ATP players' council around Roger Federer wants to redistribute the prize money: "Take it from the poor and give it to the rich"!

lucky13

Rookie
Document reveals explosive plan for 2021

The quarrel between ATP and Djokovic is about money

Take it from the poor and give it to the rich - according to this motto, the ATP players' council around Roger Federer wants to redistribute the prize money in 2021. The fight for money is one of the reasons why Novak Djokovic is said to have founded his PTPA.


Novak Djokovic apparently had enough of the ATP's monetary policy.


In order to better support poorer professionals, Djokovic founded his players union PTPA.

As the Portuguese Gastao Elias reveals, the current players' council wants to cut the prize money in the qualifications and early rounds so that more can be paid out in the later rounds.

Djokovic doesn't like that. His new tennis union stands for different values, Elias explains in his post, which has now been deleted.

Djokovic has been fighting for a long time so that the worse off players can draw more money from the tournaments.

During the US Open there was a bang between ATP and Novak Djokovic. The Serb has announced that he is stepping down as president of the players 'council and is instead founding his own players' union, the PTPA. The criticism of this step of the world number 1 was huge. And now it becomes clear what the big quarrel is really about: the dear money.

A document was leaked on Twitter that shows the very explosive plans of the ATP and the current players' council for 2021. The council around Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and the new President Kevin Anderson have therefore advocated a change in the distribution of the prize money. And the players who already have a lot should benefit from this.

Spielerrat wants to cut prize money for the “little ones” in 2021
"The prize money in the qualification and in the first rounds is to be reduced slightly and increased in the later rounds," says the document. It should be a wish of the players.

After the resumption of the tennis tour after the Corona break, the prize money was adjusted in favor of the "little ones". That should now apparently at least be reversed.

The plan was posted by Gastao Elias, who is currently 421 in the ATP ranking. The Portuguese was also in 56th place. According to the Serbian newspaper “Blic”, he also writes that this is at least one of the reasons for Djokovic's solo effort. His new tennis union stands for different values. Just a few minutes after it was published, Elias deleted his post.

In fact, Djokovic has long been committed to ensuring that there is more prize money and that this primarily benefits the lower-ranking tennis professionals. But the 33-year-old obviously saw himself outnumbered in the council with this wish.

 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I don't get it. Why should people be rewarded more in their job for perfoming worse?

Prize money should be an incentive and reward to perform better and improve your game. If players show up and know they can get handsomely rewarded for a 2nd round knockout in every tournament, it'll make the game worse and players lazier. There will be less incentive to improve.It's common sense that prize money should be increased for later rounds for players performing better.

I know it's populist to help those who have less, but tennis is a job, not a charity. Everybody wants something for nothing now.

Less well off players should be helped in getting more or better sponsors to help them. But I'd be against the prize money redistribution as well.
 

onkystomper

Hall of Fame
I have read some misinformed posts on here before but this is the best of them. Do you have any idea of the cost from Junior to professional level yet alone expenses when you reach the tour?

Being rewarded for a second round loss, or maybe it's being paid an amount that recognises you are top 50 on the world at what you do or even top 100 in the world at what you do. The prize money should obviously go up the deeper into the tournament you get. But circa 15 k for first round to circa 1million for winning.. quite a disparity there. Does paying 25 k first round or 900k make any difference for the winner? No. Does it help the first round person? Yes.. even just to cover expenses at somewhere like Indian Wells. Does it allow more people to compete at their highest level yes.. because the sport is sustainable at more levels so more people can compete.

Not everyone can be 1 in the world.. but you actually need 2-200 for the sport to exist as well
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Makes sense why Djokovic left, especially considering his position on this issue. After the powers that be criticized the PTPA, the full truth comes to light and it's not pretty. Most of them are already rich. Why do they need to decrease pay in qualifying and earlier rounds, and increase it in later rounds during a pandemic when players are already struggling? I just find that appalling tbh.
 

lucky13

Rookie
I don't get it. Why should people be rewarded more in their job for perfoming worse?

