How much for how many - pro players and the distribution of wealth

[Russeljones]

I wrote recently that part of the problem with the younger generations is the flagging financial incentive for kids to get involved in the game in the first place.

One of the best resources on the subject is, not surprisingly, the ITF website.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/194256/194256.pdf

"CURRENT PROFESSIONAL TENNIS LANDSCAPE

In 2013 there were 8,874 male and 4,862 female players. Of these 3,896 male and 2,212 female players earned no prize money

Players competed for an approximate total of $162m of prize money in the men’s game and $120m in the women’s game"

In 2013, each player would earn:

$32,638 in the men’s game

$45,205 in the women’s game

However, in reality…

The Top 1 % of ranked male players [top 50] earned 60% of the total prize money pool

The Top 1 % ranked female players [top 26] earned 51% of the total prize money pool"

The average cost of playing tennis in 2013 was $38,800 for men and $40,180 for women. However, this logically varies depending on ranking band and region.


2

The 2013 breakeven point for men, where cost = prize money earnings, was 336. Therefore, assuming that all players incur the same expense, only players ranked inside 336 would actually earn more than they spend.


3

The 2013 breakeven point for women, where cost = prize money earnings, was 253. Therefore, assuming that all players incur the same expense, only players ranked inside 253 would actually earn more than they spend.

* Worth noting here that this differs significantly from the USTA's estimate of costs have been above the $ 150k mark at a higher ranking than is shown here for male players.

**I am not certain if the survey accounts for 100% of professional players across all tiers or only those they received feedback for.

I think the obvious problem is that inverted pyramid mentioned here. The top few taking so much home. And of course, that which is not mentioned. How much the tournaments retain. Something has to give for the youth of today to see tennis as an appealing career prospect.

Your thoughts?

 

[Russeljones]

A sobering thought on the subject:
https://www.ustaflorida.com/want-kids-play-tennis/

FACTS:
* The odds of becoming a pro are 2 in 10000 or 0.0002. That does not seem possible.
* Break-even for a pro is a No. 150 ranking or approximately $160K/year. ‘Dad how much do you make a year?’
* It takes 4-8 years to reach the Top 200, at a cost of $160K/year, that is between $640K-$1,28M. ‘Mary, how much is our house worth?’
* The cost to train per year is approximately $12K low end by age 15, you spent that easily in 5-6 yrs. Roughly $60K. ‘How many mutual funds can you buy with 12K per year?’
* Only 7% of the Top 100 juniors in the world will be pros, and only 1% will be Top 20. Top in the world, not the USA. ‘Hey John, did you win state yet?’
* Until you win, you need to front-end all expenses, ouch! ‘But, I only make…’
* 10,000 hrs. spent training by age 18, with odds of 0.0002? ‘Five hours a day for 10 years, I should learn to code…’
When one looks at the cold facts, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to aspire to be a professional player, and the cost and investment of time is just mind blowing.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Very interesting. Tennis still has a better distribution of wealth than the world...

 

[okdude1992]

Yea there have been lots of threads about this Russel, but I agree entirely. I think the tournaments retain too much money. The situation is way better than in fighting for example, another individual sport I follow. But yea. Players need a bigger cut, and tennis needs to make a better 'farm' system to facilitate developing players. Challenger/future circuit is bleak.

It takes so much money and time to build a top player. I think that has to be another reason the big dogs are dominating and the young guys are struggling. The benefit of having an entire team/entourage, vs the financial ability to afford one.

 

[BGod]

This is why many of the top players got their coaching for free, whether by being a child of a player/coach or having their parent commit to coaching. Frankly put if you can forgo coaching costs and court fees, you can compete. Unfortunately this is often not the case for many kids. I run a tennis camp in the summer that's considered dirt cheap by mainstream standards, but I do it because my community has no tennis development and I grew up hating needing to be driven 45 min out of town.

 

[Russeljones]

Yea there have been lots of threads about this Russel, but I agree entirely. I think the tournaments retain too much money. The situation is way better than in fighting for example, another individual sport I follow. But yea. Players need a bigger cut, and tennis needs to make a better 'farm' system to facilitate developing players. Challenger/future circuit is bleak.

It takes so much money and time to build a top player. I think that has to be another reason the big dogs are dominating and the young guys are struggling. The benefit of having an entire team/entourage, vs the financial ability to afford one.

There was a discussion about the lack of impact of younger players and I had this on the back of my mind so I decided to make a thread rather than sidetrack the current one. I promised @zagor I would elaborate on why I thought the game is being suffocated, talent-wise, right at the point where parents decide what sport their child should get serious about.