Excellent WSJ on the pay discrepancy in tennis

[Cobaine]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-tenniss-pay-gap-compares-to-other-sports-1408997701

I really think it's a travesty. There is a lot of money in tennis, and the players making the final 8 at tournaments have enough sponsorship money on top of their winnings for prize money to be reallocated more towards the early rounds and challenger tour tournaments.

The sport would be better off for so many reasons.

 

[Bartelby]

The problem is not that the better off a paid more, it is that the middle ranked players are not paid enough.

The problem in tennis is that it is not a team sport and the players are not organised so they accept what's on the table.

 

[booson]

True. Cash distribution is deplorable in tennis. That's a huge incentive for any player to do illicit things, like match fixing, doping, to encourage Omerta, etc. Nice way to manage things, ATP/ITF

 

[citybert]

No one has any idea what the true revenue take %wise is for players. I highly doubt its close to the somewhat 50/50 in the other sports but could be weong. It definitely should be more than now what it is. I do realize tennis doesnt have these crazy lucrative TV contracts that print money like the other sports.

 

[csmoove899]

The problem is that the players outside the top 10-20 have no leverage. Unfortunately if the Adrian Mannarino' s of the world decide to go on a strike, few people would miss them.

 

[Praetorian]

So what's the solution? Pay winners less? The unfortunate fact, is tennis is a pay per performance based sport. Don't want to be the 32nd highest paid tennis player, then be the 31st, or the 10th. They concentrate on football and basketball, but guess what, they basically get paid for the contracted amount of games, and say Romo blows it up, and becomes the best performing QB this year, he's still the 32nd highest paid player (until his contract is up). Point is the structure of the sports, is completely different, so you really can't compare the two. Could be worse; they could be bowlers

 

[Bartelby]

The split in slams is 30/70.

No one has any idea what the true revenue take %wise is for players. I highly doubt its close to the somewhat 50/50 in the other sports but could be weong. It definitely should be more than now what it is. I do realize tennis doesnt have these crazy lucrative TV contracts that print money like the other sports.

 

[Dave1982]

So what's the solution? Pay winners less? The unfortunate fact, is tennis is a pay per performance based sport. Don't want to be the 32nd highest paid tennis player, then be the 31st, or the 10th. They concentrate on football and basketball, but guess what, they basically get paid for the contracted amount of games, and say Romo blows it up, and becomes the best performing QB this year, he's still the 32nd highest paid player (until his contract is up). Point is the structure of the sports, is completely different, so you really can't compare the two. Could be worse; they could be bowlers

That's exactly right and unfortunately other than increasing the overall prize money pool there is very little which can be done about the situation.

The big issue is that the cost of travel, accommodation, coaching, medical etc are largely the same regardless of whether you are ranked number 1 in the world or number 100 (just as they are the same whether you are male or female but we can leave that fro another time) and additionally the ATP has absolutely no control over these costs. I'm sure the ATP would love to pay everyone on tour more but they are limited by revenue and available funds....which they can only distribute in prize money which has and always will be awarded proportionate to a players performance.

 

[Bartelby]

If there is a 30/70 split in favour of the business then the only way around it is for the players to organise themselves.

 

[smoledman]

People buy expensive Masters-1000 tickets to see the top 4 players mainly. Fed is a huge draw at every event.

 

[Dave1982]

People buy expensive Masters-1000 tickets to see the top 4 players mainly. Fed is a huge draw at every event.

So very true...love them or hate them, Fed, Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic are major draw cards for any tournament and their appeal stretches well beyond the tennis community. Unfortunately the other 99.9% are simply seen as a sideshow and who are only heard of outside pure tennis circles should they make a significant run at a Grand Slam.

 

[vernonbc]

So what's the solution? Pay winners less?

No, it's definitely not to pay winners less. They have played the most matches getting to the finals and they deserve to be handsomely rewarded for their achievements. The solution is for the organizers to take less and pay the lower ranked players more. The slams and the masters are making money hand over fist and even most of the 500's are doing very well too. They could definitely afford to put more money into the prize pool rather than into the pockets of their cronies on the board of directors. The players need to be better organized and to have a leader who will fight for them rather than cozy up to the management.

 

[Josh Lyman]

So what's the solution? Pay winners less? The unfortunate fact, is tennis is a pay per performance based sport. Don't want to be the 32nd highest paid tennis player, then be the 31st, or the 10th. They concentrate on football and basketball, but guess what, they basically get paid for the contracted amount of games, and say Romo blows it up, and becomes the best performing QB this year, he's still the 32nd highest paid player (until his contract is up). Point is the structure of the sports, is completely different, so you really can't compare the two. Could be worse; they could be bowlers

Golf is also a pay per performance sport. #1 in golf earned about the same as #1 in tennis, yet #32 in golf earns 3x more than #32 in tennis. Of course, golf has more prize money overall, which means their top players are taking a smaller percentage.

