Janko Tipsarevic Interview - The Tennis Podcast

joekapa

Legend
Perhaps one of the best interviews I have ever heard by a tennis player. Listen to the WHOLE interview. Controversial views, but articulated so well by Janko. If only other tennis players (especially the big-3) had the guts to be so candid. His views on tennis politics were FANTASTC. David Law remains speechless throughout the whole thing.

https://play.acast.com/s/thetennispodcast/jankotipsarevicinterview-injuryhell-mentalhealth-murraysreturn-therealnovakdjokovic-atppolitics-itfworldtennistour
 

Wander

Professional
Janko is an interesting character. I don't agree with all his views, but the fact that he is so ready to say exactly what he thinks makes him worth listening to. A good interview, this one with lots of interesting details.

For example, Janko thinks Federer was able to turn the match-up against Nadal around in his later years, because he no longer had a plan B (e.g to try to run more and grind it out) because of getting older, so he had to stay aggressive whatever happened.
 

acintya

Legend
thanks for the share

this is one of the best interview i ever heard. Great insight. Every tennis player should listen this.

Fed, Nadal, Djoko should stop playing Tennis and demand greater prize money for everybody!!

He is right.. what the **** did Federer do about this? What did Nadal do? ****ing nothing. I am such a fan of Nadal but this I really dislike about him and this Fed guy is even worse. They should do something about this.

WHY? Because they COULD.

raise the procentage ****az!!!

BRAVO JANKO! "FAIR SHARE OF THE MONEY THAT THIS SPORT GENERATES"
i like he has gone deep on this subject
 
Last edited:

Rattler

Professional
Perhaps one of the best interviews I have ever heard by a tennis player. Listen to the WHOLE interview. Controversial views, but articulated so well by Janko. If only other tennis players (especially the big-3) had the guts to be so candid. His views on tennis politics were FANTASTC. David Law remains speechless throughout the whole thing.

https://play.acast.com/s/thetennispodcast/jankotipsarevicinterview-injuryhell-mentalhealth-murraysreturn-therealnovakdjokovic-atppolitics-itfworldtennistour

I also listened to this today...couldn’t agree with you more. His insights into the players mind about being afraid to fail as a roadblock was great
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Janko is an interesting character. I don't agree with all his views, but the fact that he is so ready to say exactly what he thinks makes him worth listening to. A good interview, this one with lots of interesting details.
Yep, this ^. Janko is an interesting guy who is a good interviewee. It was a very entertaining and interesting podcast. I suspect he's got a slight dose of Landmark Forum/Tony Robbins-type life coach/advice business in him which smells like a borderline scam to dupe people who're obsessed with personal growth.

The part of the conversation which interested and surprised me the most was his talk about the NBA strike and the players gunning to move from 49% to 51% (or thereabouts) of the revenue and how it compares to tennis. I know he was making a comparison about bargaining power rather than percentages but to many it will sound like it's about percentages. That comparison is bunk and nowhere close to comparing apples with apples. To have that conversation but leave untouched the nuances of the business of tennis did that part of the conversation a bit of a disservice. It left the implication that there's similarities between the business models and that the percentages achieved in basketball could be seen as somewhat of a guide for tennis, which is ridiculous for obvious reasons (if anyone needs the main one explained I'm happy to - perhaps it isn't obvious to all).
 
Last edited:

oldmanfan

Hall of Fame
Yep, this ^. Janko is an interesting guy who is a good interviewee. It was a very entertaining and interesting podcast. I suspect he's got a slight dose of Landmark Forum/Tony Robbins-type life coach/advice business in him which smells like a borderline scam to dupe people who're obsessed with personal growth.

The part of the conversation which interested and surprised me the most was his talk about the NBA strike and the players gunning to move from 49% to 51% (or thereabouts) of the revenue and how it compares to tennis. I know he was making a comparison about bargaining power rather than percentages but to many it will sound like it's about percentages. That comparison is bunk and nowhere close to comparing apples with apples. To have that conversation but leave untouched the nuances of the business of tennis did that part of the conversation a bit of a disservice. It left the implication that there's similarities between the business models and that the percentages achieved in basketball could be seen as somewhat of a guide for tennis, which is ridiculous for obvious reasons (if anyone needs the main one explained I'm happy to - perhaps it isn't obvious to all).
Agreed.

