Federer wants 2 million euros to play Basel next year.

[World Beater]

so the bottom line..is that federer is greedy, LOL?

but the tournament..NO...they use all their profits to develop swiss tennis professionals.

LMAO.

At least federer does some charity, and whatever the motivation - people do benefit tremendously in these countries from his superstar status.

There are so many rich people who dont donate a single cent.

Federer is hardly a villain.

It has long been documented that tournaments are making most of the money, and men in suits reap the most benefit...

Tennis player prize money and fees have been shafted relative to other sports.

 

[Crisstti]

I don't agree with it, and I do think he's being greedy, but please, megalomania? This from a Nadal fan? You know the guy who has such a sense of his own importance he still after being a pro for over 10 years can't lsiten to the umpire calling time, you know cos he decides when he does anything, everyone else can wait on his highness. The guy who complains if the court isn't playing to his liking so gets a GS final psotponed. The guy who demands a tournament change the surface or he won't play cos it's a bit slippery. The guy who demands to see the tornament director when the umpire won't buy his rubbish about not challenging a call when he clearly did (I know Crisstii will have a go at me here but she never actually says what she thinks happened here)

Aww, you seemed so in favour of Rafa lately, don't ruin it

Rafa never said he didn't challenge the call, and really, you should be the one providing some proof he did since it's you making the claim.

I get it that you don't speak Spanish so you haven't seen what he's said about it, but the fact is, you're merely speculating when you say he denied making the challenge, an assumption you shouldn't be making 'cause you've got no basis for it really.

What happened was, Rafa made the gesture asking for a challenge indicating Bird's shot was out, and while he was doing that Bernardes called it out himself. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Berdych was the one who ended up actually using one of his challenges then against Bernardes' call.
When it turned out the ball was in, Rafa was saying the point should be replayed because Bernardes' calling the ball out hadn't allowed for Rafa's challenge to be used, and therefore it shouldn't count.

A technicality if you want, but he didn't deny having made the challenge in the first place. Berdych seemed to understand it the same way Nadal did since he complained when Bernardes overruled (if the effect was the same as if Rafa was using a challenge, then there was nothing for him to complain about).

 

[pame]

Greedy Swiss.. Wants extra money to play in front of his home crowd? Dont you have enough career prize money clown??? Hell I would play for free in front of my home country if need be if I had his bank account


Why this arrogant snob has fans I will never know. Hes a complete DUD

First, you'd have to have his talent, not his bank account

 

[pame]

If I were Fed, I'd just abort negotiations, and leave the business suits of Basel to try to stage the tournament based on the empty arenas that were on display during the recent tournament. Only when Fed was playing was the arena filled to the rafters

 

[Crisstti]

Here is one video with subtitles (in Spanish) which helps, though I'm not sure they're completely accurate. It's odd, because it seems Bernardes is saying Nadal loses the point not because he called a challenge first, but because his return ball was out and him (Bernardes) called Berdych's shot out too late.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u3PbtBEN3w

After Rafa lifts his hand and Bernardes calls the ball out:

Berdych: He can ask for the challenge, why do you take the point away from me?.
Bernardes: You can challenge too.
Bernardes gives the point to Rafa, Berdych challenges.
Bernardes (to Berdych): He loses the point, he loses the point. (to Nadal) hey Rafa, you lose the point, after I (called the ball out?).
Nadal: you called it out.
Bernardes: yes, after returning the ball. I said out and the ball is out after you return it.
Nadal: but I've put it in.
Bernardes: I called it late.
Nadal: but I put it back in. What match are you watching Carlos?, I've returned the ball in.
I don't want to play (hehe). Carlos, you're telling me a "barbaridad" (something that is nonsense or outrageous).
Bernardes: not a barbaridad.
Nadal: well, you're telling me something insane.

I know there's a video where Rafa talks about it in the press conference.

 

[Towser83]

Aww, you seemed so in favour of Rafa lately, don't ruin it

Rafa never said he didn't challenge the call, and really, you should be the one providing some proof he did since it's you making the claim.

I get it that you don't speak Spanish so you haven't seen what he's said about it, but the fact is, you're merely speculating when you say he denied making the challenge, an assumption you shouldn't be making 'cause you've got no basis for it really.

What happened was, Rafa made the gesture asking for a challenge indicating Bird's shot was out, and while he was doing that Bernardes called it out himself. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Berdych was the one who ended up actually using one of his challenges then against Bernardes' call.
When it turned out the ball was in, Rafa was saying the point should be replayed because Bernardes' calling the ball out hadn't allowed for Rafa's challenge to be used, and therefore it shouldn't count.

A technicality if you want, but he didn't deny having made the challenge in the first place. Berdych seemed to understand it the same way Nadal did since he complained when Bernardes overruled (if the effect was the same as if Rafa was using a challenge, then there was nothing for him to complain about).

