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

Bagel Boy

Rookie
minor league ballplayers still get to pocket like 1-2K a month since teams pay for almost everything during the season. Also many of them get to bank a signing bonus. So only a top 1500-2000 baseball player is actually making that salary. If you're on a 40 man roster it's like 50K (1200 total people) and many many prospects outside that range get a few hundred K signing bonus. And there are 750 people on big league rosters who are all making at least the 600K minimum. A top 1500-2000, or 750-1000 tennis player is almost assuredly making either 0 or negative money. And of course you have japanese and korean leagues which obviously pay way better than low ranked tennis players. So at least 2000 baseball players in the world are making a decent living. Heck there's probably tons of totally insignificant local leagues in the US like the Atlantic league where players can probably make close to 50K.

For hockey, the average salary in the AHL is 90K and the minimum is 50K, way way way better than tennis at the same level. The third rate US league (ECHL) the average salary is like 600 a week. There's probably multiple leagues in Canada with the same story. Again, these players get most of their expenses covered by the major league team that owns or is linked to the affiliate. And again, this is players outside of the top 700 nhl players, but there is also the KHL and SHL, the Swiss league, and the Finnish league where I'd guess the average player is making around 50-100K (and in Europe with most expenses paid, that's decent money). So probably close to the top 2000 or more hockey players in the world are making a decent living.

Then you can compare this to what people in like 3rd/4th/5th tier soccer or basketball leagues make and it's a total joke. Only the top 200 tennis players or so can even sniff the types of numbers we've been mentioning for top 1000-2000+ players in other sports, and tennis expenses are massive. Obviously tennis will have a smaller pool given it's an individual sport but this kind of a gap is absurd.

It's clear that tennis is no longer an attractive sport for elite young athletes who are even upper middle class because it's financial suicide which is how we get the whole Thiem/Medvedev/Zverev/Tsitsipas "cream" of the crop situation. Before it used to be as a major world sport with significant individual glory, now it's probably not even on par with golf. Probably now more like volleyball (which is what the tall storks should probably be playing).

Tennis is a business that's been totally run into the ground compared to other sports which have invested much more in player development and as a result have massively grown their talent pool and bottom lines. Sure it can make enough money now off older fans but just wait another 20-30 years.

Way to completely fail to understand how team sports generate and split revenues. And then you compared it to an individual sport.

Just, wow.
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
Whenever I am on an American based forum, it is absolutely mind boggling to see the term communist get thrown around in any discussion relating wealth distribution. Between the various ideologies, I am sure there is a realm called the middle ground. Some of us crazy foreigners simply call them balanced ethical practices.

Having said the above, my comment is not directed to you. You provided arguments for both sides and that is a solid post.
I threw in the word "communism" as a joke.

It's obvious that political ideology has little to do with this. It's a question of keeping the sport competitive i.e. making it more competitive. While in real life I'd never support redistribution of anything, sports is an entirely different beast, because in a sense it is not a real world but an invention with its own rules. These rules don't have to reflect how things work in society hence why more money for lower ranked players - especially young players - might be needed.
 

demrle

Professional
I threw in the word "communism" as a joke.

It's obvious that political ideology has little to do with this. It's a question of keeping the sport competitive i.e. making it more competitive. While in real life I'd never support redistribution of anything, sports is an entirely different beast, because in a sense it is not a real world but an invention with its own rules. These rules don't have to reflect how things work in society hence why more money for lower ranked players - especially young players - might be needed.
So you're saying they should apply the Scandinavian model to tennis? ;)
 

ForehandRF

Legend
Yes, more blondes.
I can't agree more :cool:
VzxJreR.jpg
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Way to completely fail to understand how team sports generate and split revenues. And then you compared it to an individual sport.

Just, wow.
I mentioned that in the post. Golf is an individual sport with a touring structure that does not have tennis' issues and pays out significantly higher percentage of its revenue.

Team sports split revenue because it's been bargained and arranged for. Tennis needs to do something similar or else it will die, in fact by many measures it already has.
 

Raz11

Professional
I mentioned that in the post. Golf is an individual sport with a touring structure that does not have tennis' issues and pays out significantly higher percentage of its revenue.