His 'percentages' talk is bit naive. His view about it tends to only see it from the POV of the most profitable tournaments, the slams. What about 500s, 250s, challengers, heck or even less attended 1000s like Bercy? If players get close to 50% of revenue (NOT gross profit mind you, see further down), then many tournaments would simply shut down from losses or not enough profit to make it worthwhile. 50% of 'revenue' before deductions could net most lower tournaments close to or into the red I'd imagine, and even for the slams, they would likely end up with so little as to barely make it worthwhile. Now, 50% of 'gross' profit I can understand, but even then, I think most tournaments will not find it worthwhile. Tennis is a tough one to figure out bc the tournanments do not 'own' the players like other sports like basketball, soccer, american football, baseball, etc. Tennis players can simply NOT play with little to no consequences compared those sports. I agree with him that tennis' player-financing needs to improve, but the question remains 'How?', bc I don't think 50% is realistic.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Agreed.

His 'percentages' talk is bit naive. His view about it tends to only see it from the POV of the most profitable tournaments, the slams. What about 500s, 250s, challengers, heck or even less attended 1000s like Bercy? If players get close to 50% of revenue (NOT gross profit mind you, see further down), then many tournaments would simply shut down from losses or not enough profit to make it worthwhile. 50% of 'revenue' before deductions could net most lower tournaments close to or into the red I'd imagine, and even for the slams, they would likely end up with so little as to barely make it worthwhile. Now, 50% of 'gross' profit I can understand, but even then, I think most tournaments will not find it worthwhile. Tennis is a tough one to figure out bc the tournanments do not 'own' the players like other sports like basketball, soccer, american football, baseball, etc. Tennis players can simply NOT play with little to no consequences compared those sports. I agree with him that tennis' player-financing needs to improve, but the question remains 'How?', bc I don't think 50% is realistic.
Yep, but before you get to the percentages argument the business models need to be compared.

Basketball is a self-contained league situation which takes place in venues week after week which can be used for other activities at hours notice - unlike tennis venues. The league model also lends itself to season-pass holders and regular fans who go week-in week out on the basis of tribal affiliations and habit.

Tennis tournaments, by contrast, are standalone businesses which all compete and have to redo most of their marketing from scratch each single year with only a couple of weeks in which to make 99% of their money. This means the the business cost structure for basketball is probably (relatively) in the order of 4 or 5 times as efficient as for a tennis tournament - hence why the talent can command a much larger chunk of the revenue pie.

More to this, each team/venue can sign deals with brands for merchandise which offer ongoing, repeat business all year round - often on a global basis or, in the least, nationwide. Tennis tournaments, by contrast, get to sell some t-shirts and towels for a couple of weeks. At worst every NBA team/venue starts $10m better off than any tennis tournament before even getting out of bed in the morning. If every tennis tournament started with a number like that in their kitty the percentage allocated toward prize money would be vastly different to what it is now.
 

joekapa

Legend
Yep, but before you get to the percentages argument the business models need to be compared.

Basketball is a self-contained league situation which takes place in venues week after week which can be used for other activities at hours notice - unlike tennis venues. The league model also lends itself to season-pass holders and regular fans who go week-in week out on the basis of tribal affiliations and habit.

Tennis tournaments, by contrast, are standalone businesses which all compete and have to redo most of their marketing from scratch each single year with only a couple of weeks in which to make 99% of their money. This means the the business cost structure for basketball is probably (relatively) in the order of 4 or 5 times as efficient as for a tennis tournament - hence why the talent can command a much larger chunk of the revenue pie.

More to this, each team/venue can sign deals with brands for merchandise which offer ongoing, repeat business all year round - often on a global basis or, in the least, nationwide. Tennis tournaments, by contrast, get to sell some t-shirts and towels for a couple of weeks. At worst every NBA team/venue starts $10m better off than any tennis tournament before even getting out of bed in the morning. If every tennis tournament started with a number like that in their kitty the percentage allocated toward prize money would be vastly different to what it is now.
The Rod Laver Arena is used for concerts ALL the TIME !
The O2 Arena also.
I'm sure Janko knows the financial side of things, more than he let on, in the interview, and used the NBA as an example. "You are not getting 30k pounds to play first round at Wimbledon. You are getting it because your are number 50, or 60 in the world". The key to it is that phrase.

And he is right.

If some of these players could afford to pay for permanent coaches/trainers, you might just see a number 80 player, win a slam .....you never know.


Yep, this ^. Janko is an interesting guy who is a good interviewee. It was a very entertaining and interesting podcast. I suspect he's got a slight dose of Landmark Forum/Tony Robbins-type life coach/advice business in him which smells like a borderline scam to dupe people who're obsessed with personal growth.