Well I'm fine with rafa, just don't like certain Rafa fans obsessively insulting other players when you can find fault in everyone. Like I find in Federer here. You're not one of those fans, but I still disagree here. I mean he went to challenge, whether the umpire intervenes or not, at the point you challenge you are electing to use one of your challenges and if you are wrong you lose the challenge.

You're right, the umpire over-ruled and Berdych had to challenge (Umpire basically made a mistake) but Nadal shouldn't benifit because he wrongly over-ruled instead of accepting Nadal's challenge. Don't know if I'm explaining my point well enough, but basically once you challenge it shouldn't matter what the umpire does, really he should have not made the over-rule, but the fact that he did does not change the fact nadal challenged first.

And he did deny it afterwards

http://www.rafaholics.com/2010/11/wtf-press-conference-berdych-match.html

Q. To ask about that point again. I think Tomas' argument was that you had challenged already, that you had stopped play.
RAFAEL NADAL: I didn't have a challenge. He called the ball out. Maybe I stopped a little bit because the ball was really close.

Q. You put your hand up.
RAFAEL NADAL: I did something like this (putting hand up), but I never say stop. To stop the point, you have to say you stop. I did something like this (holding hand up) but it's intuition because I saw the ball out. That's the true.
But after I saw the umpire saying out, so I didn't see if my ball came inside or not. But if I don't see the umpire saying out, I gonna continue the point for sure because is a big risk for me to say the ball is out, you know.

So I don't get what his argument is. It clearly looked like a challenge and would probably put the opponent off, plus the umpire.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not outto get Nadal and most of the time I don't think he would do anything intentionally wrong. I don't even undrstand why he did it because I don't think he would intentionally try to cheat, I can only assume he thought "the umpire called it out.. if only i didn't put my hand up it would be a replay.. maybe I didn't really make an obvious challenge?.. can I argue I didn't challenge"

But the thing I didn't like the most was the fuss he made out of it, wouldn't blame him if he questioned it and then said "ok"

Here is one video with subtitles (in Spanish) which helps, though I'm not sure they're completely accurate. It's odd, because it seems Bernardes is saying Nadal loses the point not because he called a challenge first, but because his return ball was out and him (Bernardes) called Berdych's shot out too late.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u3PbtBEN3w

After Rafa lifts his hand and Bernardes calls the ball out:

Berdych: He can ask for the challenge, why do you take the point away from me?.
Bernardes: You can challenge too.
Bernardes gives the point to Rafa, Berdych challenges.
Bernardes (to Berdych): He loses the point, he loses the point. (to Nadal) hey Rafa, you lose the point, after I (called the ball out?).
Nadal: you called it out.
Bernardes: yes, after returning the ball. I said out and the ball is out after you return it.
Nadal: but I've put it in.
Bernardes: I called it late.
Nadal: but I put it back in. What match are you watching Carlos?, I've returned the ball in.
I don't want to play (hehe). Carlos, you're telling me a "barbaridad" (something that is nonsense or outrageous).
Bernardes: not a barbaridad.
Nadal: well, you're telling me something insane.

I know there's a video where Rafa talks about it in the press conference.

Well this suggests that Nadal lost the point because his shot after Berdych's was out, and nadal is saying it was in, which may be so. If that's so, I can see his point, because then the umpire is saying he lost a point not because of a challenge was wrong but a shot he played was out which maybe it wasn't.

But later he did deny challenging in his interview. Plus afterwards surely he would think "well i did challenge and I was wrong so I did deserve to lose the point even though I lost it for the wrong reason" Whatever, he went diva as I've seen many other players do :lol:

 

[Crisstti]

Well I'm fine with rafa, just don't like certain Rafa fans obsessively insulting other players when you can find fault in everyone. Like I find in Federer here. You're not one of those fans, but I still disagree here. I mean he went to challenge, whether the umpire intervenes or not, at the point you challenge you are electing to use one of your challenges and if you are wrong you lose the challenge.

You're right, the umpire over-ruled and Berdych had to challenge (Umpire basically made a mistake) but Nadal shouldn't benifit because he wrongly over-ruled instead of accepting Nadal's challenge. Don't know if I'm explaining my point well enough, but basically once you challenge it shouldn't matter what the umpire does, really he should have not made the over-rule, but the fact that he did does not change the fact nadal challenged first.

And he did deny it afterwards

http://www.rafaholics.com/2010/11/wtf-press-conference-berdych-match.html

So I don't get what his argument is. It clearly looked like a challenge and would probably put the opponent off, plus the umpire.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not outto get Nadal and most of the time I don't think he would do anything intentionally wrong. I don't even undrstand why he did it because I don't think he would intentionally try to cheat, I can only assume he thought "the umpire called it out.. if only i didn't put my hand up it would be a replay.. maybe I didn't really make an obvious challenge?.. can I argue I didn't challenge"

But the thing I didn't like the most was the fuss he made out of it, wouldn't blame him if he questioned it and then said "ok"

Well, he didn't deny making the gesture. He appears to be thinking it doesn't count as a challenge because he didn't get to actually say anything before the ball was called out (and it was called out pretty much while he was lifting his hand).