Team sports split revenue because it's been bargained and arranged for. Tennis needs to do something similar or else it will die, in fact by many measures it already has.

I mentioned months ago that administration gets a smaller share of revenue as well compared to the other sports and not just the players. I think tennis is just an expensive sport to play and organise with little interest outside of the main events.

Challenger tour is free to stream (almost literally every match can be watched at the ATP) and that struggles to get viewers outside of those gambling.

Unless they take more money from the top players, only other way is to restructure the whole tour and tournaments. Maybe 2 week events with round robin stages so more lower ranked players get to play a lot more matches on the big events. Compared to golf and other team sports, the 200th player just doesn't get many opportunities to play that many matches at big events.
 

Miki 1234

Semi-Pro
And then some poor semi pro comes that earns nothing but would not give you 2 pts per set and still he still thinks hes a player hajaha.
Low lvl people hate that.
And would love to see such players gone.
So only top 10 to 15 players stay proffesional like 80 years ago , 3.5 to 4.5 rec players and tennis school.
 
Last edited:

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
I mentioned months ago that administration gets a smaller share of revenue as well compared to the other sports and not just the players. I think tennis is just an expensive sport to play and organise with little interest outside of the main events.

Challenger tour is free to stream (almost literally every match can be watched at the ATP) and that struggles to get viewers outside of those gambling.

Unless they take more money from the top players, only other way is to restructure the whole tour and tournaments. Maybe 2 week events with round robin stages so more lower ranked players get to play a lot more matches on the big events. Compared to golf and other team sports, the 200th player just doesn't get many opportunities to play that many matches at big events.
Minor league sports make basically no money but still get funded due to proceeds from the big leagues, so something similar has to happen.

It's up to the tournaments to cut costs if the players demand more, and I'm sure it will happen. You probably won't have much of a reduction in top player prize money. But the majors make like 300-400 million in revenue, but they probably need to pay out, or pay the ATP tour double that for tennis to actually survive at the lower levels. Another system could be the tour signing players to contracts essentially and then operating through that kind of a model. That would increase the organizational power a lot although it may force a lot of lower end talents out, but if you can get higher end talents as a result, it's worth it.

Honestly the bigger problem than raw prize money is just the massive travel/hotel etc. costs which is unlike anything in other sports. Would probably be even more impactful for the tour to work out some arrangement where they can cover most of those costs in bulk. The whole thing just needs better organization.

Of course tennis has never been a particularly lucrative sport at the lower levels, but still got top talents, so the utter dearth of talent is probably a combination of tennis just being less popular relative to other sports and those other sports providing much more of a floor in terms of money.
 

Raz11

Professional
Minor league sports make basically no money but still get funded due to proceeds from the big leagues, so something similar has to happen.

It's up to the tournaments to cut costs if the players demand more, and I'm sure it will happen. You probably won't have much of a reduction in top player prize money. But the majors make like 300-400 million in revenue, but they probably need to pay out, or pay the ATP tour double that for tennis to actually survive at the lower levels. Another system could be the tour signing players to contracts essentially and then operating through that kind of a model. That would increase the organizational power a lot although it may force a lot of lower end talents out, but if you can get higher end talents as a result, it's worth it.

Honestly the bigger problem than raw prize money is just the massive travel/hotel etc. costs which is unlike anything in other sports. Would probably be even more impactful for the tour to work out some arrangement where they can cover most of those costs in bulk. The whole thing just needs better organization.

Of course tennis has never been a particularly lucrative sport at the lower levels, but still got top talents, so the utter dearth of talent is probably a combination of tennis just being less popular relative to other sports and those other sports providing much more of a floor in terms of money.
The major events already fund local lower events to some degree but there isn't enough money. The challenger tour also provides accommodation if I remember correctly so they do cover some of the costs.

The lower events could cover more costs but where does the money come from? Administrators and organiser don't take that big of a cut as others think so I think the big issue is that tennis as a whole just don't make a lot of revenue compared to other sports. NBA/NBL had yearly revenue around $9b while ATP I'm guessing would struggle to make $1b based on $150m figure for ATP alone outside of slams.

