

Whenever you try to 'manage' things, instead of just letting them work themselves out, you run into problems. Does every player need a full time coach, physio, etc? Once you start basically giving them money, it's a slippery slope.

Sports, especially non-team sports, are cruel. It's the ultimate Meritocracy. I think some on these boards think the top guys get there because of resources when in fact it's just because they can take their game from the practice courts to the stadium. I just got back from Shanghai; early in the week Fed practiced with Golubev. I challenge anyone to pick the icon vs the journeyman based on their hitting alone.

 

[Romismak]

I get his point, 500 was just some number he said, but let´s say 600th guy or 400th guy ends up playing challengers for years, because he can earn money there and be profitable - covering cost + buying stuff like car, presents and so on, so his point was guys should try to get better and go from challengers UP to World tour, but problem is those guys without money if not talented enough have no money for coach or better equpiment, physio and so on so they are somehow limited in UPside potential

All you guys saying about how much NFL or NBA players earn are comparing apples with oranges here

NFL-NBA are rich leagues based on different system, US leagues are full of money, but with tennis tournaments there is totally different system, you have tournaments, trying to get sponsors, crowds - ticket revenue, sell TV rights and so on, than they can from this money offer prize money to players + apperance fees and cover costs - energy, empleyes and so on, it´s totally different system. comparing to US leagues with franchises and so on

For example i give you info from Slovak football league - guys can´t earn decent money either - we can compare this to guys outside top 100 playing challengers, why comparing to world richest leagues - like NA big leagues or EUR top football leagues.

How can guy earn money from playing future for example, when those futures, have no TV money, no ticket money - futures are mostly for free and have just 1 sponsor - regional sponsor, so how you can earn money playing futures or smaller challengers, when those tournaments are running in loss, just because some regional authority pay for that event, but tournament itself is generationg losses.

I still think guys outside of top 200 for example can earn money by playing smart and scheduling right - leagues in Europe like German tennis leagues and be economical, i mean guy who is playing challengers can´t expect to buy 100thousand EUR car from playing challengers, i mean can you imagine mugs being 350th in the world having half millions USD per year ? who would pay them? tennis is individual sport with different system to rich leagues

BTW you have even idea how ,,much,, money earn top athletes in athletics? all kidns of athletics - i know Usain Bolt himself in his best season had like half million from prize money, all his millions are from endorsments, so let´ say 10th best guy from athletics makes in prize money maybe less than 100th guy in tennis, so tennis is still doing good for individual sports, probably 2nd richest after golf from individiual sports

 

[World Beater]

I'm on the minority side and more or less agree with Kermode. For those of you saying it's a sport, that's not really true. It's a form of entertainment (it competes with both other sports and movies, shows, amusement parks, etc) that happens to have an athletic component. The bottom line: the top guys are the attraction - without them there is no pro tour. We hardcore fans (at least me) who would pay to watch Youzhny and Golubev trade 1HBH's at the practice courts are the exception and there are not enough of us to finance the tour.

The top 16 could quit and start their own traveling tour and bag all the money. The tour would die quickly. Like it or not, the big names are the show (which should worry the ATP given the ages of the Big 4).

Having said all of that and now being pretty well of but wasn't when I was a kid, it is worrisome that tennis requires a lot of money. While there have been exceptions to the rule, Tennis is still considered an elitist, rich person's sport.

not sure i agree.

the split of pay is largely quite arbitrary. prize money is set by the grand slams. There isn't any real competion for the ITF. Its not like wimbledon has to compete with other tournaments at the same time. There are no competing slams.

also, if the top 16 did magically disappear - tennis would still be fine.

The next top 16 would be get all the prize money and endorsements, unless the original top 16 somehow setup their own competing tour that sucks all the fan interest.

Now that would be interesting...

Its quite clear the governing bodies keep much more of % profit as compared to other sports, which leaves much less to the players.

The future of the sport is at stake and if the ITF remains too greedy, tennis will not attract the best athletes globally and the level of competition will not be high compared to other sports.

 

[Bartelby]

This Chairman is definitely a tournament directors' friend and an enemy of the players.

The ATP regrets again the premature loss of its one good choice for Chairman.

 

[TimothyO]

Totally agree. While in spirit it would be nice if the top 500 can make a living on the tour it's just not practical. Even at the Slams only the top 128 or so are admitted into the draw and who really watches first, 2nd and 3rd round matches??? The reality is that only the top 20 or so garner profit making audiences and a its really only the top 10 that get the big audiences. Whoever thinks that no. 500 should be able to make a comfortable living is ignoring the economics of the sport.

The 128 who make it into a slam are numbers 1-128 because they beat a few hundred other tennis players. Without players 129-256 or even 257-512 the top ranks are literally meaningless.