Both Berdych and Bernardes seem to agree about that, since it's Berdych who has to end up challenging, and Bernardes says Rafa loses the point because his return was out (which it wasn't) and not because he had made a challenge.

It's really a mess that Bernardes created there. I do agree Rafa made too big a deal out of it, even though technically it seems to me he was right.

Good thing he didn't actually sat on the chair when he said he didn't want to play, lol.

Well this suggests that Nadal lost the point because his shot after Berdych's was out, and nadal is saying it was in, which may be so. If that's so, I can see his point, because then the umpire is saying he lost a point not because of a challenge was wrong but a shot he played was out which maybe it wasn't.

But later he did deny challenging in his interview. Plus afterwards surely he would think "well i did challenge and I was wrong so I did deserve to lose the point even though I lost it for the wrong reason" Whatever, he went diva as I've seen many other players do :lol:

Here's what Nadal says in Spanish afterwards (he still seems mad there, lol). He does seem to think what you say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V77rRdiJ-kI&playnext=1&list=PLCE3C4D95306B9F86&feature=results_video

The journalist has clearly asked him to explain what happened.
Nadal: You're telling something that is obvious...
Journalist: no, no, I don't know...
Nadal: don't make me answer things which are obvious. Carlos Bernardes calls it out. Berdych says "challenge". And Berdych complains that he has asked for the challenge, that Bernardes has called the ball out because I had called it out. That is the first thing (smiles).
Probably, the most fair thing is that the point is his (Berdych's). But with everything that happened afterwards, the point should have been replayed.

 

[tennis_pro]

You ask me, Federer is looking for an excuse to withdraw from Basel. I think if he wasn't Swiss he would probably play Tokyo or Beijing instead and then give it a better shot at the Paris Masters. Basel screwed up his chances of ending the year at no 1, basically.

As I said before, Federer's name in the draw is HUGE for the tournament. HE IS THE TOURNAMENT. And lol at Murray who initially wanted to take part (twice in fact) but withdrew both times. Guess the tourny wasn't "big enough" for him to participate. IMO Djokovic played Basel cause he wanted to have a shot at beating Federer at home, in fact he played him tough both times they played each other there (in the 2009 and 2010 finals where Djokovic was half the man he is now).

Take Federer's name out of the draw and Basel is done, Djokovic won't bother to come, Murray won't (not like he has but this time he won't even put his name on the entry list). If I were the organizer I'd give everything Federer wanted to have him in the draw.

 

[Crisstti]

But later he did deny challenging in his interview. Plus afterwards surely he would think "well i did challenge and I was wrong so I did deserve to lose the point even though I lost it for the wrong reason" Whatever, he went diva as I've seen many other players do :lol:

Maybe he did, but he didn't deny doing anything he did do. He's saying it didn't count as a challenge, and that isn't what he's arguing with Bernardes nor why he lost the point...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

The 2 mill is still a rumour right?

 

[sportsfan1]

I have read this in the news. However, a lot of things don't make sense:

1) If Fed want's out of Basel (which he probably should with the current Basel-Paris-WTF back to back schedule, since it makes more sense to compete at Paris-Bercy for more points), surely he can just say "No, can't play, scheduling doesn't permit". This would be better than alienating fans and hurting the brand with negative press by coming across as greedy for extra dough.

2)Why does he even want to play Basel, even if he's offered 2 mil, presumably he doesn't need the extra money now?

3) Basel has been around for a bit, it lists "sampras, edberg, becker etc " as past champions, so probably would still be a viable tournament?

 

[akv89]

Don't see what the problem is. Federer has a right to name his price and the tournament has a right to refuse. They don't owe each other anything.

 

[Towser83]

Maybe he did, but he didn't deny doing anything he did do. He's saying it didn't count as a challenge, and that isn't what he's arguing with Bernardes nor why he lost the point...

well I think his gesture was a clear challenge. Even if he didn't say stop it is easy for an opponent or umpire to think he did, so what he did was a clear distraction at least. Plus he turned away from the net, he knew it was a challenge and Berdych thought so too, I'm pretty sure he was confused at first but then decided to challenge as well.

Plus not to put you on the spot, but you've said many times he did not deny he challenged and now I posted an uinterview where he DOES deny it. You didn't say "yes he denied he challenged because he wasn't challenging it"

 

[Achilles82]

1) If Fed want's out of Basel (which he probably should with the current Basel-Paris-WTF back to back schedule, since it makes more sense to compete at Paris-Bercy for more points), surely he can just say "No, can't play, scheduling doesn't permit". This would be better than alienating fans and the brand

That's exactly what he should say, and would say if scheduling was the reason. Just like he didn't want to play Davis Cup for the same reason - rough scheduling.