Prize money should be an incentive and reward to perform better and improve your game. If players show up and know they can get handsomely rewarded for a 2nd round knockout in every tournament, it'll make the game worse and players lazier. There will be less incentive to improve.It's common sense that prize money should be increased for later rounds for players performing better.

I know it's populist to help those who have less, but tennis is a job, not a charity. Everybody wants something for nothing now.

Less well off players should be helped in getting more or better sponsors to help them. But I'd be against the prize money redistribution as well.
if the players can not even pay for their travels and can not even participate in tournaments, they may be forced to quit before they can even get their full potential. and many talented players will not continue with tennis which is a very expensive sport considering all the travel and other expenses. and a few thousand dollars a year means a lot to them and makes a big difference. on the other hand, the best players are already multimillionaires and Federer himself is a billionaire and for those thousand bucks are money that makes no major difference.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I have read some misinformed posts on here before but this is the best of them. Do you have any idea of the cost from Junior to professional level yet alone expenses when you reach the tour?
Of course I understand the costs involved in tennis. Which is why I proposed an alternative in terms of increasing Sponsorship opportunities for less well off players.

Prize money should be about performance. Decent sponsorship can help with the costs of maintaining a pro career.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
if the players can not even pay for their travels and can not even participate in tournaments, they may be forced to quit before they can even get their full potential. and many talented players will not continue with tennis which is a very expensive sport considering all the travel and other expenses. and a few thousand dollars a year means a lot to them and makes a big difference. on the other hand, the best players are already multimillionaires and Federer himself is a billionaire and for those thousand bucks are money that makes no major difference.
Sponsorship.

Federer is rich as hell because he is great at his job. Prize money should be incentive to improve. If I get better at my job, I get a promotion and earn more money. This is how capitalism works. Trust me, if prize money gets redistribution like that, the game will become incredibly weak.
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
Of course I understand the costs involved in tennis. Which is why I proposed an alternative in terms of increasing Sponsorship opportunities for less well off players.

Prize money should be about performance. Decent sponsorship can help with the costs of maintaining a pro career.
That's not how it works. Why should corporations sponsoring players be charitable? They are in it for the profit. It is easier and logical for the ATP to help the lower ranked players rather than sponsors, which is fairly difficult
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
That's not how it works. Why should corporations sponsoring players be charitable? They are in it for the profit. It is easier and logical for the ATP to help the lower ranked players rather than arranging for sponsorship which is fairly difficult
If you are on the Pro Tour in the Top 50-70, you will be appearing on television all over the world on a regular basis in tournaments. Just having their logo on a player's shirt or shorts in these circumstances is worth a huge amount to sponsors in terms of exposure and advertising, even if the player is not a big star. It's not charity. It's business. But that would mean allowing players to cover themselves in sponsor logos like race car drivers. Like I said, it's a feasible alternative to consider.
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
If you are on the Pro Tour in the Top 50-70, you will be appearing on television all over the world on a regular basis in tournaments. Just having their logo on a player's shirt or shorts in these circumstances is worth a huge amount to sponsors, even if the player is not a big star. It's not charity. It's business. But that would mean allowing players to cover themselves in sponsor logos like race car drivers. Like I said, it's a feasible alternative to consider.
But that's a small group of players you're mentioning. What about those just outside top 100. These guys aren't bad enough to not make it to the top 50 but are heavily slowed down by financial obstacles.
 

blablavla

Legend
Sponsorship.

Federer is rich as hell because he is great at his job. Prize money should be incentive to improve. If I get better at my job, I get a promotion and earn more money. This is how capitalism works. Trust me, if prize money gets redistribution like that, the game will become incredibly weak.
no, it's wrong.
Fed prize money is similar to Nadal and Djokovic.
yet there is a huge difference in net worth.