Comparing tennis to something like the NFL, yes, top tennis players are the big draw. But they're the top because hundreds ofother players have invested their lives since children to serve as foils to their talent. And in footbal, teams can be draws but most fans can only name the top QBs. Just like few tennis fans can name players outside the top 10 or so few NFL fans can name run of the mill linemen.

You can't have Sunday night football without bench-warming lineman. They're part of the system.

And you can't have the tennis Majors without hundreds of people competing for the opportunity to play a major. That is why they're important.

Maybe the Big Four have been so dominate for so long that even TT members have forgotten that all were once relegated to the top few hundred...And that the next top players 5-10 years from now are lurking among the top juniors and young Challenger-level players. But since those professionals can't earn a living working their full time jobs we are NOT seeing the best and brightest arhletes in tennis. We're only seeing a tiny cross section wealthy enough to be able to PAY to play the sport.

The wealthy clubs of England which resented allowing working stiffs into the Majors ultimateLy had their way. In most ways there are NO professional tennis players because professionals, by definition, are fairly compensated for their work. Tennis is composed of dedicated amateurs who can financially afford to make their hobby a full time endeavour...

 

[ollinger]

That one can't make a living as a tour pro does not mean one can't make a living at tennis. I'm less apt to think of the guys ranked, say 300-500, as potential tour pros than as potential teaching pros or college coaches. Guys who are NEVER seen on TV are simply not commercially viable as tournament pros. They ultimately seem to accept this as well and find their way into teaching positions.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

WHICH EXPLAINS WHY EUROPEANS DOMINATE THE TOUR RIGHT NOW; KINDA...

YES amerika is land for the rich, people who fare middleground in the socioeconomic scale have no chance to run risks trying to follow challenging careers which dont translate automatically into money, and that includes becoming a tennis player.

 

[coolboarder]

Here is a way to help the guys to qualify for main ATP events a lot faster is to change the tournament format in the Challengers and Futures to save their expenses from the travels. A lower ranked might get a bad draw by drawing a seeded players in a tournament and lose their first round match and has to wait a week for his next opportunity to gain ATP points and hope for a better draw to give him an opportunity to get more money and points. That is not developing a young player effectively that way. You need to give young player some match experience against the pros. The more talented young guys gain the experience, the more they gain higher chance to win against the lesser talented veterans. This way, you will be able to weed out the lesser talented players faster. Here is what I am thinking of how it may work.

Now, almost all challengers are 32 draw so it is possible to change the format to a two-part stages, a group stage and a knockout stage rather than a single elimination format. This will give a player a chance to overcome their bad day to a victory and gaining points in the process. This will save the expenses from leaving the town early. You will need to give guys an incentive to earn prize money for each match win with a minimum prize money if a guy loses all 3 matches. The top two players from each group advances to round of 16 and go from there. The points should be more weighted in the knockout phrase than is in the group stage but enough points for eliminated player if they defeated a player in the group play that has already advanced to the knockout stage as a reward.

The group play could play three matches in one day, with a 3rd set super tie-breaker in the group play only while the knockout stages playing in the normal 3rd set scoring system. The first two days will be a group play from Monday and Tuesday and a knockout stages on Wednesday to Sunday. Or just have the group play with a top player in each group qualify for quarterfinals rather than a round of 16 for top two in each group.

Three matches in one day could help the guys to develop their stamina for the Grand Slam and lesser chance of being a fodder in a GS play if they qualify for the main draw.

This is what I think it would help to give a young guys a chance to to redeem their bad match-up and an opportunity to get out of this brutal format. This could apply for Futures and Challengers only. This will make the challengers players uncomfortable to play week in and week out and will do anything to stay in the main ATP event than go back to challengers and be content to play in the challengers because of 3 matches in one day format and will play harder in the GS against the top seeds avoiding going back to Challengers.

 

[TimothyO]

That one can't make a living as a tour pro does not mean one can't make a living at tennis. I'm less apt to think of the guys ranked, say 300-500, as potential tour pros than as potential teaching pros or college coaches. Guys who are NEVER seen on TV are simply not commercially viable as tournament pros. They ultimately seem to accept this as well and find their way into teaching positions.

In 1997-1998 Federer made it to 301 in the world.

By your logic he should be teaching school kids in Europe how to hit forehands.

Remember, even players like Federer didn't start their careers ranked 1 in the world.

And if low ranked players could actually earn a living in tennis like they do in the NFL it would attract better athletes and we probably would have never heard of Roger Federer...

 

[ollinger]

O Timothy!!
In 1997 Federer was 16 years old. If you think I was suggesting that children who can't make a living at tennis should become teachers, you are an odd fellow indeed. No, I was talking about adults, let us say in their early to mid twenties.

