Ion Tiriac criticizes Roger FEDERER, Serena Williams and Equal Prize Money in Tennis

[Bartelby]

This seems to indicate that the women's game is at least as commercially successful as the men, although I think as you go down the rankings men are winning more prize money.

It could also be the case that the men's game is far more commercially successful, but the organisation just pays out less in prize money than in the women's event.

I strongly suspect that the real enemy of the men's game is not 'pesky women', but 'clever businessmen' who know how to exploit a monopoly position.

2018:
1 Wozniacki, Caroline 3,338,704

2 Halep, Simona 2,238,803

3 Osaka, Naomi 1,614,470

4 Stephens, Sloane 1,471,796

5 Svitolina, Elina 1,425,958

6 Kerber, Angelique 1,392,959

7 Kasatkina, Daria 1,178,603

8 Ostapenko, Jelena 883,841

9 Kvitova, Petra 920,949

10 Mertens, Elise 903,262



1. Roger Federer 4,336,500

2 Juan Martin Del Potro 2,199,566

3 Marin Cilic 1,767,040

4 John Isner 1,689,097

5 Hyeon Chung 1,135,811

6 Alexander Zverev 942,467

7 Roberto Bautista 805,051

8 Kyle Edmund 781,316

9 Diego Schwartzman 743,271

10 Kevin Anderson 728,472

 

[sportmac]

This seems to indicate that the women's game is at least as commercially successful as the men, although I think as you go down the rankings men are winning more prize money.

It could also be the case that the men's game is far more commercially successful, but the organisation just pays out less in prize money than in the women's event.

Yep. Perusing the list the difference begins to grow as you scroll down.

 

[Tennisgods]

Self made billionaire. Not that mad, in my opinion. And he definitely knows his tennis business.

His comments are those of a deluded person. I’m sure he’s great at loads of things, but he’s wrong on all 3 points here. And the Serena comment? Well, we all know what he’d rather see as opposed to a successful black woman.

So ok, if he’s not mad, he’s very bad. But I reckon he’s at least a bit mad...

 

[Bobby Jr]

Auckland Open director Karl Budge commented on it a while back and discussed how the women’s tournament outperformed the male tournament in viewership and the year Li Na was there also saw huge ratings as it opened the China market.

Well this is an anomaly which is massively affected by the 2 or 3-yearly storms which affect one or the other of the Auckland tournaments. Similarly, the women's tournament relies on them paying massive marquee players every year - the likes of Serena, Sharapova, Wozniacki or Ivanovic (previously obviously) - sometimes a combination of them. The men's tournament the following week doesn't get names nearly that big but they still sell out quicker and at higher ticket prices every single year. I know this because I go to multiple dates of each tournament each year. The biggest names the ATP even gets are Ferrer and Isner. Sock is being touted as their new regular guy but he sucked eggs this year. Del Potro was their big marquee guy this year (losing in the final). As with the majors it is fairly evident that the women's tickets are sold in greater ratios to general* people who are into a day of entertainment whereas the men's tickets are sold in greater numbers to hard-core tennis lovers. This partly explains the deltas in ticket price and also the sponsorship potential.

That said, the TV revenue for the men's tournament is significantly higher from all the mentions I've seen, and that in-part accounts for the much larger prize money pool. Locally the viewership might be the same/similar or even periodically leaning towards the WTA event (for the above reasons) but the overall (international) TV rights and viewership will be greater for the ATP event without doubt. The WTA event competes with Brisbane (a higher Category tournament) and Shenzhen (which are all also within a couple of hours of the same timezone). The ATP event competes with only Sydney (same category tournament).

(*literally dozens of people I know who never give a rat's arse about tennis bought tickets when Sharapova was signed for Auckland. And they were into it - a day out drinking bubbly and prancing about. It didn't matter that she sucked - a couple of them are now hooked on tennis and go each year now, to the men's tournament. That seems to be a key pitch for women's tennis imo - attracting previously non-tennis followers to the game).

 

[West Coast Ace]

Auckland Open director Karl Budge commented on it a while back and discussed how the women’s tournament outperformed the male tournament in viewership and the year Li Na was there also saw huge ratings as it opened the China market.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.n...-and-women-players-differs-by-market.amp.html

So statistics aren’t your thing? (Like tennis)

Anyone can find 1 outlier Data point; and none of us have said the ATP is better every day, week, in every area. New Zealand has had troubles drawing great fields every year for the men. China is very nationalistic - and I’m not sure they’ve ever had a male in the Top 100.