Fed is as reach as he is because he has a good team that helps him to maximize his networth
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
But that's small group of players you're mentioning. What about those just outside top 100. These guys aren't bad enough to make it to the top 50 but are heavily slowed down by financial obstacles.
But that's small group of players you're mentioning. What about those just outside top 100. These guys aren't bad enough to make it to the top 50 but are heavily slowed down by financial obstacles.

Life is tough all over. In every profession, if you are considered to be at journeyman level (which outside the top 100 is in tennis terms), you will earn less and struggle. If you are truly good enough to make it into the elite, you will hustle and work your butt off to get there. It's a cliche to say, but the cream usually rises to the top.
 

Bumbaliceps

Semi-Pro
If lower players were paid more, the whole level of the tour would be higher. Players ranked 150 in the world wouldn't have to play every week to win money, they could put more emphasis on training (developing their games) and resting, and choosing when to play their best with a well-adapted program.

First round matches would be more interesting.
 

blablavla

Legend
If you are on the Pro Tour in the Top 50-70, you will be appearing on television all over the world on a regular basis in tournaments. Just having their logo on a player's shirt or shorts in these circumstances is worth a huge amount to sponsors in terms of exposure and advertising, even if the player is not a big star. It's not charity. It's business. But that would mean allowing players to cover themselves in sponsor logos like race car drivers. Like I said, it's a feasible alternative to consider.
nobody is interested in sponsoring "mugs", "clowns", "pigeons" and "journeymen".

jokes aside, but in the past getting to top 100 was pretty much a guarantee of some endorsement contracts.
these days it's not anymore
why?
because there was too much focus on top guys, in particular Big 3, and everyone very easily calls everyone else "losers", "mugs", "clowns", "pigeons" and "journeymen"

In many other sports, that are similar or even smaller than tennis, a bigger number of athletes earn money.
So why in tennis only the top few guys should earn money?
If the tennis sport is resumed to top 20 guys, from where will you have 128 pro players for a tough GS draw?
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
Life is tough all over. In every profession, if you are considered to be at journeyman level (which outside the top 100 is in tennis terms), you will earn less and struggle. If you are truly good enough to make it into the elite, you will hustle and work your butt off to get their. It's a cliche to say, but the cream usually rises to the top.
The 'cream' is earning enough, not only are they handling their operational expenses easily, they are left with enough to live a pretty lavish life. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of redistribution. The Big 3 won't come to the streets if they receive a few millions less
 

blablavla

Legend
The 'cream' is earning enough, not only are they handling their operational expenses easily, they are left with enough to live a pretty lavish life. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of redistribution.
exactly, if the winner takes 800k instead of 1 Mio, there are enough endorsement contracts on the table for the winner to compensate.
while for the folks that lose in early rounds that difference might be the difference between making a profit or burn cash over the course of the season.

imagine that you are in top 100 folks in your job and you aren't making enough money for living.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
The 'cream' is earning enough, not only are they handling their operational expenses easily, they are left with enough to live a pretty lavish life. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of redistribution. The Big 3 won't come to the streets if they receive a few millions less
Why are people making this about the big 3? Pretty sure most players in the top 50 are eating well.
 

blablavla

Legend
fair way to do is to base prize money on revenues generated... so if your viewership is low...
that is only partial answer.
if 1500 pro tennis players leave the ATP, and we remain with top 20 players only, what do you think will happen to the GS and the entire tennis system as it is today?
from where will you take 128 pro players to fill the MD of a GS?
from where will you take enough players to fill the M1000 draws?

then add the injuries, retirements, etc, and from where will you take fresh names?
 

blablavla

Legend
Why are people making this about the big 3? Pretty sure most players in the top 50 are eating well.
top 50 yes.
outside of top 150 they are burning cash

in one of the biggest sports worldwide.
now imagine if you were paid in your job by the criteria you propose for tennis.
if you are not in top 50 performers worldwide, it's your problem that you're starving
 

