ITF Proposes Transitional Tour

Algo

Hall of Fame
"ITF President David Haggerty said this was "the most comprehensive review of professional tennis ever undertaken." (AP)

LONDON (AP) — The number of players competing in professional tennis events will reduce drastically following a major structural shake-up aimed at helping more competitors earn a living and improving the pathway from junior level to the top of the sport."


http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...ructural-shake-up-following-itf-review/65102/
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
They want to limit the pros to 750 men and 750 women, and force all the others (there are now 14000) to play on the transitional tour. They are saying that half of the 14000 currently earn no prize money, which means that 7000 do earn prize money. Hopefully, the 5500 of these who will no longer be able to play in the pro tournaments can make more money than now in the transitional tour, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
 

OrangePower

Legend
ITF just governs Futures tournaments. This has nothing to do with ATP (1000/500/250/Challengers).
Honestly, nobody is going to make money playing Futures, no matter how they restructure. And very few players who play Futures are ever going to make it onto the ATP tour. So at best they can make it so that the players with ATP potential can rise to the top quicker, while the other players don't spend too much time/money chasing a dream that will never happen.
 

bigserving

Hall of Fame
The ITF also runs the slams. Tennis needs something to change in order for the game to grow. The biggest problem with professional tennis is that there is not one person from one organization that is responsible for the growth of the game.

There is the ITF, ATP, WTA, then USTA, and every country has their own subset of organization that is entrusted with enriching themselves.

James Blake for Professional Tennis Commisioner!!
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
The ITF also runs the slams. Tennis needs something to change in order for the game to grow. The biggest problem with professional tennis is that there is not one person from one organization that is responsible for the growth of the game.

There is the ITF, ATP, WTA, then USTA, and every country has their own subset of organization that is entrusted with enriching themselves.

James Blake for Professional Tennis Commisioner!!

You cannot compare a gender-equal sport like tennis with male-chauvinism dominated sports like soccer and cricket. There was historically a need for a WTA and still is.

Other sports also have local governing bodies or federations for each country.

I don't think lack of a dictator at the top is the reason for whatever is good/bad right now.

Tennis is not a team sport, and does not lend itself to jingoistic spectacles like soccer or cricket. It is not a macho guy's sport like basketball or American football where the crude on-court and off-court behavior of its players is one of the key points of interest and loyalty.
 

bigserving

Hall of Fame
You cannot compare a gender-equal sport like tennis with male-chauvinism dominated sports like soccer and cricket. There was historically a need for a WTA and still is.

Other sports also have local governing bodies or federations for each country.

I don't think lack of a dictator at the top is the reason for whatever is good/bad right now.

Tennis is not a team sport, and does not lend itself to jingoistic spectacles like soccer or cricket. It is not a macho guy's sport like basketball or American football where the crude on-court and off-court behavior of its players is one of the key points of interest and loyalty.

Outside of providing entertainment, what is the "need" for women's professional tennis.

When you compare all the you wrote to the PGA golf tour, which has a commissioner and is flourishing. There is golf on network TV damn near every weekend. Tennis....not so much.

Those other sports that you quoted are largely team sports. Tennis is an individual sport and is a sport that fans can actually play themselves for a lifetime. Plus, tennis is much less expensive to play than golf. For that reasons and more, I feel a sport like tennis should be the most popular spectator sport as well.
 

bigserving

Hall of Fame
I think I should not dignify your post with an answer. Good bye.

Legitimate question. Just asking you to elaborate on your own words.

I am not the sexist type at all. I may have attended more days of women's tennis than most of the people on this forum.........probably.

What I am communicating is, that outside of providing entertainment, what is the "need" for women's, or any professional tennis?
 

OrangePower

Legend
What I am communicating is, that outside of providing entertainment, what is the "need" for women's, or any professional tennis?
You are quite right, and the same can be said for all pro sports. It's all just entertainment. And sports that provide a high entertainment value are going to do well (financially speaking), while sports with low entertainment value don't do as well.

Golf is going well because they are providing a high entertainment value, based on how much TV air time golf gets. Personally I don't get the appeal of watching golf, but evidently it gets good viewership, or the TV networks would not be airing so much of it.

