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

[Romismak]

Also people are forgetting on 3 important factors

1st - TAX - someone say here 165k USD is needed per year - 1st of all every guy is different, someone can be in loss with 165k USD someone can even save from it, but you need to pay taxes, mostly 2x, tax in country where tournament is and than pay taxes home in home country.

2nd - help from tennis associations, it helps a lot being from rich western country or countries like KAZ - when russian guys happily switched to KAZ and had support there, i don´t know how it exactly works, but who cares if they pay you cheque or just pay for your costs like planes, hotels or equipment, but basically prize money after tax get´s to your pockets when your association has your back and takes care for costs or coaches and so on

3rd - Every player is different - we can´t give number how much they need in order to save money, because some guys can play by smart schedule and can sleep in ,,cheaper,, hotels, but some guys not, so there is hardly any number we can give


Also agree that with better results costs increase, let´s say i have just won 30k from slam WC and i don´t save it, but rather invest it - buy new - more racquets, better strings i don´t know, pay few thousand for some medical stuff that i think can help me and so on, so costs go up with better results, no way the same player generating 100k USD and 350k USD per year have the same costs

Also Simon said something about this topic in 1 interview- that those lower ranked guys can hardly compete with top guys, when top guys are rich and have whole team of physio, that guy, that guy, guys without money - don´t have coach - so can´t get better tactically, they also lack psychological support from him, don´t have physio and so on - get more injured, because overplay and don´t know their body and so on, maybe play 1 tournament with 3 racquets, when guys like Roger play 1 match with 3 - so in 4th match their racquets-strings are not as good as new, so they play with ,,inferior,, product-racquet - it´s very important to take this in consideration, that guys with nobody and few racquets per tournaent, because of money can ´t compete with someone with better equipment, full team and better health

 

[pmerk34]

Feeding mechanism is right, but there is no reason why it should not be appropriately rewarding especially for those trying to move rapidly through the system.

No one is suggesting you should have a fifteen year career in challengers, but you shoudn't have to starve either.

The public sees Federer flying around in a private Jet and they just assume the 15th ranked player is a millionaire as well....

 

[TimothyO]

The public sees Federer flying around in a private Jet and they just assume the 15th ranked player is a millionaire as well....

Sadly, the vast majority of tennis players inside the top 500 couldn't afford to buy themselves a drink in their neighborhood bar. They live off friends, family, and benefactors.

They're tennis bums except for the tiny, tiny minority that "make it big" with tournament winnings.

There's no such thing as a "professional" tennis players. There are only highly skilled tennis bums/rec players, a very few of whom might (MIGHT!) earn some big bucks in tournaments.

All TT members share something in common with the vast majority those playing Challengers and above: none of us will make a living playing tennis matches...

 

[NaBUru38]

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.

That is not developing a young player effectively that way. You need to give young player some match experience against the pros. 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. The top two players from each group advances to round of 16 and go from there.

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.

Great idea!

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.

If countries are interested in promoting sport, they should be providing more funding input as well into their promising players.

I disagree. Federations should promote tennis in their respective countries. They should benefit from professional players, not fund them.

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

Yes. But that's because ATP fails at promoting Challenger tournaments. Fans should fill the stands to see national players who aim to enter the main tour.

 

[moonballs]

Idiot pure and simple. Tennis being stingy on the rank and file only means talents will go to other sports. The bench players in NFL, NBA, baseball are all top 500 level in their sports but they all make good living.

 

[jg153040]

Lol. This is so off, that I don't know what to say.

So, only top 100 salesmen should be able to earn a living doing sales?

Only top 100 car mechanics in the world should be able to learn a living?

I guess, only top 5000 people should be able to earn a living and survive in this planet .

 

[ollinger]

^^ uh, no, the bottom 100 car mechanics do make a living because they're presumably doing something of value -- fixing cars. The bottom 100 salesman may be doing something of value to their company -- selling goods or services -- though if they're that bad and working on commission, they might not make a living. The 500th ranked tennis player does nothing of any appreciable commercial value; he is almost certainly never on TV and at his ranking probably plays matches in front of nobody or practically nobody.