 

[Sport]

I'm sensing some frustration from Tiriac because Fed won't attend his tournament. Let's face it, Federer is the main attraction on the tour right now.

Not in Montecarlo, Madrid, Barcelona, Rome and Roland Garros though. In some courts, Nadal is the most popular player. I remember the 2007 French Open final were clearly most fans were pro-Nadal. They were celebrating Nadal's points with more enthusiasm than Federer's ones. And you must be dellusional to think that Federer was the main attraction of Montecarlo, Rome, Barcelona and Madrid between 2005 and 2015, when he was playing on clay. Nadal has always been and will always be the main attraction of the clay tour.

Sure Federer can be rightly considered the main attraction of the grass and HC tour. But he will never be the main attracion of the clay tour. That place belongs to the King of clay, that is to say, Rafael Nadal Parera.

 

[chut]

Not at Madrid, Barcelona, Rome or Roland Garros though. In some courts, Nadal is the most popular player. I remember the 2007 French Open final were clearly most fans were pro-Nadal. They were celebrating Nadal's points with more enthusiasm than Federer's ones.

Well, i can't remember clearly if it's true or not, but it would contradict completely both Nadals who often complained about the RG crowd not being supportive enough

 

[sportmac]

I don't to lean into it too much. Your incontinence pants can only hold so much in before you get leakage.

That's it? An adolescent scatological attack? I thought there would be some serious "slapping idiots around" coming. You go with that and then run away? Oh dear.

 

[sportmac]

So statistics aren’t your thing? (Like tennis)

Anyone can find 1 outlier Data point; and none of us have said the ATP is better every day, week, in every area. New Zealand has had troubles drawing great fields every year for the men. China is very nationalistic - and I’m not sure they’ve ever had a male in the Top 100.

Wait. You just posted "statistics" to prove some point about money in 2017 and couldn't get it right. You compared 3 months of 2018 WTA prize money with all of 2017 ATP prize money and declared "the money tells the story".

And now you're questioning someone else on statistics?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

So statistics aren’t your thing? (Like tennis)

Anyone can find 1 outlier Data point; and none of us have said the ATP is better every day, week, in every area. New Zealand has had troubles drawing great fields every year for the men. China is very nationalistic - and I’m not sure they’ve ever had a male in the Top 100.

Jesus Christ, someone posted asking if a tournament director had ever said something on the contrary to what Ion did and I posted an example in response. No need to be such an *******. This is why I don’t even bother with these threads anymore.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Well this is an anomaly which is massively affected by the 2 or 3-yearly storms which affect one or the other of the Auckland tournaments. Similarly, the women's tournament relies on them paying massive marquee players every year - the likes of Serena, Sharapova, Wozniacki or Ivanovic (previously obviously) - sometimes a combination of them. The men's tournament the following week doesn't get names nearly that big but they still sell out quicker and at higher ticket prices every single year. I know this because I go to multiple dates of each tournament each year. The biggest names the ATP even gets are Ferrer and Isner. Sock is being touted as their new regular guy but he sucked eggs this year. Del Potro was their big marquee guy this year (losing in the final). As with the majors it is fairly evident that the women's tickets are sold in greater ratios to general* people who are into a day of entertainment whereas the men's tickets are sold in greater numbers to hard-core tennis lovers. This partly explains the deltas in ticket price and also the sponsorship potential.

That said, the TV revenue for the men's tournament is significantly higher from all the mentions I've seen, and that in-part accounts for the much larger prize money pool. Locally the viewership might be the same/similar or even periodically leaning towards the WTA event (for the above reasons) but the overall (international) TV rights and viewership will be greater for the ATP event without doubt. The WTA event competes with Brisbane (a higher Category tournament) and Shenzhen (which are all also within a couple of hours of the same timezone). The ATP event competes with only Sydney (same category tournament).

(*literally dozens of people I know who never give a rat's arse about tennis bought tickets when Sharapova was signed for Auckland. And they were into it - a day out drinking bubbly and prancing about. It didn't matter that she sucked - a couple of them are now hooked on tennis and go each year now, to the men's tournament. That seems to be a key pitch for women's tennis imo - attracting previously non-tennis followers to the game).

You’ve made about 15 claims in this post and not once have you backed any of them up with actual fats. I meanwhile provide actual proof from the tournament director and it’s shoved off as an anomaly. You see why people don’t take you and this topic seriously?