Tennis is just not as popular on TV, which is where a lot of the money for sports comes from these days.

And to take the comparison further, look at the PBA (Pro Bowling Tour), which is one more step down from tennis in terms of TV time and then also in terms of tour revenue / player earnings.

Anyway, I don't think the main problem with tennis is that there is no commissioner, although maybe having one could help. The main problem is that there are not enough people who want to watch it on TV.
 

QuadCam

Professional
They need to figure out a way for more players to make a living at this sport. Currently, if you aren't in the top 100, you aren't making enough to get by.

Read stories about Dustin Brown living in a van and playing the Challenger circuit in Europe. This was when he was around 150 in the world. That's just terrible!!!

In the nfl, there are over 1500 players on the active rosters. The lowest paid guys are making about $250k per year with all travel and medical taken care of.

Tennis is a win or lose sport. There is no in between. You get nothing for great stats or sportsmanship, fan fare, etc. In other sports, individualism still pays the bills.... Even if you are on a losing team.

Not sure how they make tennis a better paying option for lower ranked pros but they need to do something.
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
I'm wondering where the money is coming from for increased prize money at the lower tiers of the game. A redistribution of existing revenue or are they seriously thinking there will be enough spectator interest in the lower tier events to generate additional revenue from sponsorship, TV deals. If it's the latter I think they'll fail.
 

Algo

Hall of Fame
So it looks pretty good from my stand point.

If it works how I think it will it sounds good. So your transitional tour will basically be the integration of your British Tour and other equivelents into the ITFs set up. At the moment guys try to attain a world ranking by spending tonnes of cash to trekk around playing futures qualies hoping for a lucky break to pointlessly gain one point which means little. Now you're guys with rankings will all be seriously good. But the guy who was trekking around benefits too becaus enow he needn't travel as far to play similar level matches, he can play them in his home country or those near by. At the moment the LTA run 30 or so British tours per year which have players up to around 300 ATP in them but essentially count for **** because theres very little money and no one is all that bothered about LTA rankings so you add value to these circuits which take place in countries across Europe, Germany Belgium France Spain and probably many more. So costs go down for the guys trying to break through and the ITF can concentrate funds towards the top 750 guys while letting the NGBs pick up the tab for much of the transition tour. More affordable for everyone. The guys who are good enough will break through these circuits and get world ranked where theres money, those who arent need not spend a small fortune to find out theyre not of the level

1+1=2 tho.
Problem with Futures (and Challengers too tbh) has been that you don't get any points just for qualifying, you have to win an additional match and make it to R2, which is beyond insane.
I read this idea on twitter saying those who win TTour tournaments should instantly get WCs or SEs to ATPs, instant money boost if nothing else. Or maybe for Challengers instead, but that sounds like a good idea in any case.

Remains to be seen how it will work and if it will work out but I'm interested.
 

reaper

Legend
How many professional players does the game need and can it sustain? I suspect around 250 singles players. 128 slam players, (say) 64 additional players for the slam qualifying draw and 60 odd players aged 18-21 who have the ability to play on the tour at a future date but whose games haven't matured to reach that level yet. Anyone pursuing "the dream" below those levels is perfectly entitled to have a go...but likely to be paying out of their own pocket or that of a sugar daddy.
 
"ITF President David Haggerty said this was "the most comprehensive review of professional tennis ever undertaken." (AP)

LONDON (AP) — The number of players competing in professional tennis events will reduce drastically following a major structural shake-up aimed at helping more competitors earn a living and improving the pathway from junior level to the top of the sport."


http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017...ructural-shake-up-following-itf-review/65102/
So will we witness a tier system, much like European football? Like the Premier League > English Championship > League 1 > League 2 >etc.? If so, I think that would be great!

I say it should go ATP World Tour first (ranks 1-500), ATP Challenger Tour second (501-1000), ATP Futures Tour [side note: it is the ITF Futures, but I say just let the ATP run it] (1001-2000), and a new tier: the ATP Rising Tour (2001-whatever the lowest is; I suppose this could accomodate the players that want to go professional).