Everyone wants the lower players to survive but where does the money come from if the players and organisers already don't make that much relatively with no room to cut. Players will keep fighting for more share of the revenue and half of them will be fighting for it themselves rather than share with the lower players.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
There are thousands of tennis players at any given moment that would kill for a shot at being Fed’s punching bag for one match. And there always will be. But it’s pretty damn hard to find stars people pay to see. And they’re the only ones making money for the sport.

In golf, Tiger made everyone rich. And they know it. In tennis it’s Fed and Nadal and Serena. And everyone knows it
Since Tiger golf has eclipsed tennis. Yes, Tiger has made other golfer rich but golf was smart enough to spread the wealth through all tiers. You think tennis has do the same? Tiger impact on golf is greater that Fed, Nadal, and Serena impact combined.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Since Tiger golf has eclipsed tennis. Yes, Tiger has made other golfer rich but golf was smart enough to spread the wealth through all tiers. You think tennis has do the same? Tiger impact on golf is greater that Fed, Nadal, and Serena impact combined.


Golf is an even more elitist sport than tennis. Most regular people do not have easy access to a Golf Course. Even standard inner city hellholes have tennis courts these days. Poor kids have a chance to make it in tennis if their talent is recognised. That is virtually impossible in Golf.

Golf's "growth" only helps the rich get richer. It's a growing sport that see's no trickle down in accessibility to the poor, so who really cares how much money golf makes.
 

Bumbaliceps

Professional
Golf is an even more elitist sport than tennis. Most regular people do not have easy access to a Golf Course. Even standard inner city hellholes have tennis courts these days. Poor kids have a chance to make it in tennis if their talent is recognised. That is virtually impossible in Golf.

Golf's "growth" only helps the rich get richer. It's a growing sport that see's no trickle down in accessibility to the poor, so who really cares how much money golf makes.
I could play golf as a kid with my public primary school for free lol. Vive la France :cool:
But other than that miracle, yeah, golf is not even for upper class, it is for RICH people. No parents in the class could have afforded it.
 

Antónis

Professional
The AO model is a nice example of how it could be handled, minus the "pocket money" they handle to each player that gets to the main draw (that's why it's the happy slam...): travel expenses should be covered by the tournament's organization if a player comes from a far country and the prize money is too low, get the player a fair priced place to stay, for him and his coach - he doesn't need to be on a 5 star room, just get a deal with a decent hotel and he would be fine - propper racquet service (strings), physio, hand he/she should be ok
 

gn

G.O.A.T.
I think there should be different tiers like ranked 1-50, 51 -100,... etc.. and everyone should get a fixed yearly salary depending upon the tier they are in.
This should be at the top of prize money. It may solve the problem...
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
Golf is an even more elitist sport than tennis. Most regular people do not have easy access to a Golf Course. Even standard inner city hellholes have tennis courts these days. Poor kids have a chance to make it in tennis if their talent is recognised. That is virtually impossible in Golf.

Golf's "growth" only helps the rich get richer. It's a growing sport that see's no trickle down in accessibility to the poor, so who really cares how much money golf makes.
Tennis isn't much better than golf. Being able to play a bit in a "hellhole park" is light-years away from having your junior career financed.

Golf is more elitist, but tennis isn't very far behind. And it's only getting more extreme.

Poor kids do not have any chances in tennis. Name me ONE poor kid from NewGen or LostGen, or even BestGen that came from a trailer or a poor rural area or from just a lower class.

We have an increased number of wealthy-background players now, more than ever, and a worryingly high number of top 100 pros who are kids of former pros. Olgopolov, Korda, Ruud, it's becoming like Formula 1.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Tennis is in the death throes. It needs a full scale internal shake up to rescue it.
Tennis might be the worst sport for adopting a neoliberal approach to its business structure. All the money rises to the top and is kept up there. It's killed the pro sport and left us with one player in his late 20s the only player in his 20s with a slam and it took a pandemic to get there.
I could go on, but I'll spare you all.
I'm up for anyone ready to open up the sport to more young athletes and make tennis more accessible.
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
Tennis is in the death throes. It needs a full scale internal shake up to rescue it.
Tennis might be the worst sport for adopting a neoliberal approach to its business structure. All the money rises to the top and is kept up there. It's killed the pro sport and left us with one player in his late 20s the only player in his 20s with a slam and it took a pandemic to get there.
I could go on, but I'll spare you all.
I'm up for anyone ready to open up the sport to more young athletes and make tennis more accessible.
Absolutely. Tennis drips with elitism, we've only got rich kids becoming pros now, or at least a majority. This is not good at all.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Tennis isn't much better than golf. Being able to play a bit in a "hellhole park" is light-years away from having your junior career financed.