I think the real reason is new ATP schedule basel - paris - WTF in a row. And if he plays basel, then that would mean he needs to skip Paris basically, especially for his age, it would be too much to play all three tournaments.

 

[Crisstti]

well I think his gesture was a clear challenge. Even if he didn't say stop it is easy for an opponent or umpire to think he did, so what he did was a clear distraction at least. Plus he turned away from the net, he knew it was a challenge and Berdych thought so too, I'm pretty sure he was confused at first but then decided to challenge as well.

Looks like what he was intending to do as well.

Plus not to put you on the spot, but you've said many times he did not deny he challenged and now I posted an uinterview where he DOES deny it. You didn't say "yes he denied he challenged because he wasn't challenging it"

Not sure I understand what you mean. He made a gesture that sure looked like he was challenging. He didn't consider that should count as a challenge 8and it didn't) because of Bernardes overrule.

He did say it was fair for Berdych to get the point, if he was denying making at all any kind of challenge or something that looked like it, it wouldn't make any sense for him to say that.

 

[Bobby Jr]

And Nadal has NEVER asked for money to play in Barcelona. He plays there since he loves to play in his home country. Nadal has that duty. Looks like Federer doesn't appear to like or even care about his country ..

You can't prove any of this.

As usual, you're just typing out your rear end.

 

[tacou]

I don't understand why he wouldn't want to play Basel. He is playing great tennis but realistically he's got 3-4 more seasons max. After that, he never gets the chance to play there again.

Surely 500,000 is an acceptable APPEARANCE fee, plus prize money.

 

[Bartelby]

Paris is preferable to Basel and he missed it this year and next year he will have to choose between the two again, so Basel lucked out.

 

[Mustard]

IMO Djokovic played Basel cause he wanted to have a shot at beating Federer at home, in fact he played him tough both times they played each other there (in the 2009 and 2010 finals where Djokovic was half the man he is now).

Djokovic beat Federer in the 2009 Basel final.

 

[MasturB]

How much they paying him? Do you have any source?

Fed is huge in China. He was probably the most rooted for player during the Masters Cup when it was there in Shanghai a few years ago.

There's no reason for him to play that tournament. I suggest the only way he continues playing it is if he gets a nice appearance fee.

 

[MasturB]

I love how everyone judges athletes for wanting more money.

Say what you want about how greedy they might be or how much they're asking for, but these guys have a shelf life of about 15 years on the tour making moneyif they're lucky. After that, their income in retirement comes from investments, etc. and in some cases guys like McEnroe become full time commentators.

Most guys on tour don't even play as long as Fed has, and will never evne make 10% of Fed's career earnings.

Fed has built his own brand, and since this is an individual sport he certainly has the right to do whatever he wants to do as long as it's within the rules. I don't see him breaking any rules.

DOes it seem snobbish that he's asking his "hometown" tournament for more money? Sure, but after these guys retire their income will extremely vary. Hopefully Fed has a smart money manager. Borg went broke to the point he had to sell his trophies right?

He's just trying to use whatever brand value he has left before his ranking deteriorates and he's just a touring "veteran" on the tour and not a top draw. The exo's are his excuse to travel to these countries he's never really been to before AND get paid for it.

 

[SwankPeRFection]

2M after not winning this year is a bit steep. Had he won, he'd have a leg to stand on... sort of.

As for why he needs the extra money.... Seems Rafa has gotten really good at playing poker while being away from the tennis world. Rumor has it that Rafa beat Roger out of a lot of pocket change one night during boy's poker night in.

 

[nethawkwenatchee]

I agree with the other posts on Federer's behalf. He is a guy who has never done things just for the money. Hell, he lives and pays taxes in Switzerland and could have easily moved to Monaco (Tax Haven) to save tens of millions of dollars over his career. We have no idea how much was asked of the tournament and they must feel threatened enough to feed this non-sense (over money) because they've caught word that he's thinning out his schedule next season. It will be interesting to see how Roger responds to the tournament director's actions.

 

[Bartelby]

Some cantons in Switzerland are most excellent tax havens.

 

[GoodVibrations]

Why are people even bothering trying to defend him? Just admit he's being a total money grubber. You can still like someone in spite of their flaws.

 

[pame]

I don't understand why he wouldn't want to play Basel. He is playing great tennis but realistically he's got 3-4 more seasons max. After that, he never gets the chance to play there again.

Surely 500,000 is an acceptable APPEARANCE fee, plus prize money.