It could go on a promotion/relegation system, where the top 10 and bottom 10 players each get promoted or relegated to the higher or lower tour (so players ranked 491-500 in 2018 would switch places with players 501-510 of 2018 at the end of the season. I suppose they can keep their points.) It's a bit of a rough draft, but I hope it can come into fruition.
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
Wouldnt take much of a reshuffle to manage it money wise if the top boys take a hit.

Wimbledon has been increasing the winner's prize every year since 1968. I believe it's the same pattern for all slams. Not sure about ATP events but can't ever see the top players receiving a pay cut.
 
I would create a new system for first 3 years of pro tennis player regardless of age is to introduce a 2-year system because every 52 weeks is up, he is faced a pressure of having to defend his points and does not gain any point for that week, maybe small increase if he wins one round further, therefore, delaying his debut for the main draw in an ATP event. After 3 years of pro, his point system then becomes 52-week calendar just like everyone else. The purpose of 2-year system is to gain points for the entry list to higher level in Challengers or main ATP tour. Let's say, if a young player entered and achieved a top 32 seeded, he won't still be a seeded due to 2-year points total but his seeding shall be determined based on his last 52 weeks for seeding but as for entry list for a tournament would stay 2-year regardless.

With 2-year system, it would help some young players to gain enough points for entry into challengers or an ATP250 with more than 300 points using 2-year system than 150-200 points for a year of Futures or Challengers and having to defend 200 points in Futures with no chance of entry in a Challengers unless given a WC or a qualifying. If he is able to enter into a main draw, it would enable him to have some practice time to improve his skills, rather than toil in a matches where he can lose his confidence in a qualifying match.

The current system where young player rely on wild cards to gain experience against ATP stars and his experience is limited because of the system and a good week would vault him into ATP main tour, just like Vasek Pospisil from barely out of top 100 into a top 50 after a good week in 2014 Masters in Montreal but you can't say the same for other young players so I would be in favor for a 2-year system for first 3 years of pro tennis player's career to find his way and to gain experience with higher level matches than the Futures will offer. If he uses 2-year system to gain entry into a Masters or Slams, he would still gain no points rather than usual 10 points for a first round loss to ensure fairness for all young players.

The problem with ATP point distribution is to ensure that older player to stay in the main tour with a good week once or twice a year while failing other tournament, like Vasek did with Canada and Wimbledon to ensure that he would stay despite his not so good record in the main ATP tour. He finally falls out after failure to have a good week for a whole year.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If you read closely you discover that they are trying to weed players out of the tour to please the betting companies which are worried about losing revenue to shonky players paid by corrupt syndicates.
 

reaper

Legend
I would create a new system for first 3 years of pro tennis player regardless of age is to introduce a 2-year system because every 52 weeks is up, he is faced a pressure of having to defend his points and does not gain any point for that week, maybe small increase if he wins one round further, therefore, delaying his debut for the main draw in an ATP event. After 3 years of pro, his point system then becomes 52-week calendar just like everyone else. The purpose of 2-year system is to gain points for the entry list to higher level in Challengers or main ATP tour. Let's say, if a young player entered and achieved a top 32 seeded, he won't still be a seeded due to 2-year points total but his seeding shall be determined based on his last 52 weeks for seeding but as for entry list for a tournament would stay 2-year regardless.

With 2-year system, it would help some young players to gain enough points for entry into challengers or an ATP250 with more than 300 points using 2-year system than 150-200 points for a year of Futures or Challengers and having to defend 200 points in Futures with no chance of entry in a Challengers unless given a WC or a qualifying. If he is able to enter into a main draw, it would enable him to have some practice time to improve his skills, rather than toil in a matches where he can lose his confidence in a qualifying match.

The current system where young player rely on wild cards to gain experience against ATP stars and his experience is limited because of the system and a good week would vault him into ATP main tour, just like Vasek Pospisil from barely out of top 100 into a top 50 after a good week in 2014 Masters in Montreal but you can't say the same for other young players so I would be in favor for a 2-year system for first 3 years of pro tennis player's career to find his way and to gain experience with higher level matches than the Futures will offer. If he uses 2-year system to gain entry into a Masters or Slams, he would still gain no points rather than usual 10 points for a first round loss to ensure fairness for all young players.