 

[reaper]

To my mind the tour needs to support about 250 players. The ATP should consider giving a cash payment of (say) $20 000 USD to players ranked in the top 200 at the end of each season who didn't qualify for a slam. That would assist their economic viability. Another group of about 64 players aged 19-22 ranked outside the top 200 should be given similar income support (or a separate tour) to assist them in making the transition from juniors to the main tour. That would prevent potential ATP tour level players being lost to the sport through poverty. Once players get to around 23 years of age, and they're not good enough to make the top 200, it's up to them to make their own situation work. If they haven't made it to the top 200 by that age, they're unlikely to make successful tour level players.

 

[Geoff]

This is the current top 200 in prize money earnings.

http://www.tennis.com/earnings/ATP/

You will see that it includes combined singles and doubles earnings. Note where the Bryan brothers are on the list. When comparing the earning potential in professional tennis to the major American team sports, tennis players do make less. Good points have been made in this thread about the interest being in top players. True that people go to see their favorite players in American team sports but it can be argued that the majority go to support their team. Maybe a more fair comparison would be to other individual sports such as golf and racing

The 2014 PGA prize money list

http://espn.go.com/golf/moneylist/_/year/2014

The earning potential of any professional athlete have many variables that are directly related to the revenue earnings of that sport. In my opinion for ATP tour players to make more prize money the sport would need to grow in popularity as a spectator sport. Tennis does not have the same size TV contracts as other sports or the licensing potential of some of the other high revenue sports.

Maybe a commissioner of tennis could help to grow the sport. Thanks to Tennis Channel and ATP Livestream we have the ability to watch a great deal of live tennis year round.

It is definitely an interesting discussion with a lot of really good points made by all in this thread.

 

[Bartelby]

Based on the above list only the top one hundred are making a good wage, and the top two hundred are playing to cover expenses.

That's what's wrong with the Chairman's sermon: he needs to state that the top 200 should at least earn XXX from the tour on average.

 

[Indio]

#200 on the year-to-date earnings list is Robbie Ginepri. So far this year, he's won $108,967 at singles and $2,730 at doubles. He's ranked #219, with a singles record of 3-8 (5-5 at Challenger events, with a title at Tallahassee). In doubles, his record is 1-0 (and 0-1 at a Challenger).
He has played in or failed to qualify for 11 main tour events and nine Challenger events. 16 of these were in the US, one in Canada and three in Europe (only one flight to Europe was needed, as the three events were consecutively played).
In his Challenger win at Tallahassee, he won $7,200. For losing in the 1st round at Indian Wells, he was paid $11,000. For reaching the 2nd round at Cincinnati, he received $21,945. For a 1st round thrashing at the hands of Nadal, at the French, he received 24,000 Euros. For some reason, he didn't have to qualify for the French despite being #279 at the time.
Over $100,000 for winning eight singles matches?

 

[Algo]

Over $100,000 for winning eight singles matches?

What are his expenses? may sound like a lot, but I'd bet he's still in red numbers.

 

[reaper]

The breakdown of Ginepri's numbers show he's unrepresentative of players at that level. Most don't get gifted the $24K Euros from a wild card into the French and need to win more than 8 matches. Having played 20 tournaments he's got plenty of accomodation and travel costs to cover, even if only 1 return flight to Europe.

 

[vernonbc]

What are his expenses? may sound like a lot, but I'd bet he's still in red numbers.

Not unless he's got a full time coach and physio with him on the tour. And if he has a full time coach, that coach is not earning his salary if Ginepri's only won eight matches and is ranked #219. Ginepri isn't some young up and coming kid who's working his way up the rankings.

I'm all for the lower ranked guys making enough money to be able to play pro tennis but the situation isn't as dire as many of them make it out to be. Most, if not all, of the ATP tournaments give the guys a per diem to cover hotel and food and/or have deals with hotels in their cities to give them cut-rate deals and cafeterias that provide their food. A lot of the guys bunk together and use their per diems to pay other costs but of course crashing out of tournaments in the first round means their allowances are cut off and they still have the rest of the week to cover on their own until another tournie starts the next week.

Air fare and stringing are definitely their biggest expenses (after coaches and trainers) but $100,000 certainly leaves them with some cash. They may not be getting rich but they're making money. Playing Challengers though is another story.

 

[Jay2014]

What about national sport contributions to promising players. I also dont agree with a lot of the knee jerk reactions on here. I dont think many people would think that ATP chairman deserves a multimillion dollar wage. Get over it. It is the same in any sport - the money men at the top slices off profits for a healthy wage. You think it' any different in NFL? Soccer? Google Sepp Blatter. . .
Anyway that being said, to raise such a reaction it is clear a few of his comments were ill-advised. Looking at the transcript he did seem to be throwing ideas out there rather than having a set script - always a danger for a figurehead! However, what I personally read from it is that the atp is not there to support players who are never going to end up feeding into the world tour. However, more money in the challangers is required is what he said. What wasnt clarified was if this was to boost prize money for winners, or increase baseline awards to make it a more sustainable profession.