Maybe tennis should do the same.

 

[rh310]

I'll take the WSJ seriously on the subject of pay discrepancy when they turn their attention to CEO pay.

 

[PMChambers]

ITF and ATP do need to attempt to keep the quality of tennis as high as possible for the longevity of the sport. Currently they're developing a divide between player quality with the large discrepancies in the prize money. Without reasonable levels of pay there exist a significant unbalance in the level of coaching and support staff which does not occur with team sports. This allows established players and players backed by wealthy federations an advantage that can not be easily mitigated. One obvious observation with the top 5-6 players is they have extremely well structured teams around them, comprising technical coaches, physiological coaches, philological coaches, family network, organisers, etc. Players outside the top 16 are lucky to be able to travel with a coach and definitely struggle to have the family network around them. This gives a huge advantage to current top players and inhibits new players coming forward,especially during the development years. Martina suffered a lot from this during the 70's, she was noted for being a late bloomer, when in reality it was more due to being self taught and coached through much of her late teens and early twenties whilst on tour. She was extremely talent playing and training very raw, where as a player like Graf was trained and developed extensively before she even had to survive the tour. Although the jounior training and development will be determined by national schemes, having top 30 players unable to travel full time with coaching staff and physicians does hinder their development. Players like Fererer with his wife as a organiser, Murray with UK money and his mother guiding, Rafa and Nole both with extremely supportive family units ensuring they have one aim, to play the best rather, gives them an advantage that's hard to beat. IOn the end tennis should want to support the best players and that is done by making a level playing fieldso talent can rise rather than those able to be backed by national federations or already setup to concentrate on winning rather than booking rooms / transport / restring racquets / etc. The top players don't play for winnings money, they play for fame which earns them multiples in revenue through advertising. Lowering the winning and have a flatter winning will barely effect the Top players who's earnings don't come from direct winnings, rather the prestige attached to the win. The increasing in 1st & 2nd round loser at ITF events helps significantly and the countries that run the events who can subsides their national players helps development and the technology also helps to a degree, but the divide is obvious and very large and potentially keeping tennis what it always was, a prestige sport.

 

[rh310]

Tennis seems "star" driven to a greater extent than the big time team sports. There are a number of other dynamics that are different (e.g., inter-city rivalries) that, if WTT is any indication, do not increase popularity when transplanted to tennis.

I'll pay $500 for a courtside seat to see Federer and maybe a few other players. For everybody else, grounds admissions are good enough and I'll take what I can see with a much cheaper ticket. The price spread between those two tickets is probably a pretty close equivalent to the pay disparity.

It's inherent in the sport, in other words.

That said, given there's pretty good money in tennis it sucks that you can be the 200th best tennis player in the world and struggle to make a living. I haven't made a study of this or anything, but it seems there are very few fields where being the world 200th best at something means you can't make a living at it. 200th best programmer, accountant, politician, composer, football basketball or baseball player, etc. and you're doing OK.

 

[sureshs]

I'll take the WSJ seriously on the subject of pay discrepancy when they turn their attention to CEO pay.

CEOs deserve every cent they get. They are the ones putting dinner on the table for thousands of families.

 

[ollinger]

I like booson's post about how lesser paid players have incentive to fix matches. How does a guy who usually loses fix a match??

 

[sureshs]

it seems there are very few fields where being the world 200th best at something means you can't make a living at it. 200th best programmer, accountant, politician, composer, football basketball or baseball player, etc. and you're doing OK.

Not so for a poet, painter, sculptor, writer, actor, swimmer, marathon runner, javelin thrower, high jumper and so on.

 

[rh310]

CEOs deserve every cent they get. They are the ones putting dinner on the table for thousands of families.

Because Jack Welch said so.

 

[rh310]

Not so for a poet, painter, sculptor, writer, actor, swimmer, marathon runner, javelin thrower, high jumper and so on.

You must be going for post quantity, because you're missing on the quality side.

First, the 200th best actor in the world probably has at least one Oscar nomination, has been in at least 100 films, and is making a very fine living.

The 200th best writer has had a book on the NYT best seller list and is probably teaching in a college someplace and making a living.