The problem with ATP point distribution is to ensure that older player to stay in the main tour with a good week once or twice a year while failing other tournament, like Vasek did with Canada and Wimbledon to ensure that he would stay despite his not so good record in the main ATP tour. He finally falls out after failure to have a good week for a whole year.

The system you've proposed there doesn't come without a cost. The player who has earned their points in one year misses playing tournaments because another player is given two years to accrue their points. The superior player is overlooked for the draw in favour of an inferior one.
 

reaper

Legend
If you read closely you discover that they are trying to weed players out of the tour to please the betting companies which are worried about losing revenue to shonky players paid by corrupt syndicates.

There's another group that might be happy if that happened. People who bet on matches on the assumption that they're played on their merits.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The mug punters don't count for much in the ranks of big business - they get fleeced no matter what happens.

There's another group that might be happy if that happened. People who bet on matches on the assumption that they're played on their merits.
 

every7

Hall of Fame
If you read closely you discover that they are trying to weed players out of the tour to please the betting companies which are worried about losing revenue to shonky players paid by corrupt syndicates.

Why would they want to be appeasing betting companies? How do they benefit? Wouldn't they prefer that those companies and gambling didn't exist at all?
 

reaper

Legend
Why would they want to be appeasing betting companies? How do they benefit? Wouldn't they prefer that those companies and gambling didn't exist at all?

They need those companies to exist. Without them the bets are still placed but not in a transparent way. With illegal gambling the corruption goes undetected. With legal gambling a money trail is left....and the account has to be in someone's name.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Tennis sells tournaments to TV and TV is full of ads for betting companies where I live, so the relationship between tennis, TV and sporting companies is as close as it gets.

I'm sure, in fact, that the world of tennis sees betting on tennis as an important way to keep people paying attention to tennis rather than some other sport they also bet on.

Why would they want to be appeasing betting companies? How do they benefit? Wouldn't they prefer that those companies and gambling didn't exist at all?
 

every7

Hall of Fame
Tennis sells tournaments to TV and TV is full of ads for betting companies where I live, so the relationship between tennis, TV and sporting companies is as close as it gets.

I would've thought appeasing gambling companies would be the content broadcasters problem or whoever benefits from their advertising. I might be a bit naive thinking that the ITF is a step removed from that.
 

Mikael

Professional
His message is not entirely clear. What I understand is he wants to make sure the top 750 earn enough to make a living (they would be professionals), whereas the ones below that would not make any prize money anymore. He wants to redistribute prize money so that it is entirely shifted to the top 750.
How can it work exactly, would there be "transitional tournaments" where guys under the top 750 could "take a shot" at the ones above them and try to replace them? Imagine the pressure!
I guess this will change the dynamics of becoming a pro a little bit. Either you can quickly make it to the top 750, or you can't and in that case you can't afford to hang around futures for long because you won't be making any money at all, not even to pay for a sandwich.
Something like this system would be good news for challenger level players though, they would be making a lot more money than now.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
He is implying that the changes will work to make tennis more lucrative, but has no means for achieving it and nor does he specify where the new prize money is coming from, if there is any at all.

His main concern is to keep under-earning players out of the pro ranks due to the fact that they are targets for the match fixers. He sugar coats that with promises he can't really keep.

His message is not entirely clear. What I understand is he wants to make sure the top 750 earn enough to make a living (they would be professionals), whereas the ones below that would not make any prize money anymore. He wants to redistribute prize money so that it is entirely shifted to the top 750.
How can it work exactly, would there be "transitional tournaments" where guys under the top 750 could "take a shot" at the ones above them and try to replace them? Imagine the pressure!
I guess this will change the dynamics of becoming a pro a little bit. Either you can quickly make it to the top 750, or you can't and in that case you can't afford to hang around futures for long because you won't be making any money at all, not even to pay for a sandwich.
Something like this system would be good news for challenger level players though, they would be making a lot more money than now.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The money TV companies pay for rights is now dependent in part on revenue from betting companies, so TV looks to tennis to provide an honest game or else ...