 

[pmerk34]

Idiot pure and simple. Tennis being stingy on the rank and file only means talents will go to other sports. The bench players in NFL, NBA, baseball are all top 500 level in their sports but they all make good living.

Correct because they are filling a team roster and get a contract. Tennis is an individual sport so it's a different animal.

 

[mmk]

Correct because they are filling a team roster and get a contract. Tennis is an individual sport so it's a different animal.

And there is a lot more attendance and television money for those sports. And the last I looked no one is forcing anybody to be a professional athlete, it is a choice.

 

[tacou]

^^ uh, no, the bottom 100 car mechanics do make a living because they're presumably doing something of value -- fixing cars. The bottom 100 salesman may be doing something of value to their company -- selling goods or services -- though if they're that bad and working on commission, they might not make a living. The 500th ranked tennis player does nothing of any appreciable commercial value; he is almost certainly never on TV and at his ranking probably plays matches in front of nobody or practically nobody.

By that virtue only the top 10 or 20 players need to exist, but then there is only a 20 person tour with no young up and comers and the tour soon dies. It's a professional sport but only 5% of the league gets paid

 

[tacou]

Mostly tennis players who are awful and don't have a prayer of breaking into the top 200. If you look at the guys ranked from 100-200 on the ATP website, a big number of them have made over $100,000. Not saying they have it great as they obviously have a lot of expenses, but its not true that the low level guys in basketball and football have it way better than them. The NBA D-League doesn't pay anyone more than $25,000 dollars. Insurance and Housing are nice, but $25,000 is horrendous for guys who are legit basketball players.

ULADZIMIR IGNATIK is #201 with 30 tourneys played, 0-1 on the main tour, $49k in 2014 and $328k over a 7 year career.

So I'd say a $480k minimum rookie contract in the NBA is way better than that, and a guaranteed 25k or 30k DLeague/AAA annual salary with travel, food, and gym expenses covered would be clear a step up as well.

Also, not sure why you'd consider a D-Leaguer "a legit basketball player" but call a top 200 or 100 tennis player (or even top 500) awful.

 

[ollinger]

tacou
Not true at all. Even players at the lower end of the top 100 appear on TV, not only in majors but other tournaments as well. I've recently watched televised tourneys with guys ranked in the 70s and 80s playing on the air. So at least a 100 player tour, but beyond that the players don't have alot of commercial value. And the "young up and comers" will not likely make a living while up and coming. If they don't make it, they can go and sell insurance, or mutual funds, or teach tennis.

 

[gambitt]

Sport is a business. Most people don't pay money to watch challenger level matches so where is the money supposed to come from? Take it from the higher ranked players? Even the guys ranked around 150 struggle to earn a better living than they would earning $60,000 in an office.

 

[gambitt]

Lol. This is so off, that I don't know what to say.

So, only top 100 salesmen should be able to earn a living doing sales?

Only top 100 car mechanics in the world should be able to learn a living?

I guess, only top 5000 people should be able to earn a living and survive in this planet .

Terrible analogies. People need car mechanics all the time; they are buying products every day and salemen provide them with a service. The general population doesn't NEED tennis in their day to day lives. It's called a free market economy.

Engage brain, then type.

 

[okdude1992]

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...

This. I can't believe how many knowledgeable tennis loving fans refuse to see this, and give the lower rung players credit for their part in the tour. Also why aren't more people upset about how greedy the governing bodies must be to be taking 80-90% of all revenue generated? It's like people are just clinging to the status quo. I'm surprised the players haven't organized a strike like has been seen in the NBA and NHL recently.

 

[NaBUru38]

The 500th ranked tennis player does nothing of any appreciable commercial value; he is almost certainly never on TV and at his ranking probably plays matches in front of nobody or practically nobody.

That's the fault of ATP, WTA and tournament promoters.

Sport is a business. Most people don't pay money to watch challenger level matches so where is the money supposed to come from? Take it from the higher ranked players? Even the guys ranked around 150 struggle to earn a better living than they would earning $60,000 in an office.

In Latin America we do. Why wouldn't the rest of the world?