Tennis_Freak99

Hall of Fame
Why are people making this about the big 3? Pretty sure most players in the top 50 are eating well.
Because 2 of those 3 are trying to avoid the bigger issue that they haven't faced for most of their lives. Fedalovic (esp Fedal) all belonged to rich families before turning to pros
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
top 50 yes.
outside of top 150 they are burning cash

in one of the biggest sports worldwide.
now imagine if you were paid in your job by the criteria you propose for tennis.
if you are not in top 50 performers worldwide, it's your problem that you're starving
Even on the edge of the top 100, players make a comfortable living. This is an article from 2013 about Michael Russell, who was then ranked 92 in the world, making 200K a year from tennis, and was able to retire, but didn't want to stop making 200K a year. And this was 2013....I'm sure the world 92 today earns much more than Russell. Yes it shows Russell had costs and struggles compared to top guys, but ultimately, he made a good living.

 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
if the players can not even pay for their travels and can not even participate in tournaments, they may be forced to quit before they can even get their full potential. and many talented players will not continue with tennis which is a very expensive sport considering all the travel and other expenses. and a few thousand dollars a year means a lot to them and makes a big difference. on the other hand, the best players are already multimillionaires and Federer himself is a billionaire and for those thousand bucks are money that makes no major difference.
I understand this line of thought, but somehow the issue got tied to prize money. I view these as two separate issues.
1. Low ranked players have trouble covering expenses
2. Early tournament losers make less prize money than those who progress further into the tournament

Regarding 2, this is how it should be. Perform better, get rewarded more.

Regarding 1, this is an issue that could be managed SEPARATELY by the ATP id they so desired, or by a different player's association, or by sponsorship arrangements, etc ...

These are two separate issues that can be managed individually and are being artificially connected.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I understand this line of thought, but somehow the issue got tied to prize money. I view these as two separate issues.
1. Low ranked players have trouble covering expenses
2. Early tournament losers make less prize money than those who progress further into the tournament

Regarding 2, this is how it should be. Perform better, get rewarded more.

Regarding 1, this is an issue that could be managed SEPARATELY by the ATP id they so desired, or by a different player's association, or by sponsorship arrangements, etc ...

These are two separate issues that can be managed individually and are being artificially connected.

Exactly. Well said.
 

blablavla

Legend
Even on the edge of the top 100, players make a comfortable living. This is an article from 2013 about Michael Russell, who was then ranked 92 in the world, making 200K a year from tennis, and was able to retire, but didn't want to stop making 200K a year. And this was 2013....I'm sure the world 92 today earns much more than Russell. Yes it shows Russell had costs and struggles compared to top guys, but ultimately, he made a good living.

deduct taxes, travel expenses, coach and hitting partner expenses, between season expenses.
add in here all the investment required to raise a pro tennis player.

and finally.
what if in your job, in order to have a living you would need to be top 50 or top 100 performers worldwide, how much would you earn in your opinion?
 

blablavla

Legend
I understand this line of thought, but somehow the issue got tied to prize money. I view these as two separate issues.
1. Low ranked players have trouble covering expenses
2. Early tournament losers make less prize money than those who progress further into the tournament

Regarding 2, this is how it should be. Perform better, get rewarded more.

Regarding 1, this is an issue that could be managed SEPARATELY by the ATP id they so desired, or by a different player's association, or by sponsorship arrangements, etc ...

These are two separate issues that can be managed individually and are being artificially connected.
what if in your job, in order to have a living you would need to be top 50 or top 100 performers worldwide, how much would you earn in your opinion?
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Why are people making this about the big 3? Pretty sure most players in the top 50 are eating well.
Top 200 in 2019 ALL made more than $100,000. That is well above the median income, at least in the US. If you can't break into the top 200 by the time you're into your 20's, perhaps one should look for a different line of work. If they want to continue, don't complain.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
what if in your job, in order to have a living you would need to be top 50 or top 100 performers worldwide, how much would you earn in your opinion?
I would choose a different job unless I felt I could be in the top 50-100. That requires a LOT of self honesty.
I have personally experienced this. I was a professional athlete in another sport when I was in my 20's. I was a "journeyman" as they say. I had sponsors, had expenses and entry fee covered and had monthly stipends. I tried to get to the top but had to accept that I never would.
I then invested in myself with an education (through student loans) and have had a great career for the past decades living a comfortable life.
A job is a choice. If one doesn't like that job, they can choose another path. Takes hard work and sacrifice, but it's possible.
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
I don't get it. Why should people be rewarded more in their job for perfoming worse?