If you bothered to read I mentioned the base of money that's in tennis. There isn't the same amount of money in javelin throwing, swimming, poetry, painting at least while the artist is alive, and high jumping. Try to compare apples to other apples, and not to cans of soup and boxes of dried noodles.

 

[sureshs]

You must be going for post quantity, because you're missing on the quality side.

First, the 200th best actor in the world probably has at least one Oscar nomination, has been in at least 100 films, and is making a very fine living.

The 200th best writer has had a book on the NYT best seller list and is probably teaching in a college someplace and making a living.

If you bothered to read I mentioned the base of money that's in tennis. There isn't the same amount of money in javelin throwing, swimming, poetry, painting at least while the artist is alive, and high jumping. Try to compare apples to other apples, and not to cans of soup and boxes of dried noodles.

You are the one missing on the quality side. There is no such thing as the 200th best writer. In tennis, no one can prevent you from being ranked 200th in the ATP if you continue to play. In writing, you could just languish in poverty because your book is not picked up by a big publisher or the theme is too serious for most readers. Same for poetry, acting, painting etc.

 

[jdubbs]

No one goes to see the 32nd ranked golfer, but he still makes $2M a year.

I have said for years that at the futures and challenger level, there isn't nearly enough money for people to develop into pros. It costs $140K/year on average just to tour, $3K prizes for first place in a challenger is a joke.

It basically takes rich parents or sponsors to succeed in pro tennis.

The pay discrepancy is a joke, and the USTA is stealing money from players, not to mention its a corrupt organization.

 

[jhhachamp]

You are the one missing on the quality side. There is no such thing as the 200th best writer. In tennis, no one can prevent you from being ranked 200th in the ATP if you continue to play. In writing, you could just languish in poverty because your book is not picked up by a big publisher or the theme is too serious for most readers. Same for poetry, acting, painting etc.

It's pretty clear that he meant the 200th most successful writer as there is no way to determine who is the 200th best writer...it is completely subjective. Besides that his post was spot on and I agree with him and disagree with you.

 

[rh310]

...it seems there are very few fields where being the world 200th best at something means you can't make a living at it. 200th best programmer, accountant, politician, composer, football basketball or baseball player, etc. and you're doing OK.

Not so for a poet, painter, sculptor, writer, actor, swimmer, marathon runner, javelin thrower, high jumper and so on.

The 200th best writer has had a book on the NYT best seller list and is probably teaching in a college someplace and making a living.

You are the one missing on the quality side. There is no such thing as the 200th best writer.

You're the one who introduced "writer" into the "200th best" list. I know post-count-maximizing trolls undervalue consistency in order to just hit "Submit reply" as many times as possible, but please at least try to be better than BP.

 

[sureshs]

You're the one who introduced "writer" into the "200th best" list. I know post-count-maximizing trolls undervalue consistency in order to just hit "Submit reply" as many times as possible, but please at least try to be better than BP.

I meant that the 200th best writer would not even be known as the 200th best because he/she could not get a break. It is not to be confused with the 200th writer on some list published by a magazine. Those are just the ones who made it.

If you look at it from a professional perspective, it is a little sad. On the other hand, if you consider that most tennis pros are minimally educated and essentially living an extended childhood, it is hard to feel sorry for them.

 

[TennisCJC]

CEOs deserve every cent they get. They are the ones putting dinner on the table for thousands of families.

Yes, and 25 years ago they were worth only 43 times the average worker's compensation and now they are worth 413 times the average worker's compensation. And, the only logical explanation to explain this discrepancy in compensation growth is the CEOs have improved their performance a roughly 1,000 percent in the last 25 years when compared the the performance improvement of the average worker.

Geez, let those workers eat cake.

 

[Devilito]

you guys need to stop comparing golf to tennis. Tennis is a sport, golf is a lifestyle. Sooner you realize this fact, easier it is for you to see why there is way more money in golf.

 

[rh310]

I meant that the 200th best writer would not even be known as the 200th best because he/she could not get a break. It is not to be confused with the 200th writer on some list published by a magazine. Those are just the ones who made it.

Man, you just keep stepping on your own toes.

When you start quantitative ranking, you are obviously selecting some ordinal value(s) to rank ON. Otherwise you simply can't do it.

For all you know, the "actual" 200th "best" tennis player is some teaching pro in Bumdraft, Iowa who didn't have access to the money needed to get him through challengers and up through the ranks. So he didn't get a break either, and maybe he's not the only one who will never earn the spot his talent alone warrants on the ATP ranking list.

So we're stuck with the ATP rankings and earnings. You want to stipulate the ATP rankings list as authoritative for tennis player talent, but argue against using an equivalent list for writers?