The part of the conversation which interested and surprised me the most was his talk about the NBA strike and the players gunning to move from 49% to 51% (or thereabouts) of the revenue and how it compares to tennis. I know he was making a comparison about bargaining power rather than percentages but to many it will sound like it's about percentages. That comparison is bunk and nowhere close to comparing apples with apples. To have that conversation but leave untouched the nuances of the business of tennis did that part of the conversation a bit of a disservice. It left the implication that there's similarities between the business models and that the percentages achieved in basketball could be seen as somewhat of a guide for tennis, which is ridiculous for obvious reasons (if anyone needs the main one explained I'm happy to - perhaps it isn't obvious to all).
The man went through 2 foot operations, where a tumor was found on the sole of his foot. At the height of his tennis career. Gives him more than enough qualifications to talk about sports psychology, I think.
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
Perhaps one of the best interviews I have ever heard by a tennis player. Listen to the WHOLE interview. Controversial views, but articulated so well by Janko. If only other tennis players (especially the big-3) had the guts to be so candid. His views on tennis politics were FANTASTC. David Law remains speechless throughout the whole thing.

https://play.acast.com/s/thetennispodcast/jankotipsarevicinterview-injuryhell-mentalhealth-murraysreturn-therealnovakdjokovic-atppolitics-itfworldtennistour
I was going to create a thread about this after listening to the podcast over the weekend in a state of astonishment.

I don't agree with the majority of what Janko said but the boldness of his ideas, and the airtime he got to express them, meant he could really flesh out how he would change tennis.

It's a fascinating listen.

Slightly off-topic, but the work David Law and Catherine Whittaker have done on The Tennis Podcast has been fantastic. I've been a listener since 2012, and there has rarely been a weak episode. It is full of really interesting analysis and commentary on the game. David and Catherine both have unique access to the administrative and broadcast aspects of the game and also the players so the content is great. Simon Briggs is always excellent as a regular guest as well.

It's worth going back over the old episodes. David Law is a very good commentator and is gathering a reputation as one of the best interviewers in tennis. Simon Briggs' interview of Djokovic from a few months ago is somewhere in the archives, too.

Here is a link to a copy of the podcast as a downloadable link without the acast bloatware:

http://podbay.fm/show/530971441/e/1554994800?autostart=1

WARNING: THIS EPISODE CONTAINS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE.
 
Last edited:

joekapa

Legend
I was going to create a thread about this after listening to the podcast over the weekend in a state of astonishment.

I don't agree with the majority of what Janko said but the boldness of his ideas, and the airtime he got to express them, meant he could really flesh out how he would change tennis.

It's a fascinating listen.

Slightly off-topic, but the work David Law and Catherine Whittaker have done on The Tennis Podcast has been fantastic. I've been a listener since 2012, and there has rarely been a weak episode. It is full of really interesting analysis and commentary on the game. David and Catherine both have unique access to the administrative and broadcast aspects of the game and also the players so the content is great. Simon Briggs is always excellent as a regular guest as well.

It's worth going back over the old episodes. David Law is a very good commentator and is gathering a reputation as one of the best interviewers in tennis. Simon Briggs' interview of Djokovic from a few months ago is somewhere in the archives, too.
I agree about David. I think Catherine is very biased in a lot of her views, and doesn't really understand the sport.

She called Andy Murray a great "feminist", when he announced his retirement. She obviously "forgot" what his views were of the women's game a few years back (saying pretty much what Janko said about the women's game in the interview). Andy has since "changed" his views because the world has become too politically correct to say such things.

Also I think David, holds back, like he did with Janko. He held back, because he didn't have an answer to Janko's well articulated views. Notice how Janko caught him out when David laughed at Wimbledon being moved to Abu Dabi, but he didn't laugh when he suggested the Australian Open being moved to China. David brushed it away saying he was speechless , but was he really ? Hypocrisy.
 

joekapa

Legend
Um,... ok. Let's just come back to reality. It takes weeks to prepare RLA for events and, even then, they're limited. They have very few concerts there a year by comparison to how often basketball arenas get used for other purposes in the US. I'm talking like RLA is utilised to capacity outside of the Aussie Open maybe 10 times per year.

So please, muppet, stick to your knitting. I've been to Melbourne park a hundred times, if not more, for tennis and other events going back to when it first opened in the late 80s.