Prize money should be an incentive and reward to perform better and improve your game. If players show up and know they can get handsomely rewarded for a 2nd round knockout in every tournament, it'll make the game worse and players lazier. There will be less incentive to improve.It's common sense that prize money should be increased for later rounds for players performing better.

I know it's populist to help those who have less, but tennis is a job, not a charity. Everybody wants something for nothing now.

Less well off players should be helped in getting more or better sponsors to help them. But I'd be against the prize money redistribution as well.
this is a grade 8 kid's understanding of economics summed up. If you have a system based on top players drawing in huge amounts of money, to keep it going you need to consistently produce good players. To continually produce good players you want the most amount of humans playing your sport. If you eliminate %99 of humans from the sport because of your barriers to entry, you're not going to get the high quality, high level players you could otherwise. Providing lower ranked players a living wage so they can continue to pursue their development and a professional career apart from just being from a rich family that is willing to bankroll them until they're in the top 100 so they can actually be in the black, benefits the entire tour and increases the quality of players overall, making the sport more entertaining to watch.

Prize money is a zero sum game. There is no taking from the rich to give to the poor or taking from the poor to give to the rich. It's arbitrary to begin with. To assume the current distribution of prize money is somehow the natural order and the way things should be, is accepting someone's random and arbitrary decision as some sort of scripture from a god. It's ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lowering prize money at the top for a few individuals so many more at the bottom can sustain a career. There is no tennis tour without lower ranked players advancing to the top of the game.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
the link goes to Swiss Blic, not Serbian
I don't get it. Why should people be rewarded more in their job for perfoming worse?

Prize money should be an incentive and reward to perform better and improve your game. If players show up and know they can get handsomely rewarded for a 2nd round knockout in every tournament, it'll make the game worse and players lazier. There will be less incentive to improve.It's common sense that prize money should be increased for later rounds for players performing better.

I know it's populist to help those who have less, but tennis is a job, not a charity. Everybody wants something for nothing now.

Less well off players should be helped in getting more or better sponsors to help them. But I'd be against the prize money redistribution as well.
The incentive is still there - players still make more and more the later they get into a tournament. I guess it's to make it easier for more players (which would still be a relatively small percentage of playres) to at least hit a threshold income that enables them to stay on tour without massively struggling.

I mean, why not just have every tournament winner take all. $1 million tournament - it all goes to the winner; Slam - $10 million (or more) to the winner. Your reasoning for early round losers applies just as much to semifinalists and losing finalists. Why reward them for doing their job worse than the winner - just give it all to the winner
 
Last edited:

blablavla

Legend
Top 200 in 2019 ALL made more than $100,000. That is well above the median income, at least in the US. If you can't break into the top 200 by the time you're into your 20's, perhaps one should look for a different line of work. If they want to continue, don't complain.
deduct income tax to be paid in various countries, and not all of them will refund it
deduct travel expenses, which are way higher than the median
deduct expenses on coaches, hitting partner, season preparation, etc.,

that 100k isn't net income like what the median person in the US sees at the end of the month wired to their bank account, that 100k is a gross income.
if you want to compare it, than compare it with an entrepreneur whose company makes 100k but needs to pay taxes, costs of running business, salaries.
then see if you would like to join that industry
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
deduct income tax to be paid in various countries, and not all of them will refund it
deduct travel expenses, which are way higher than the median
deduct expenses on coaches, hitting partner, season preparation, etc.,

that 100k isn't net income like what the median person in the US sees at the end of the month wired to their bank account, that 100k is a gross income.
if you want to compare it, than compare it with an entrepreneur whose company makes 100k but needs to pay taxes, costs of running business, salaries.
then see if you would like to join that industry
Median US household income was just under $69,000. That is before taxes.
The top 200 ATP in 2019 had at least $100,000 before taxes, JUST in prize money. That doesn't include anything from sponsors...
 