OK, fine. But I just can't take you seriously. Join BP and a few others on a little list of my own that I maintain.

 

[booson]

Suresh definitely must post somewhere else :lol:

 

[jm1980]

CEOs deserve every cent they get. They are the ones putting dinner on the table for thousands of families.

While taking dinner out of the table for thousands of other families.

 

[jhhachamp]

Man, you just keep stepping on your own toes.

When you start quantitative ranking, you are obviously selecting some ordinal value(s) to rank ON. Otherwise you simply can't do it.

For all you know, the "actual" 200th "best" tennis player is some teaching pro in Bumdraft, Iowa who didn't have access to the money needed to get him through challengers and up through the ranks. So he didn't get a break either, and maybe he's not the only one who will never earn the spot his talent alone warrants on the ATP ranking list.

So we're stuck with the ATP rankings and earnings. You want to stipulate the ATP rankings list as authoritative for tennis player talent, but argue against using an equivalent list for writers?

OK, fine. But I just can't take you seriously. Join BP and a few others on a little list of my own that I maintain.

You have officially owned him and nothing else needs to be said. Good posts.

 

[r2473]

No one goes to see the 32nd ranked golfer, but he still makes $2M a year .

Thank you Tiger Woods for being American and getting "Joe six pack" interested in golf (for a while).

I have said for years that at the futures and challenger level, there isn't nearly enough money for people to develop into pros. It costs $140K/year on average just to tour, $3K prizes for first place in a challenger is a joke.

It basically takes rich parents or sponsors to succeed in pro tennis.

The pay discrepancy is a joke, and the USTA is stealing money from players, not to mention its a corrupt organization.

Why couldn't you have been American Roger Federer / Rafael Nadal. We could have all been rich.

 

[sureshs]

For all you know, the "actual" 200th "best" tennis player is some teaching pro in Bumdraft, Iowa who didn't have access to the money needed to get him through challengers and up through the ranks. So he didn't get a break either, and maybe he's not the only one who will never earn the spot his talent alone warrants on the ATP ranking list.

I knew you would say that, but it doesn't work that way. You think you are very logical, but there is much subtlety you are missing. There is no actual 200th type tennis talent in Bumfort. You can't have that talent and keep it to yourself in tennis while still being a tennis pro, because it will come out during play.

That is not the case in the arts where a poet or writer can remain secluded for decades and go without recognition.

 

[sureshs]

While taking dinner out of the table for thousands of other families.

Is that based on facts, or just something you wrote because it sounds good?

BTW, I never understood why CEO/worker money ratio of 43 is OK and 413 or whatever is bad. I think in Switzerland, there was a proposal to limit the ratio to 9:1.

What makes a certain ratio good and another bad? Ratios are inherently applicable only to linear situations. If the talent level or demand level is exponentially greater, ratios don't tell the story.

As an example, take Federer and some guy he regularly beats like Matosevic. Federer makes 100 times the money in one year than Matosevic does through sponsorships. That doesn't mean he is 100 times better than Matosevic or works 100 times more than him. It means his demand and perceived value is 100 times more. The same with CEOs and employees. The sincere guy in the cubicle may work as many hours as the CEO but he is simply not that much in demand based on his talent and skills and he just does not have that much impact.

 

[jhhachamp]

Is that based on facts, or just something you wrote because it sounds good?

BTW, I never understood why CEO/worker money ratio of 43 is OK and 413 or whatever is bad. I think in Switzerland, there was a proposal to limit the ratio to 9:1.

What makes a certain ratio good and another bad? Ratios are inherently applicable only to linear situations. If the talent level or demand level is exponentially greater, ratios don't tell the story.

As an example, take Federer and some guy he regularly beats like Matosevic. Federer makes 100 times the money in one year than Matosevic does through sponsorships. That doesn't mean he is 100 times better than Matosevic or works 100 times more than him. It means his demand and perceived value is 100 times more. The same with CEOs and employees. The sincere guy in the cubicle may work as many hours as the CEO but he is simply not that much in demand based on his talent and skills and he just does not have that much impact.

For once I agree with you.

 

[booson]

I knew you would say that, but it doesn't work that way. You think you are very logical, but there is much subtlety you are missing. There is no actual 200th type tennis talent in Bumfort. You can't have that talent and keep it to yourself in tennis while still being a tennis pro, because it will come out during play.

That is not the case in the arts where a poet or writer can remain secluded for decades and go without recognition.

This is not a statement you can prove at all. You should leave this line of debate.