Golf is more elitist, but tennis isn't very far behind. And it's only getting more extreme.

Poor kids do not have any chances in tennis. Name me ONE poor kid from NewGen or LostGen, or even BestGen that came from a trailer or a poor rural area or from just a lower class.

We have an increased number of wealthy-background players now, more than ever, and a worryingly high number of top 100 pros who are kids of former pros.


How many stories do we hear about cash strapped Eastern European parents teaching their kids to play while living on a diet of bread and goulash, before their talent is identified by their National Federations and their junior training and career is subsidised?

That happens a lot in tennis. It doesn't happen at all in Golf. There is no comparison. Golf is 100% a rich mans sport. Because of the nature of Tennis Federations, poorer or less financially stable kids have a chance of getting into the sport if their talent is identified. It requires dedicated parents willing to put in the time and sacrifice, but it can be done and has been done often.
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
How many stories do we hear about cash strapped Eastern European parents teaching their kids to play, before their talent is identified by their National Federations and their junior training and career is subsidised.

That happens a lot in tennis. It doesn't happen at all in Golf. There is no comparison. Golf is 100% a rich mans sport. Because of the nature of Tennis Federations, poorer or less financially stable kids have a chance of getting into the sport if their talent is identified.
I didn't disagree that golf is more extreme. Golf is just a notch lower i.e. a little less ridiculous than Formula 1.

But even those Eastern European players are rarely from poorer backgrounds. So many top players are from wealthy backgrounds, it's extreme.

Djokovic for example may be poor compared to Fritz, but they were far wealthier than the average Serb family. In football and basketball you don't find even remotely this kind of elitism, it's a fact.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I didn't disagree that golf is more extreme. Golf is just a notch lower i.e. a little less ridiculous than Formula 1.

But even those Eastern European players are rarely from poorer backgrounds. So many top players are from wealthy backgrounds, it's ridiculous.

Djokovic for example may be poor compared to Fritz, but they were far wealthier than the average Serb family. In football and basketball you don't find even remotely this kind of elitism, it's a fact.


The argument is not that tennis isn't elitist though. Just that it's still a lot less elitist than Golf, which is true.
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
The argument is not that tennis isn't elitist though. Just that it's still a lot less elitist than Golf, which is true.
But that's a pathetic benchmark, like saying Ted Bundy is not so bad because he is less evil than Stalin.

We gain nothing by "realizing" that there are sports more elitist than tennis. That's a given. We need to compare tennis to less elitist sports.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Golf is an even more elitist sport than tennis. Most regular people do not have easy access to a Golf Course. Even standard inner city hellholes have tennis courts these days.

Golf's "growth" only helps the rich get richer. It's a growing sport that see's no trickle down in accessibility to the poor, so who really cares how much money golf makes.
Wow, maybe you need to venture out of your gated compound. One of the golf courses Woods played on growing up was in Compton. There are 5 public courses in the rough, tumble city of Long Beach, CA.

And the PGA tour has do more to reach out to "hellholes" as you so elegantly described than tennis. By the way: In 2019 the 200th ranked golfer, Sean O'Hair made $201,352.00. What did the 200th ranked tennis player do?
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
But that's a pathetic benchmark, like saying Ted Bundy is less evil than Stalin.

We gain nothing by "realizing" that there are sports more elitist than tennis. That's a given. We need to compare tennis to less elitist sports.

I'll take a sport where there is some chance of making it into without having to come from wealth, over a sport where the is No chance of making it if my family isn't loaded.

As far as "benchmarks" go, Tennis over Golf in the elitism stakes is one I can happily endorse. If it's pathetic to you, so be it. But the fact that there is still real opportunity for the less well off to make it in tennis isn't pathetic to me.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Wow, maybe you need to venture out of your gated compound. One of the golf courses Woods played on growing up was in Compton. There are 5 public courses in the rough, tumble city of Long Beach, CA.