blablavla

Legend
Median US household income was just under $69,000. That is before taxes.
The top 200 ATP in 2019 had at least $100,000 before taxes, JUST in prize money. That doesn't include anything from sponsors...
what is the amount of years a median US person needs to be trained to perform the job?
and what is the amount of years a median US person is able to earn money from the job?

a pro tennis player, if starts learning the game at 4-6 years old, probably learns the job some 14 years before starts earning some serious money.
then might have 10 years of the job
then retire
how does this the 100k sound now? from which you need to deduct a bunch of expenses?
and we didn't touch yet how much does it cost financially to develop a pro tennis player
 

blablavla

Legend
Median US household income was just under $69,000. That is before taxes.
The top 200 ATP in 2019 had at least $100,000 before taxes, JUST in prize money. That doesn't include anything from sponsors...
how much sponsor endorsement do you think the world number 200 gets?
how much sponsor endorsement do you think the world number 100 gets?

let me assume it is close to zero.
they are probably getting a few frames free of charge and some clothes free of charge, unless it is a promising junior on the rise.
if you are 25-27 years old at the time when you get to #100, chances are that endorsement equal to ZERO USD per year.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
what is the amount of years a median US person needs to be trained to perform the job?
and what is the amount of years a median US person is able to earn money from the job?

a pro tennis player, if starts learning the game at 4-6 years old, probably learns the job some 14 years before starts earning some serious money.
then might have 10 years of the job
then retire
how does this the 100k sound now? from which you need to deduct a bunch of expenses?
and we didn't touch yet how much does it cost financially to develop a pro tennis player
Your points are valid, so I'll ask the question:
Knowing all this, AND knowing that performance is generally rewarded, who would CHOOSE to pursue this path then complain if they didn't succeed?
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
how much sponsor endorsement do you think the world number 200 gets?
how much sponsor endorsement do you think the world number 100 gets?

let me assume it is close to zero.
they are probably getting a few frames free of charge and some clothes free of charge, unless it is a promising junior on the rise.
if you are 25-27 years old at the time when you get to #100, chances are that endorsement equal to ZERO USD per year.
Maybe, maybe not. I was a journeyman had had lots of sponsors. I marketed myself well and was a go getter. I always asked my sponsors if there was more I could do for them. They were happy to help when they could because of this attitude.
I wonder how many ATP pros go to their sponsors and say "would you like me to help with a clinic? Would you like me to help at a demo day? Thank you for helping me. Besides placing in tournaments, is there anything more I can do for you?"
 

blablavla

Legend
Your points are valid, so I'll ask the question:
Knowing all this, AND knowing that performance is generally rewarded, who would CHOOSE to pursue this path then complain if they didn't succeed?
at least 1500 players try to pursue a pro tennis career
those are only the folks who managed to get into the ATP ranking
many others pursue the same dream but failed to obtain a point, hence are out of the ranking

without such people, Elon Musk wouldn't be there, cause the chance to succeed is quite similar
and if you travel to Silicone Valley for example, you will see many homeless people there
and if you ask questions, you will learn that not everyone gets a second chance, and while not all homeless people are failed entrepreneurs, there are enough entrepreneurs that end up homeless
yet, without them, there would be very little innovation

other sports, that are smaller than tennis by many metrics, somehow manage to feed much more than 100 pro athletes.
so, why we as a tennis community shall settle down for either be top 50, or go find another job?
 
Top