Nah... he's sort of right in a completely arguable way. People don't get paid for their ranking. If they did then all tournaments would contribute pro rata to the prize pool which is divvied up among players according to rank. But that doesn't happen - not even close. Players get paid on accomplishment within each business unit, i.e. tournament. If they perform their ranking - separate to prize money but highly postively correlated - also improves. They don't get paid for being there. They get paid for doing what it takes to get there. Simply: if you don't do it, you don't get the prize money or the ranking.

His framing of it that way does nothing to support his argument - especially when he omits to mention that a person ranked say #50 who loses first round of a major does not get what he claimed. They get that for that major alone. Times it by 4 to get an idea of what they will be paid for a year (4 majors, 4 times the 1st round cheques) - and that's ignoring all the other tournaments too. There's a handful of Masters tournaments which a player ranked 50 is obliged to play so there would be more money there too.

(notwithstanding a glaring detail he missed - a player ranked #50 who loses in the first round of a grand slam has under-performed. By ranking alone the players ranked 65 and worse should lose 1st round all things considered/averaged out. If you're ranked #50 and lose in the first round of each major then you are finding your ranking points to keep you at #50 from smaller, easier tournament and therefore have little leg to stand on complaining about the prize money for losing in the 1st round of a major)

Not sure who you think this comment is directed at but I didn't talk about sports psychology anywhere in my post.
- Did you see where Miami was held this year ? Who is to say similar, semi permanent construction cannot be made in the future for other tennis tournaments. Just like the O2 is not a permanent arena for tennis. I don't think it is that difficult, is it ?
- People ARE paid for their ranking in a rounbabout way. Higher ranking, means more qualifications for tournaments, means you get paid for showing up. Remember when Almagro simply played a game in a tournament, so he could get paid, and then retired, because of injury ? Didn't he get paid for his ranking there ? Of course he did.
- You do realise that trainers, doctors, coaches, court time, hotels, flights more or less come out of the players pocket, yes ? I have a good friend who's daughter was a VERY good player, who starred in college tennis. I asked him once why she didn't go pro. You know what he said ? That in order to go pro, and simply break even, she would need to be ranked number 70 or higher in WTA rankings.

I would guess that in ATP the number would be top 100. How much would a top 100 soccer player be maiking in some European league ? And I am not saying that tennis players should be earning that much, but I would be interested to see what money the tournaments (especially, masters and slams) are actually making. I wouldn;t be surprised if its' a HELL of a lot.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
- Did you see where Miami was held this year ? Who is to say similar, semi permanent construction cannot be made
...
Yes. Irrelevant. The exception does not debunk the norm which is that most tennis venues do not cater themselves well for efficient use of land or location for other events for the most part.
- People ARE paid for their ranking in a rounbabout way. Higher ranking, means more qualifications for tournaments, means you get paid for showing up.
No, they are not. If they continue to get paid for showing up their ranking will plummet and they will cease to get paid for showing up. :rolleyes:

Remember when Almagro simply played a game in a tournament, so he could get paid, and then retired, because of injury ? Didn't he get paid for his ranking there ? Of course he did.
Again, completely irrelevant. Can you not make one coherent point which isn't just a rare/extreme example/occurrence?

- You do realise that trainers, doctors, coaches, court time, hotels, flights more or less come out of the players pocket, yes ?...
Irrelevant to anything I was saying.

I would guess that in ATP the number would be top 100. How much would a top 100 soccer player be maiking in some European league ?
This is a flawed analogy/comparison. A more accurate one would be to look at the average salary of players in the 100th best football team in the world and compare it to the 100th ranked tennis player. Working out which team in the world is the 100th best is a ny on impossible thing to work out though, but that's no excuse for trucking out the beyond ludicrous "top 100 soccer player" comparison. The sports have different business models with vastly different characteristics that means the revenue and cost structures could never be met by any tournament-based tennis tour where each competitor is an individual business unit.

If you had read my comments above about some of the key differences between basketball and tennis as businesses you would not have bothered to make this comment about football because you'd know it was also redundant, because all of the same glaring differences apply.

So, please, keep your brainfarts to yourself. Every single thing you typed in reply to me was either away from the core topic or mindless rambling.
 

haqq777

Legend
I just got done hearing it all. Very interesting hour and 22 minutes. I think Janko will become a great coach by how he explains things and breaks them down point by point. You can can disagree with his points (I am not sure how accurate he is with his stas etc as well) but he made a good case by the way he explained things, at least for me.
 
Top