 

[Gizo]

The prize money at challenger events has only increased by a small amount since the 80s, while player expenses such as traveling, coaching, equipment, nutrition have all increased by a much greater percentage due to inflation.

So with each passing year challenger players have become worse off financially and a smaller number of players are merely breaking even. This is the main issue in the sport which needs to be resolved.

In many ways the stakes in many challengers and futures matches are actually higher than they are in grand slam or ATP tour matches, as lot of those players are fighting for their lives to make a decent living or even just to pay the bills. Those are far bigger stakes then fighting for a place in the history books.

 

[jhhachamp]

I don't buy the $165k expenses for all top 500 players. If you are not in the top 100, you don't need to be spending nearly as much on travel because you can stay closer to home and play challengers or futures.

 

[dominikk1985]

a big issue is that the big names don't Play the small tournaments anymore because there are so many mandatory tournaments.

guys like laver and connors played a lot of small tournaments. since the Revenue Comes with the big names the smaller tournaments don't make a lot of Money and have a hard time to even cover their expenses while the big tournaments make loads of Money.

that means the Players who are not making slam and 500/1000 draws are not making a lot of Money.

increasing the prize Money at the challengers is a nice idea, but someone Needs to pay for it.

you would Need to have some Kind of Revenue sharing where the large tournaments and slams pay into a pool that is injected into the small tournaments.

challengers have no TV contracts and very low ticket prizes. they simply don't make a lot of Money which is the reason why they can't pay a lot.

 

[norcal]

ULADZIMIR IGNATIK is #201 with 30 tourneys played, 0-1 on the main tour, $49k in 2014

The link I clicked on had the #200 guy earning $115k so far this year? Not too bad.

What is the deal on hotels? I thought main draw guys got free hotel till Thursday, doubles guys got hotel till they lose. Doubles guys share rooms after they lose (I heard this ago from a lower level ATP coach at the San Jose tourney several years ago).

I thought all the courtesy cars went to the same few hotels to pick guys up? If all players made their own arrangements how would this be possible?

Anyone have current info on this?

 

[tudwell]

And there is a lot more attendance and television money for those sports. And the last I looked no one is forcing anybody to be a professional athlete, it is a choice.

Well, duh, but as a tennis fan, I want to see a sustainable sport, one people will continue to pursue in decades to come. While it's not anywhere close to being on the verge of extinction or anything, the level of pay for any but the best players in the world discourages many people from pursuing tennis as a career. As has been said, only those with a lot money (from family, a national tennis federation/association, or some other benefactor) have the resources to even try to do that.

 

[tudwell]

The prize money at challenger events has only increased by a small amount since the 80s, while player expenses such as traveling, coaching, equipment, nutrition have all increased by a much greater percentage due to inflation.

So with each passing year challenger players have become worse off financially and a smaller number of players are merely breaking even. This is the main issue in the sport which needs to be resolved.

In many ways the stakes in many challengers and futures matches are actually higher than they are in grand slam or ATP tour matches, as lot of those players are fighting for their lives to make a decent living or even just to pay the bills. Those are far bigger stakes then fighting for a place in the history books.

Not to mention the points for slams and masters have skyrocketed while Challengers have largely stayed static, making it harder for lower ranked players to even gain entry into the higher paying venues.

 

[ollinger]

One wonders if the Tennis Channel will be the death of the challenger tournament
tournaments. Less reason for people in Oshkosh to go see a bunch of palookas playing when you get coverage of the big boys most weeks.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

for those criticising him, i have two words :

MARC GICQUEL

 

[Gizo]

Not to mention the points for slams and masters have skyrocketed while Challengers have largely stayed static, making it harder for lower ranked players to even gain entry into the higher paying venues.

Yeah the slam/masters ranking points doubled ahead of the 2009 season which a lot of lower ranked players were understandably unhappy about. And with the prize money at the big events increasing faster than the rate inflation compared to the static prize money in challengers, the disparity in earnings is only getting wider and wider.

That is bad for the overall health of the sport.

 

[Top Jimmy]

If audiences can support challenger tournaments that pay well, of course players should make money. If they draw large enough crowds, yes they should be able to make a living.