However, my point im eventually comeing around to is....(!). There should be responsibility here for national bodies to support and top up chosen atheletes so that the years spent in challenger level ARE worthy of a reasonable wage. With sufficient funding, the most promising players will then be supported so they can do their time before progressing to the world tour. The best will make it, the others will drop, lose their funding and then inevitably take their career in another direction. This is the way it should be. However, if countries are interested in promoting sport, they should be providing more funding input as well into their promising players. I know in most countries this happens to varying degrees but I think it is way underfunded compared to other sports (probably as it is seen as an individual rather than a national 'team' sport). I think the way awards are made is also highly subjective and in many cases could do with an overhaul. Should be an ongoing competititive process but with a sufficient time committment to allow someone to reach their potential. For those who have had enough funding without progressing, the axe should fall.

Enjoying all the healthy debate...

 

[dominikk1985]

"Clearly for players, it can't be costing them money to play the challengers," Kermode explained. "You play your challengers, then you go on to the world tour. It's meant to be a feeding mechanism, not a place where someone can earn a living."

I appreciate him being forthright and not giving some BS. At least he is honest .

I agree. Tennis is an Entertainment Business, Players are not paid for their Tennis skills but for putting People in front of TV.

The arguement "but Baseball does Support 500 Players" is not valid either. the 500th best Baseball Player (maybe a relief pitcher for the marlins) does Show up in TV regularly, the 500th Tennis Player does not.

of course the top50 could share a Little of their Money with the lower ranked Players, but why would they? after all they are the Players who are putting People behind the TV Screen and into the seats.

 

[Dave1982]

Didn't have time to read every comment but Kermode does have a point...probably a thought he could have kept to himself though.

Prize money & earnings in tennis are always a very complex issue...there's no doubt that everyone believeswants the guys on tour who are ranked in the 50-150 range deserve to earn more...but how? It would simply be ridiculous to strip back the winners cheque to the point where the difference in $ between winning a tournament & going out in second round is negligee. Obviously closing the gap slightly (which they are doing) is great but it's unlikely to ever fix the issue completely. Only real way is to increase the overall prize pools...which the ATP & tournament organizers should be trying to do on a daily basis anyway.

It's true the top guys are the ones who need the sizable winners cheques least due to endorsement deals...however just because they need them least doesn't for a second mean they don't deserve them.

As for Kermodes comments though, the Challengers should be used PRIMARILY as a feeder for players seeking points to progress to full tour, not as a stand alone career. Now of course that's impossible to legitimately police & hence why his comments don't appear to carry much thought.

 

[dominikk1985]

The guy simply chose the figure of 500 out of thin air to emphasise the impossibility of the task.

The reality is anyone on the pro tour over 75 or so is probably not making much of a living.

And the real question is what are the top 25 making on their route through the challengers so they get to the tour.

that is inaccurate, the break even Point is considered to be around 150. the top100 make a good living.

the number 100 this year made about 350K so far this year (the number 75 almost 500K)
http://www.tennis.com/earnings/ATP/

and a year on tour is supposed to cost about 150-200K

 

[dominikk1985]

Despicable man. What is sad here is that ATP should be organization that protect players' interests.

He should be dismissed and forbidden any contact with any aspect of the sport of tennis.

he does. he protects the top Players interests, because if they were to give the lower ranked Players more they would Need to give the higher ranked Players less. and the higher ranked Players are ruling the ATP.

 

[Bartelby]

The cost of being on tour increases with income, so some around 100 are making a good living if their expenses are low, but maybe not if they are higher.

The point is still that the tour can not even support the top 200 making a living from the tour, so his remark about not supporting 500 is simply a misdirection.

 

[Bartelby]

The players are quite democratically represented in the ATP, but they are not in the majority and do not control the direction of the organisation.

he does. he protects the top Players interests, because if they were to give the lower ranked Players more they would Need to give the higher ranked Players less. and the higher ranked Players are ruling the ATP.

 

[Bartelby]

............

 

[Dave1982]

The cost of being on tour increases with income, so some around 100 are making a good living if their expenses are low, but maybe not if they are higher.

The point is still that the tour can not even support the top 200 making a living from the tour, so his remark about not supporting 500 is simply a misdirection.

Again I'm not saying this with any substance but surely an argument could be mounted that for the top guys on tour it could feasibly be cheaper as they play less tournaments?
Now of course if you did the sums I'm sure Federer's annual expenses would be significantly higher than someone ranked in the 50-150 bracket due to him having a far greater entourage & paying for premium accommodation etc.
My point is though that often you see those lower ranked players having to fly from one place to the next, week in week out playing almost every 500 & a fair share of 250's as well as obviously the 1000's & slams. All that additional travelis not going to come cheap.