I would've thought appeasing gambling companies would be the content broadcasters problem or whoever benefits from their advertising. I might be a bit naive thinking that the ITF is a step removed from that.
 

reaper

Legend
His message is not entirely clear. What I understand is he wants to make sure the top 750 earn enough to make a living (they would be professionals), whereas the ones below that would not make any prize money anymore. He wants to redistribute prize money so that it is entirely shifted to the top 750.
How can it work exactly, would there be "transitional tournaments" where guys under the top 750 could "take a shot" at the ones above them and try to replace them? Imagine the pressure!
I guess this will change the dynamics of becoming a pro a little bit. Either you can quickly make it to the top 750, or you can't and in that case you can't afford to hang around futures for long because you won't be making any money at all, not even to pay for a sandwich.
Something like this system would be good news for challenger level players though, they would be making a lot more money than now.

Having 750 full-time professionals is an expensive exercise. When world number 386 plays 593 tv rights and gate takings will be close to zero. If these guys ranked from 150 to 750 are to be professional, that would require average income of about $100k given the cost of travel and some coaching. That's $60 million that would need to be found from a negligible revenue base.
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
If you freeze the money the essentially take a cut over a period until it is unfrozen

Yes but they've never done it for Wimbledon (http://www.totalsportek.com/tennis/wimbledon-prize-money/). Several weeks ago someone posted a post about Novak saying there should be more prize money, this is from a chap who has several millions several times over already. Can't see it happening as by the looks of it the top players generate most of the revenue. A similar dynamic and disparity exists in the global economy at large.
 

QuadCam

Professional
The Futures Tour are great events. The quality of the tennis is outstanding and you get to be right on top of the action... fantastic fan experience!

The problem is their is no money!!! at a $10,000 Futures tourney, the exventual champion walks away with about $1500... That's it. Watching what these guys go through to win the lowest level tour event is nuts.... for only $1300. Semi finalists only earn $480. $480 won't even cover a hotel bill for the 5 nights they are in town. It's downright pathetic!

...and Doubles... HA. the winning team shares $630.... that's right.... SHARES! $315 each..... and that's after winning it.

The event director/coordinators are raking it in though. The event in my town has big sponsorship money and ticket prices... all considering the overall low rankings of these players.
 

gogo

Legend
More rationale and specifics from the ITF:

http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/about-pro-circuit/player-pathway.aspx

The review established that:

• In 2013 there were 8874 male professional players [3896 of whom earned no prize money].
In 2013 there were 4862 female professional players [2212 of whom earned no prize money].

• In 2013 average costs for playing professional tennis [includes flights, accommodation, food, restringing, laundry, clothing, equipment and airport transfers but not including coaching costs] were $38,800 for male players and $40,180 for female players [this obviously changes depending on region and/or ranking].

• In 2013 total men’s prize money was approximately $162m. An even distribution would provide every male player that earned prize money with $32,638. In that year the top 1% of male players (top 50) won 60% ($97,448,106), which reduced the even distribution average down to $13,195.

• In 2013 total women’s prize money was approximately $120m. An even distribution would provide every female player that earned prize money with $45,205. In that year the top 1% of female players [top 26] won 51% ($60,585,592) of total prize money, which reduced the even distribution average down to $22,564.

• The break even point on the earnings list (i.e. the point where average costs met actual earnings) was 336 for men and 253 for women in 2013.

• In nominal terms total prize money in the men’s and women’s game has risen since 2001. This is due in the main to a significant increase in the number of competitive opportunities (tournaments) around the world and introduction of certain new tournament categories (W-$15k, $100k and $125k, M-$35k).

• This increase has been countered (in terms of earnings per player) by an increase in the number of players competing for the total prize money pool.

• While numbers of players entering the professional game has risen since 2001, the numbers moving from juniors to top 100 has remained constant.

• The time taken from earning the first ranking point to entering the top 100 from 2000 to 2013 is slowly increasing [3.7 years to 4.8 years for men / 3.4 years to 4.1 years for women].

• The number of nations hosting professional tennis events has not changed significantly since 2001.

• There are significantly more professional events for players to compete in, but that growth of events is being driven by Europe.

APPROVED CHANGES
In March 2015 the ITF Board of Directors approved an extensive programme of prize money increases for the ITF Pro Circuit. The phased introduction of increases commencing in 2016 sought to minimise the impact of prize money rises on tournament numbers and player opportunities worldwide while better rewarding players at the Pro Circuit level.