You really think it is when another player is getting 750,000 for turning up at a 250 tournament - and at least one other player was, according to another report, asking 1 mil for appearing at Basel (organizers asked another player instead)

Look at the stands at Basel when Federer is playing, and when he isn't? Who brings in the money to cover his appearance fee AND makes a profit for the organisers?

One could speculate that tournament director Brenwald, wants to make more gravy for himself while exploiting Fed's pull, before he sells the tournament to Roger

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I hope the tournament refuses. Fed won't be worth that much at the grand old age of 32 at any event (much less a 500). But of course, we all know Fed is completely megalomaniac. Personally, I'm totally looking forward to a Djoko-Murray final in Basel next year

Well, what does that make Nadal and his Queen's stint?

At least Federer has some legitimate excuse for asking that much. After all, he is the reason why the tournament in Basel is what it is. Both financially and as prestige. Unlike your hero.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The British government taxes the worldwide sponsorship deals of sports stars. Nadal would have lost money by participating at Queen's Club if he had lost before the quarter finals, because the prize money for early round losers wouldn't have been as much as the money lost due to the government taxes on his worldwide deals. In Halle, there was no risk of him losing money even if he had lost his first match, because they only tax on prize money and sponsorship deals made whilst in Germany.

And Federer actually lost money by playing in Basel insted in Paris. For Years.

Despite this tax bureaucracy, Nadal competed at Queen's Club in 2010 and 2011 when that particular law on worldwide deals was in force, and risked losing cash.

Despite losing money Federer played regularly in Basel. He actually lost cash.

The biggest tax controversy involving Nadal was when a company run by his dad was registered in the Basque country, where there's a lower tax band. The company was later forced to relocate to Mallorca by the Spanish tax authorities.

Yes, we know about the shady deals of Nadal's clan.

All in all. There is absolutely no resemblance between the two situations.
But, of course, *******s (and Mustards :roll: ) are calling Federer out, because they smell elephant.

 

[Mustard]

And Federer actually lost money by playing in Basel insted in Paris. For Years.

That's not what I meant, and you know it. Nadal's situation wasn't a case of one tournament from one week paying more than another tournament from another week, but a case of two tournaments running in the same week, one of which where he would lose money if he lost in one of his first two matches. The Federer case you mentioned is a case of Federer choosing Basel and being knackered for Paris, or not wanting to play Paris after Basel.

Despite losing money Federer played regularly in Basel. He actually lost cash.

How did Federer lose cash from taxes on his worldwide sponsorship deals and the prize money of the tournament not covering the losses, like Nadal risked at Queen's Club in 2010 and 2011?

Yes, we know about the shady deals of Nadal's clan.

All in all. There is absolutely no resemblance between the two situations.
But, of course, *******s (and Mustards :roll: ) are calling Federer out, because they smell elephant.

I'm calling out the hypocrisy. If this story had been Nadal demanding $2 million in appearance fees, the boards would be flooded with anti-Nadal threads.

 

[sureshs]

Don't see what the problem is. Federer has a right to name his price and the tournament has a right to refuse. They don't owe each other anything.

It is not as simple as that. The appearance fees are borderline illegal. It has always been a gray issue whether players need to report them and pay taxes.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Very Surprising Fed would do this!! very unlike him! Kind of disappointing to be honest

 

[World Beater]

So many jealous people in this thread..

nobody is asking you to give money to roger, or to buy tickets to his matches.

If you think $2 m is high, then dont buy tickets to Basel. Or better yet, dont even watch his matches on television.

Its quite simple.

 

[Netspirit]

What a bunch of greedy weenies here. For ATP pros tennis is a profession, job and career. They manage it themselves for their own benefit.

Who are you people to tell Federer how much he is allowed to ask for? Since when are you managing his finances? Are you somehow affiliated with the management in Basel? If not, what makes you entitled to discuss their deals?

I find this whole thread ridiculous beyond belief.

 

[Gonzo_style]

What a bunch of greedy weenies here. For ATP pros tennis is a profession, job and career. They manage it themselves for their own benefit.

Who are you people to tell Federer how much he is allowed to ask for? Since when are you managing his finances? Are you somehow affiliated with the management in Basel? If not, what makes you entitled to discuss their deals?

I find this whole thread ridiculous beyond belief.

This might be true, but the question is would you say that if thread tittle is "Nadal wants 2 million euros to play in Barcelona next year"?

 

[Clarky21]

What a bunch of greedy weenies here. For ATP pros tennis is a profession, job and career. They manage it themselves for their own benefit.

Who are you people to tell Federer how much he is allowed to ask for? Since when are you managing his finances? Are you somehow affiliated with the management in Basel? If not, what makes you entitled to discuss their deals?

I find this whole thread ridiculous beyond belief.

How are the people in this thread greedy? They're not the ones asking for 2 million bucks just to show up at a 500 event.

 

[veroniquem]

What a bunch of greedy weenies here. For ATP pros tennis is a profession, job and career. They manage it themselves for their own benefit.