It's like minor league team sports, if their is an audience, who has the right to determine how much is too much.

 

[Praetorian]

I always fail to understand how people justify helping to support players who aren't good enough to support themselves. Now don't get me wrong, if a Challenger brings in millions of dollars, then by all means, pay them accordingly. However, that isn't the case. Imagine if your son and daughter comes up to you and said, "I clean my room, and do my chores, just as well as Warren Buffet's son, and he gets a $10000k/wk allowance. Why do I only get $20" What then? Does it suck that the 20, 30, 40, make all the money - Well yeah, but they are good enough to play in the events that allow them to do so. It's just the natural order of things.

 

[norcal]

If audiences can support challenger tournaments that pay well, of course players should make money. If they draw large enough crowds, yes they should be able to make a living.

It's like minor league team sports, if their is an audience, who has the right to determine how much is too much.

No, minor league sports are subsidized by the parent organization because they develop players for the parent organization...just like the challengers do...

 

[Mustard]

The more players that can make at least a modest financial living out of tennis, the better, because it brings strength in depth to the sport. Those comments are extremely dumb.

 

[reaper]

No, minor league sports are subsidized by the parent organization because they develop players for the parent organization...just like the challengers do...

That's right! I agree with the ATP official that there shouldn't be 500 making a living, but about 250 makes sense with some of those guys feeding into the main tour. There might also be room for tournaments restricted to 19-22 year olds to assist the transition from juniors(if that doesn't already happen). Leaving everything purely to the market will result in a massive and counter productive concentration of wealth.

 

[70後]

Subsidising bad, unprofitable businesses at the expense of good businesses ultimately destroys the competitive environment, it does not bring out strength or depth in the competition. What it does result in is lots of dead wood that doesn't get shed.

 

[Bartelby]

Several billion males in the world, so 250 financially renumerated professional tennis players will not harm the 'competitive environment'. These are hardly the 'dead wood'.

Look to Wall Street for subsidising bad, unprofitable business.

Subsidising bad, unprofitable businesses at the expense of good businesses ultimately destroys the competitive environment, it does not bring out strength or depth in the competition. What it does result in is lots of dead wood that doesn't get shed.

 

[Bartelby]

The ATP has essentially a de facto monopoly control over tennis labour, so there is very little freedom in this free market.

That's right! I agree with the ATP official that there shouldn't be 500 making a living, but about 250 makes sense with some of those guys feeding into the main tour. There might also be room for tournaments restricted to 19-22 year olds to assist the transition from juniors(if that doesn't already happen). Leaving everything purely to the market will result in a massive and counter productive concentration of wealth.

 

[Bendex]

That's right! I agree with the ATP official that there shouldn't be 500 making a living, but about 250 makes sense with some of those guys feeding into the main tour. There might also be room for tournaments restricted to 19-22 year olds to assist the transition from juniors(if that doesn't already happen). Leaving everything purely to the market will result in a massive and counter productive concentration of wealth.

Just my theory, but if the top 250 players were making a living, the old journeymen would stick around forever, and even fewer young players would get a chance to break in.

At the moment, I think that federations and private sponsors do a pretty good job of helping out the young players coming through. If there were hundreds of well funded old journeymen in front of them, the teens would be struggling to even qualify for tournaments (and get that much needed exposure).

 

[Deleted member 21996]

The more players that can make at least a modest financial living out of tennis, the better, because it brings strength in depth to the sport. Those comments are extremely dumb.

oh yes... the Marc Gicquels of the sport have brought great depth.....


(that was sarcasm in case you dont get it)

 

[205bacdoc]

I don't know about that. The thing about football is that there are not a lot of really close games. The scoring system in tennis however makes for continuous interest.

The big difference is that teams have supporters and football is a collective spectacle even when watched on the television.

Turn off the sound and you have a tennis match.

There are well over 750 players in the MLB and the league minimum is definitely above the making a living category. So even if you are 750th or on the 45 man roster in Aug/Sept, you can still make a living. Difference is money generated. The ATP/WTA needs more $ to pay out more $.