In March 2017 the ITF Board of Directors approved the introduction in 2019 of an ITF Transition Tour, featuring a new category of interim tournament at entry-level that will better aid the transition from junior to professional tennis and ensure a continued opportunity for players from any nation to join the player pathway.

Transition Tour tournaments will be created through the repositioning of the existing $15,000 (Level I) tournaments on the ITF Pro Circuit that will no longer be held in 2019. Transition Tour tournaments will offer ITF Entry Points instead of ATP/WTA ranking points, with the two systems linked to ensure that the more successful players are able to use their ITF Entry Points to gain acceptance into ITF Pro Circuit tournaments and above.

This restructuring will result in the creation of a new ‘truly professional group’ of players numbering in the region of 750 men and 750 women. This group will compete at Level II Pro Circuit events and above with those events offering ATP and WTA ranking points. By reducing the number of professional players and introducing a set number of job opportunities each week, the professional game will financially reward more players and introduce a much clearer pathway into the professional game.
 

bigserving

Hall of Fame
I think that I understand where they are coming from and what they are trying to accomplish. They no longer want the local studs that kicks but on everybody in the area, then plays the minor league pro tours and events when they come around. That guy is good, but he is not on track to make as a tour player.

The thing is, how are they going to decide is allowed to play what level events and who cannot.

Now, if you can get into a draw, you can compete. That seems more like tennis to me. Toss it up and get after. No favoritism, no anointing. It is often times fun to see a local stud, get a wild card in and compete against players at the next level.

It seems as though he has a vision and an end game. And it seems like he is going to create policy and format to implement his vision. I am just not sure his implementation is going to be best thing for the growth of the game.
 

NaBUru38

Rookie
It could go on a promotion/relegation system, where the top 10 and bottom 10 players each get promoted or relegated to the higher or lower tour (so players ranked 491-500 in 2018 would switch places with players 501-510 of 2018 at the end of the season.

I suppose they can keep their points.) It's a bit of a rough draft, but I hope it can come into fruition.

Golf does that.

The top 5 players in the PGA Tour Latinoamérica qualify to the Web.com Tour.
The top 25 players in the Wreb.com Tour qualify to the PGA Tour.

When you qualify, you get a "card", so you can play the whole season.
If a player performs well, they get promoted.
If a player performs reasonably, they keep the card.
If a player performs poorly, they lose the card.
 

NaBUru38

Rookie
It could go on a promotion/relegation system, where the top 10 and bottom 10 players each get promoted or relegated to the higher or lower tour (so players ranked 491-500 in 2018 would switch places with players 501-510 of 2018 at the end of the season.

I suppose they can keep their points.) It's a bit of a rough draft, but I hope it can come into fruition.

Golf does that.

The top 5 players in the PGA Tour Latinoamérica qualify to the Web.com Tour.
The top 25 players in the Wreb.com Tour qualify to the PGA Tour.

When you qualify, you get a "card", so you can play the whole season.
If a player performs well, they get promoted.
If a player performs reasonably, they keep the card.
If a player performs poorly, they lose the card.
 
ITF Transitional tour is a good idea. It needs to have some kind of a guaranteed number of spots for a guaranteed entry to any ATP events regardless of their ranking once they graduated from Transitional tour. Since ATP is not a member of Grand Slams, the ITF could use Grand Slams as a springboard for a guaranteed direct entry coming from Transitional Tour as points gained from Grand Slams to get some direct entry to ATP events as well.

The tour needs to have an age limit and a guaranteed entry to Grand Slams if you are a top 10 in the ITF transitional tour without having to qualify for any Grand Slams tournaments. This will also help the players financially with first round loser money. This will reduce the direct entry for ATP players from 104 to 94. Maybe increase the Qualification rounds from 3 rounds to 4 rounds, and all 4 rounds can include another 128 Transitional players trying to qualify but with understanding that top 128 players from ATP Players with their ranking will receive a qualification first round bye and can be played a week before so that playing level would be even when they begins for their 2nd round qualification matches. This way, Transitional tour players will get QR2 money which still is equivalent of QR! in current format. Transitional tour players needs some experience with more matches against top players in the world while they are at that level imo.
 
Last edited:
Top