.

Greedy?? Hey, we're not the ones demanding 2 millions for appearing in a 500. What makes it look even worse is that it is his home tournament. Between patriotism and greed... right, his heart doesn't swing apparently.

 

[cmb]

lol 2million dollars is nothing in switzerland.

Does anyone know how rich people are in that country? renting a 2 bedroom apartment in the cheap part of lausanne costs 2000 swiss francs a month, which is more then 2000 USD. that country is so full of money, and Roger knows it, I don't blame him for asking 2Mill. If they don't want to pay, go to Moscow where they will pay. or play an exhibition

 

[akv89]

It is not as simple as that. The appearance fees are borderline illegal. It has always been a gray issue whether players need to report them and pay taxes.

The people criticizing in this thread are taking offense to the amount Federer is asking for, not the fact that he is asking.
The Basel tournament takes place at an inconvenient time for Federer. He has previously skipped masters 1000 tournaments and tournaments in the asian swing where he would be given more appearance fees several times to make room for Basel, thus sacrificing ranking points as well as finances. At this point in his career, he understandably does not want to continue making those sacrifices.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

That's not what I meant, and you know it. Nadal's situation wasn't a case of one tournament from one week paying more than another tournament from another week, but a case of two tournaments running in the same week, one of which where he would lose money if he lost in one of his first two matches. The Federer case you mentioned is a case of Federer choosing Basel and being knackered for Paris, or not wanting to play Paris after Basel.

Isn't that what I said?

The two situations have very little in common.

Federer actually lost money, by deciding to support his home event instead of playing elsewhere, with much more benefits to be had.

Nadal could have lost money, had he played at Queen's in the unlikely scenario of going out of the tournament. But he didn't. Effectively in this comparison Federer is on a much higher level as far as his altruism is concerned, because he actually did things, that Nadal refused to do.

Although both situations are money-driven (as it should be, since we are talking about professional tennis players), they differ tremendously in both what actually happened and the way it had been conducted.

Federer actually lost money (he missed to reap the benefits of his work elsewhere, to be precise), while supporting the tournament in Basel, helping it to create its image and generate revenue. Trying to minimize his losses by offering a deal, that would see him compensated for his missed opportunities elsewhere or actually going elsewhere, was an elegant way to offer to the organizers his solution, where both sides will continue to profit from each other, but in a much more realistic way ( I believe Federer is a realist). It is also important to note, that the main reasons, why the tournament is so successful is Federer himself. He has invested years of work in this enterprise, and it is only natural to be compensated for that.

On the other hand Nadal refused to lose money (which is the correct way of putting things, since the realistical scenario says, that he will not lose before the QF), and demanding treatment, without the background that is presented in the situation with Federer (similar level of dedication, status of the player and his work to elevate the profile of the tournament). It is a typical situation of someone, who wants to use his newly acquired poistion too soon and for too much benefits.

Not to mention the way Nadal has acted, during his decision-making process, which was effectively the opposite of what Federer does. Federer doesn't complain about the fact, that the organizers have difficulties to accept his terms. In fact, the organizers do that in an effort to apply pressure on him. A sort of blackmailing. In Nadal's case, Nadal was applying pressure on the organizers, to "find a way" despite of the fact, that it is a government regulation (i.e. has nothing to do with what the organizers do or do not want).

As for the timing. You have got that wrong.

Federer's decision is definitely driven by other factors than just financial profit. Or, to be more precise, he is also concerned about other things, since he has to seek what is most profitable AND allows him to compete on the highest level possible. This cannot happen, if he has to play two tournaments, that are his preparation for the WTF.

So, in reality, he has the option to play one tournament, if he wants to preserve his health and playing level for the WTF. Look at much younger player like Djokovic, who lost (and many believe, on purpose) in Paris, just to be able to compete at his best in London. What does that mean for a 31 years old Federer?

How did Federer lose cash from taxes on his worldwide sponsorship deals and the prize money of the tournament not covering the losses, like Nadal risked at Queen's Club in 2010 and 2011?.

So, now there is only one way to lose money?

Try again.

I'm calling out the hypocrisy. If this story had been Nadal demanding $2 million in appearance fees, the boards would be flooded with anti-Nadal threads.

I call your attempt to claim, that both situations are the same, a serious lack of perspective. And your attempt at analyzing them, pathetic.

The only thing, that both situations have in common is the fact, that in both situations are involved money.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Greedy?? Hey, we're not the ones demanding 2 millions for appearing in a 500. What makes it look even worse is that it is his home tournament. Between patriotism and greed... right, his heart doesn't swing apparently.

His heart apparently :twisted: swung for a number of years.

Unlike the heart of a certain spanish tennis player.