Direct quotes from you:
“I know this because I go to multiple dates of each tournament each year.”
“It is fairly evident that the women's tickets are sold in greater ratios to general* people who are into a day of entertainment whereas the men's tickets are sold in greater numbers to hard-core tennis lovers.”
“That said, the TV revenue for the men's tournament is significantly higher from all the mentions I've seen, and that in-part accounts for the much larger prize money pool.”
“the overall (international) TV rights and viewership will be greater for the ATP event without doubt. ”

Seriously? I mean seriously? Maybe try posting actual proof instead of posting utter nonsense about what you’ve ‘seen’. I post an actual source and you shut it down, ludicrous.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Ladies and gentleman, the idiocy of these threads. Someone asks for proof from a tournament director, I give said proof and then two different people try to palm off the claims by saying it’s an anomaly or simply posting ******** claims that they’ve ‘seen’ or ‘heard’ but don’t actually bother to back up.

You attempt to discredit an actual source and yet don’t provide any sources for your claims and we’re meant to take you seriously? Pathetic.

 

[sportmac]

Ladies and gentleman, the idiocy of these threads. Someone asks for proof from a tournament director, I give said proof and then two different people try to palm off the claims by saying it’s an anomaly or simply posting ******** claims that they’ve ‘seen’ or ‘heard’ but don’t actually bother to back up.

You attempt to discredit an actual source and yet don’t provide any sources for your claims and we’re meant to take you seriously? Pathetic.

And they dismiss logical arguments, the rules of debate, as some kind of bs approach, except of course when it pleases them. And they do love the anecdotal reference. And of course when pressed for proof they attack. It's priceless.

Still, there's fun to be had. When the nonsense reaches the ridiculous I like to take the Thomas Jefferson approach:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You’ve made about 15 claims in this post and not once have you backed any of them up with actual fats. I meanwhile provide actual proof from the tournament director and it’s shoved off as an anomaly. You see why people don’t take you and this topic seriously?

Direct quotes from you:
“I know this because I go to multiple dates of each tournament each year.”
“It is fairly evident that the women's tickets are sold in greater ratios to general* people who are into a day of entertainment whereas the men's tickets are sold in greater numbers to hard-core tennis lovers.”
“That said, the TV revenue for the men's tournament is significantly higher from all the mentions I've seen, and that in-part accounts for the much larger prize money pool.”
“the overall (international) TV rights and viewership will be greater for the ATP event without doubt. ”

Seriously? I mean seriously? Maybe try posting actual proof instead of posting utter nonsense about what you’ve ‘seen’. I post an actual source and you shut it down, ludicrous.

Barely any WTA events are even televised here because the ratings are too low. The only times they are are when they share the same tournament with a men's event. Which is mostly just slams.

My own opinion:

Up until recently, men's and women's tennis looked similar on TV. With increasingly high definition and overall picture quality, the gap between the men and women is becoming more and more evident and so viewers are abandoning the women's side of the sport.

 

[Bobby Jr]

So statistics aren’t your thing? (Like tennis)

Anyone can find 1 outlier Data point; and none of us have said the ATP is better every day, week, in every area. New Zealand has had troubles drawing great fields every year for the men. China is very nationalistic - and I’m not sure they’ve ever had a male in the Top 100.

A bit of yes and no here. The men's field doesn't have trouble drawing great fields really. They get as good a players as you can get the week before a major - usually 3-4 guys in the top 20. The women's tournament is two weeks before a major so it's easier to get players along but they have to pad it with high priced marquee players to sell tickets. It's as I said above - general punters looking for a bit of summer entertainment need to see names they know but actually tennis lovers line up to buy tickets for the men's tournament with lower-key players like Ferrer and Bautista-Agut. The ticket sales for the men's tournament are stronger (and more expensive) because of it. The tournament sometimes says they're "speaking to" the likes of Nadal, Murray etc but those guys always head to Melbourne the week before the Aussie Open to prep and maybe play an exo.

For what the tournaments are to each respective sex in the lead-up to the Aussie Open the men's tournament does extremely well talent-wise each year. The issue with lead-up tournaments is you always get a top player or two who has a less than committed approach and tanks early like Jack Sock did this year and Serena did last year.

 

[MLRoy]

Tiriac should just drop the WTA event and add a senior women's event and bring back Graf, Henin, Kim, the Martinas.

I mean he owns the Event, and he can't be jailed for doing what he wants to do to his tournament. For as much tish Ion like to talk, dude should, as TennisLBC suggests, "man up".

I'd LOVE a seniors women's tourney, but that -- getting rid of the WTA side of the tourney, as well as paying them less -- wouldn't play well in a country so PC that the tennis establishment there has to foist a female Davis Cup coach on the men. Great tennis talent playing for the most corrupt tennis federation.