 

[Bartelby]

There is an oligarchy of interchangeable executive talent who each have a role in determining each other's salary through renumeration committees and the like and, however imperfect, ratios are one way of curbing oligarchical power.

Is that based on facts, or just something you wrote because it sounds good?

BTW, I never understood why CEO/worker money ratio of 43 is OK and 413 or whatever is bad. I think in Switzerland, there was a proposal to limit the ratio to 9:1.

What makes a certain ratio good and another bad? Ratios are inherently applicable only to linear situations. If the talent level or demand level is exponentially greater, ratios don't tell the story.

As an example, take Federer and some guy he regularly beats like Matosevic. Federer makes 100 times the money in one year than Matosevic does through sponsorships. That doesn't mean he is 100 times better than Matosevic or works 100 times more than him. It means his demand and perceived value is 100 times more. The same with CEOs and employees. The sincere guy in the cubicle may work as many hours as the CEO but he is simply not that much in demand based on his talent and skills and he just does not have that much impact.

 

[Dave1982]

To compare what the 32nd ranked Golfer earns per year as opposed to what the 32nd ranked tennis player earns, whilst an easy comparison to make, doesn't really support the argument in my opinion. What it highlights to me is that the PGA is doing a far superior job in terms of attracting sponsors and increasing their tournaments overall prize pools.

The danger of such comparisons are the potential impact it could have on children and competitive participation numbers of teenagers in the sport. It's no secret that to be a touring professional tennis player it costs a lot of money and many talented juniors are reliant on funding (in Australia from Tennis Australia and Aus Sports Commission).
It's difficult to see an obvious solution because if we continue to compare to golf and adopt the PGA model then what, do we have a US tour, a Euro tour and Asia Tour and only crossover of tours is at the majors and by the absolute elite (top 10)??

 

[Bartelby]

You are just assuming the PGA is doing a better job, but you simply can not draw that inference from prize payment levels.

To compare what the 32nd ranked Golfer earns per year as opposed to what the 32nd ranked tennis player earns, whilst an easy comparison to make, doesn't really support the argument in my opinion. What it highlights to me is that the PGA is doing a far superior job in terms of attracting sponsors and increasing their tournaments overall prize pools.

The danger of such comparisons are the potential impact it could have on children and competitive participation numbers of teenagers in the sport. It's no secret that to be a touring professional tennis player it costs a lot of money and many talented juniors are reliant on funding (in Australia from Tennis Australia and Aus Sports Commission).
It's difficult to see an obvious solution because if we continue to compare to golf and adopt the PGA model then what, do we have a US tour, a Euro tour and Asia Tour and only crossover of tours is at the majors and by the absolute elite (top 10)??

 

[Bartelby]

Yes, this is a sure sign of oligarchical power.

Yes, and 25 years ago they were worth only 43 times the average worker's compensation and now they are worth 413 times the average worker's compensation. And, the only logical explanation to explain this discrepancy in compensation growth is the CEOs have improved their performance a roughly 1,000 percent in the last 25 years when compared the the performance improvement of the average worker.

Geez, let those workers eat cake.

 

[sundaypunch]

No one goes to see the 32nd ranked golfer, but he still makes $2M a year.

I have said for years that at the futures and challenger level, there isn't nearly enough money for people to develop into pros. It costs $140K/year on average just to tour, $3K prizes for first place in a challenger is a joke.

It basically takes rich parents or sponsors to succeed in pro tennis.

The pay discrepancy is a joke, and the USTA is stealing money from players, not to mention its a corrupt organization.

I agree with this. The problem is that futures and challenger tournaments are a product that generate little to no interest. With such low revenue, paying decent prize money is basically charity. The assumption is usually that the USTA should be funding this charity.

The big picture is that the USTA has no real reason to do this. Almost all of their money comes from the US Open. This cash cow will keep the hundreds of millions coming in each year regardless of how much or little is spent on futures and challengers. This money also will keep pouring in even the the number of quality players from the USA keeps dwindling.

 

[sureshs]

There is an oligarchy of interchangeable executive talent who each have a role in determining each other's salary through renumeration committees and the like and, however imperfect, ratios are one way of curbing oligarchical power.

That is true, but the keyword is talent. Dilberts don't have that talent and risk taking capacity, but their CEOs have. It is an exponential gap. It is not about who is good or bad.

 

[Dave1982]

You are just assuming the PGA is doing a better job, but you simply can not draw that inference from prize payment levels.

What I mean is, the US PGA are US focused....the ATP are global....straight away that means higher cost to participating players....comparing golf and tennis is dumb...

If we want to institute a PGA model to ATP then we have seperate Euro, US, ASIA etc tours....