:roll:

 

[Candide]

Wow, welcome to the world of business. If there's a gig you don't really want to take you simply price yourself out of the competition. If the other guy's such a sucker as to pay the premium then so be it. It's not a matter of being 'nice' or "greedy" but a simple matter of how normal transactions occur. How the hell do you calculate a fair price for anything except what the market will bear? Is any six figure appearance fee for a big name good value? Well customers determine that by seeing how much they stand to gain from it - not from any objective measure or from wanting to put smiles on the kiddies faces. Some pretty naive arguments being proposed here.

 

[PeteD]

I first saw this news on Serbian website (it's a very popular and legit website of Serbian TV station). Then I looked up on the internet, I just searched "Roger criticized by Swiss", and I found tons of articles. And since there are quotes from couple of people in the article, I'd say it's legit.

That's strange, because I just googled the same phrase, with quotes, exactly as you claim you searched. I get exactly one hit: your post, from this thread, here at TW.

So I tried something else: I googled 'federer appearance fee basel' (without quotes, for a broad search). Result: the first 20 results were all links to tennis rumor mills, including, sadly, several from this thread, which is doing a heck of a job of echoing the "2 million euro" rumor.

My google hit #21 was an ESPN article about the chances of Andy Murray and the others at the O2 next week. That article does mention the talks about Federer's Basel fee. The ESPN article, quoted and linked below, puts perspective on it but says nothing about 2 million euros:

For most of his career, Federer has been immune from off-court criticism. But recently, some have carved into the 17-time Grand Slam champion. According to news stories emanating from his native Switzerland, Federer is demanding a substantial increase in appearance fees to continue showing up at his hometown tournament of Basel, and he asked Switzerland's tennis federation not to pick Basel as the site of a first-round Davis Cup series in 2013 because it puts too much pressure on him to play.

source: http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/8593310/tennis-andy-murray-light-london-again-world-tour-finals

Bottom line: Sounds like Federer, for what could be all kinds of valid reasons, would like to wean Basel off. Possibly, someone on his side of this, or just as possibly, someone from Basel's side, is trying to find a reason for him to stay that would be better than, they've always done it this way.

I think we can agree that if Swiss Indoors Basel loses Federer, they are going to make less money. Let me speculate further: boy are they pissed. Somebody even put out this rumor which, since it concerns a confidential negotiation, cannot be validated. But it can be echoed, and embellished and fed upon, across the rumor mills, including here at TW.

 

[cc0509]

Greedy?? Hey, we're not the ones demanding 2 millions for appearing in a 500. What makes it look even worse is that it is his home tournament. Between patriotism and greed... right, his heart doesn't swing apparently.

Somehow I think that if this were Nadal asking for an increase in his appearance fee for Barcelona you would be just fine with it. Am I right? :twisted:

Tennis is a business and these players like Federer and Nadal bring in 90% of the income. Let them ask for whatever they want while they are still active in the game imo.

 

[cc0509]

How are the people in this thread greedy? They're not the ones asking for 2 million bucks just to show up at a 500 event.

It is not greedy to ask for 2 million when you are the star attraction who brings in 90% or more of the money and the tournament is profitable. Federer and Godsick know what they are doing. Do you think they would ask for the money if they knew the tournament did not have it? There is nothing wrong with Federer and Nadal asking for money. They are the guys who fill the seats. If it was Gilles Simon asking for 2 million we would have a problem.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

It is not greedy to ask for 2 million when you are the star attraction who brings in 90% or more of the money and the tournament is profitable. Federer and Godsick know what they are doing. Do you think they would ask for the money if they knew the tournament did not have it? There is nothing wrong with Federer and Nadal asking for money. They are the guys who fill the seats. If it was Gilles Simon asking for 2 million we would have a problem.

Pretty much agree with this. Regardless of it being his 'home' event, it's a business at the end of the day. Fed knows his career is winding down, so why not max your money before it's all said and done. Of course he's not going into the poor house anytime soon, but the players are the draws in tennis.

Outside of the top 4, there aren't really any big draws that you'd hang your hat on as a tourney director. If I was in the top 4 I'd push it as far as I could re: appearance fees. Again, it's a business. If Basel can't pay up to what Roger wants, so be it, but I'll bet there will be a lot more empty seats next year.

 

[cc0509]

Pretty much agree with this. Regardless of it being his 'home' event, it's a business at the end of the day. Fed knows his career is winding down, so why not max your money before it's all said and done. Of course he's not going into the poor house anytime soon, but the players are the draws in tennis.

Outside of the top 4, there aren't really any big draws that you'd hang your hat on as a tourney director. If I was in the top 4 I'd push it as far as I could re: appearance fees. Again, it's a business. If Basel can't pay up to what Roger wants, so be it, but I'll bet there will be a lot more empty seats next year.