And the PGA tour has do more to reach out to "hellholes" as you so elegantly described than tennis. By the way: In 2019 the 200th ranked golfer, Sean O'Hair made $201,352.00. What did the 200th ranked tennis player do?
$100,000 in prize money.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Wow, maybe you need to venture out of your gated compound. One of the golf courses Woods played on growing up was in Compton. There are 5 public courses in the rough, tumble city of Long Beach, CA.

And the PGA tour has do more to reach out to "hellholes" as you so elegantly described than tennis. By the way: In 2019 the 200th ranked golfer, Sean O'Hair made $201,352.00. What did the 200th ranked tennis player do?


If you say so. Still 100% a rich mans sport/pastime/hobby.
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
Here's a question. For said tournament, who decides what the prize money pool is going to be? What percentage of total sponsorship and TV rights is that?
I'm going to guess that all of this arguing over the prize money component is really a distraction from the bigger issue of what happens to the rest of the money ...
 

zipplock

Hall of Fame
If you say so. Still 100% a rich mans sport/pastime/hobby.
Both require money, but I think golf is way more expensive.
Public golf courses cost money to play, public courts are free.
Top golf equipment costs $thousands, tennis equipment costs $hundreds
Coaching is likely a wash.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Golf has actually become less elitist in recent years, tennis has become more.

They might meet eventually, on the same level.


It'll never be close. The costs involved just being able to afford equipment and regular access to courses means Golf will never be as accessible to even learn to a high level as tennis.

It's easier for non-rich parents to teach their kids tennis to get them to a point where their talent can be identified and subsidised. Equipment isn't as expensive and public courts are often free.
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
It'll never be close. The costs involved just being able to afford equipment and regular access to courses means Golf will never be as accessible to even learn to a high level as tennis.

It's easier for non-rich parents to teach their kids tennis to get them to a point where their talent can be identified and subsidised. Equipment isn't as expensive and public courts are often free.
The real issue in tennis is TRAVEL expenses not rackets and balls.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
The major events already fund local lower events to some degree but there isn't enough money. The challenger tour also provides accommodation if I remember correctly so they do cover some of the costs.

The lower events could cover more costs but where does the money come from? Administrators and organiser don't take that big of a cut as others think so I think the big issue is that tennis as a whole just don't make a lot of revenue compared to other sports. NBA/NBL had yearly revenue around $9b while ATP I'm guessing would struggle to make $1b based on $150m figure for ATP alone outside of slams.

Everyone wants the lower players to survive but where does the money come from if the players and organisers already don't make that much relatively with no room to cut. Players will keep fighting for more share of the revenue and half of them will be fighting for it themselves rather than share with the lower players.
They don't have to fund nearly as many players as the big team sports do, but they should be more lucrative than something like golf, which currently is not the case. The slams definitely generate over double of what the golf ones do, the general golf tour is probably more lucrative though. Anyways, in tennis the majors alone clear well over a billion I'm sure, probably closer to 1.5. Of course one problem is that they are men/women, men having their own separate majors would probably bring their tour more money. But anyways, even in the current situation there's plenty of room to get more if the players were properly organized. Like if the ATP signed contracts with each major to receive about 10 million fixed, and then turned around and used that money to fund like 50K extra in accommodations/salary for about 1000 players. Would make a massive difference. But there doesn't seem to be any will on the part of anyone important to do something like that.

Keep in mind that ATP revenue should be after the tournaments already pay out all the prize money (I may be wrong, but I think this is how it works), so that's pretty much all extra money to fund operational costs or help create a pipeline.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
The real issue in tennis is TRAVEL expenses not rackets and balls.

You have to start somewhere. Having easy access to equipment and courts to teach kids the fundamentals of the sport is key and foundational in tennis, and so much easier to achieve effectively than in Golf. You usually have to start that when they are 4 or 5 at least. They will still have several years of training before Juniors becomes even a possibility

You don't need to worry about TRAVEL expenses at that stage, especially if you live near a municipal court. You just have to be able to drill your kid on a court non-stop in shots and strokes. A few years of that, and hopefully your kid has shown enough talent for the sport that you can take him/her to your local Tennis Federation, and they can start to subsidise them for things like further coaching, junior tournament entry and travel expenses. Every country's Federation wants to produce tennis stars, and they like it when parents do the foundational work of identifying talent for them.
 

vex

Legend
Whenever I am on an American based forum, it is absolutely mind boggling to see the term communist get thrown around in any discussion relating wealth distribution. Between the various ideologies, I am sure there is a realm called the middle ground. Some of us crazy foreigners simply call them balanced ethical practices.