Something tells me that if many of these posters were in Nadal's or Federer's shoes and actually had jobs and made some money, they would be changing their tunes on this issue. The people who bring in the most money should make the most money, no? It is very simple. 2 million is nothing in the grand scheme of things when you have a sport such as tennis which is bringing in billions worldwide and most of that income is brought in by the top players.

 

[adil1972]

how old is the concept of appearence money ie which was the first tourney to offer appearence money to top players

or is it as old as professional tennis is

 

[reversef]

Isn't that what I said?

The two situations have very little in common.

Federer actually lost money, by deciding to support his home event instead of playing elsewhere, with much more benefits to be had.

Nadal could have lost money, had he played at Queen's in the unlikely scenario of going out of the tournament. But he didn't. Effectively in this comparison Federer is on a much higher level as far as his altruism is concerned, because he actually did things, that Nadal refused to do.

If the beginning of your post makes sense, the rest is completely absurd. Nadal doesn't have to support Queen's. It's not his home tournament. Why should he be altruist? Or why doesn't Federer play in Queen's instead of Halle and pay all those nice taxes? A Swiss champion doesn't pay so many taxes in his own country, he could pay them elsewhere.... Queen's is not Nadal's tournament more than Federer's tournament, is it?
When you see both players go each year to Abu Dhabi, you know that it's not "altruism" (to use your own word) and that they like money.
When they play a grass tournament between the French Open and Wimbledon, you know that their main goal is to prepare Wimbledon. There are 2 tournaments played the same week: Queens and Halle. Not a home tournament for any of them. Why should Nadal remain the altruist one and play in Queens (no money at all, you don't lose money at best)? He's not more english than Federer.
The Basel tournament for Federer is the equivalent of Barcelona for Nadal. Why mention Queens for Nadal in a discussion about Basel for Federer? Especially since Federer doesn't play Queens either!
So, why is Federer "on a much higher level as far as his altruism is concerned, because he actually did things, that Nadal refused to do"? Because he commits to Basel between Shanghai and Bercy? Nadal commits to Barcelona in the middle of a very dense clay season (and *******s generally are the first ones to accuse him of playing mickey mouse clay court tournaments because he plays an ATP 500 which is his home tournament).
For you ,to be as altruist as Federer, Nadal should commit to Queens. Why? It's not more his home tournament than Federer's.

 

[Steve0904]

If the beginning of your post makes sense, the rest is completely absurd. Nadal doesn't have to support Queen's. It's not his home tournament. Why should he be altruist? Or why doesn't Federer play in Queen's instead of Halle and pay all those nice taxes? A Swiss champion doesn't pay so many taxes in his own country, he could pay them elsewhere.... Queen's is not Nadal's tournament more than Federer's tournament, is it?
When you see both players go each year to Abu Dhabi, you know that it's not "altruism" (to use your own word) and that they like money.
When they play a grass tournament between the French Open and Wimbledon, you know that their main goal is to prepare Wimbledon. There are 2 tournaments played the same week: Queens and Halle. Not a home tournament for any of them. Why should Nadal remain the altruist one and play in Queens (no money at all, you don't lose money at best)? He's not more english than Federer.
The Basel tournament for Federer is the equivalent of Barcelona for Nadal. Why mention Queens for Nadal in a discussion about Basel for Federer? Especially since Federer doesn't play Queens either!
So, why is Federer "on a much higher level as far as his altruism is concerned, because he actually did things, that Nadal refused to do"? Because he commits to Basel between Shanghai and Bercy? Nadal commits to Barcelona in the middle of a very dense clay season (and *******s generally are the first ones to accuse him of playing mickey mouse clay court tournaments because he plays an ATP 500 which is his home tournament).
For you ,to be as altruist as Federer, Nadal should commit to Queens. Why? It's not more his home tournament than Federer's.

You seem to think that it matters that Basel is Federer's home tournament? It does not IMO. At the end of the day anyone in Federer's shoes would do exactly what he is doing now. Don't be naive. Tennis is his profession first and foremost, and he'll make the money he thinks he deserves. 2 million may be his way of pricing himself out of the tournament, but most likely, if the tournaments director is willing he'll probably settle for middle ground somewhere in the 1.2-1.4 range.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Wow, welcome to the world of business. If there's a gig you don't really want to take you simply price yourself out of the competition. If the other guy's such a sucker as to pay the premium then so be it. It's not a matter of being 'nice' or "greedy" but a simple matter of how normal transactions occur. How the hell do you calculate a fair price for anything except what the market will bear? Is any six figure appearance fee for a big name good value? Well customers determine that by seeing how much they stand to gain from it - not from any objective measure or from wanting to put smiles on the kiddies faces. Some pretty naive arguments being proposed here.

Quoted for reasonable thinking.
This is the world of Big Business folks. Like it or not, it's reality.
(I'm most definitely in the 'not like'-bracket myself, but there's no point in fighting windmills - Money Talks and Sh*t Walks!)