Having said the above, my comment is not directed to you. You provided arguments for both sides and that is a solid post.
You have to remember that a huge chunk of America is made up of folks with long histories of independent streaks. The kind of people that would risk thier lives and thier family’s lives crossing the Atlantic in search of opportunity. And for a long while their independence was reinforced with success. The free market works great with unlimited resources and expansion. But not so much in modern society where you’re just another number and one guys (Bezos) controls a third of the economy. So many folks can’t see the forest through the trees because they’re still living in 1950.
 
Last edited:

fox

Professional
To everyone who thinks taking money out of the qualifying rounds is good your all idiots. And this is the reason tennis will never be a popular sport because it’s simply not worth the financial risk for potentially amazing talents to play. Tennis will never be popular because it’s an elitist sport “stump on the little man”. Atp will be driven into the ground and in the next few years tennis will be less popular than it is now which is unimaginable as the crowds are not even fully pact in some 500 matches let alone 250. It’s a shame that one company can have more employees than a whole sport how is this possible? The Atp should be ashamed of themselves and so should whoever let this slide
Actually you are completely wrong. When players were paid less the level was much better in both WTA and ATP. Now you can be player like Kyrgios or Bouchard who make few good results and you are financially sufficient for the rest of your life.
 

Fedinkum

Legend
Actually you are completely wrong. When players were paid less the level was much better in both WTA and ATP. Now you can be player like Kyrgios or Bouchard who make few good results and you are financially sufficient for the rest of your life.
The two examples you provided are the exact players that need not to worry about the small early round prize money. These two played low level tennis not because they the early round prizes are high. These early round prize money are just changes in their pockets.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
You have to remember that a huge chunk of America is made up of folks with long histories of independent streaks. The kind of people that would risk thier lives and thier family’s lives crossing the Atlantic in search of opportunity. And for a long while their independence was reinforced with success. The free market works great with unlimited resources and expansion. But not so much in modern society where you’re just another number and one guys (Bezos) controls a third of the economy. So many folks can’t see the forest through the trees because they’re still living in 1950.
This really isn't a discussion about markets, communism, capitalism, etc just because the term "redistribution" is involved. The business model tennis runs is dumb and shortsighted in any economic system. No one is calling on the government to redistribute people's wealth here so it's not really a political discussion at all, we're calling for tennis as a private entity to do what's best for it and adopt a different pay structure like other private entities around the world in every industry conceivable all do to develop talent that will serve them well in the future.

The ATP paying lower ranked players more than they are worth in the current moment is not communism or socialism, and on the flip side the money distribution in tennis is not the natural byproduct of capitalism or neoliberalism or whatever buzz words people like using. This just really isn't a political discussion at all.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Golf is an even more elitist sport than tennis. Most regular people do not have easy access to a Golf Course. Even standard inner city hellholes have tennis courts these days. Poor kids have a chance to make it in tennis if their talent is recognised. That is virtually impossible in Golf.

Golf's "growth" only helps the rich get richer. It's a growing sport that see's no trickle down in accessibility to the poor, so who really cares how much money golf makes.
0-M797-1006.jpg


merlin_138906750_63b9076c-9542-4753-b7fa-d07e2d325ff5-articleLarge.jpg
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I'll second this.

This really isn't a discussion about markets, communism, capitalism, etc just because the term "redistribution" is involved. The business model tennis runs is dumb and shortsighted in any economic system. No one is calling on the government to redistribute people's wealth here so it's not really a political discussion at all, we're calling for tennis as a private entity to do what's best for it and adopt a different pay structure like other private entities around the world in every industry conceivable all do to develop talent that will serve them well in the future.

The ATP paying lower ranked players more than they are worth in the current moment is not communism or socialism, and on the flip side the money distribution in tennis is not the natural byproduct of capitalism or neoliberalism or whatever buzz words people like using. This just really isn't a political discussion at all.
 
Top