Rafael Nadal Says Lower-ranked Players Need More Money

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
giphy.webp

:eek:
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Nadal seems to have his heart in the right place on this issue, whereas Federer's heart seems as cold as a Swiss glacier.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
One side there's the supply and demand argument and it's true that in a star driven individual sport like tennis, only a handful of players attract much interest. Heck even on a big tennis forum like this, a lot of posters here don't care players at the lower end of the top 10 (as shown by the endless repetitive threads about Federer and Nadal), let alone those ranked outside the top 100. Unfortunately tennis seems to have become more star-driven and dependent than ever before.

But on the other hand there's the overall wellbeing of tennis. The harder it is for lower ranked players to make decent money or just to break even, the less attractive a career option that tennis becomes, the higher the number of potentially talented players decide not to take up the sport professionally, and the more that the overall state and depth of the sport suffers.

Challenger players in 2018 are still far worse off financially than their counterparts were 20 years ago in 1998, as with inflation the players' expenses such as flights, equipment, coaching, nutrition and accommodation have risen far more sharply than the prize money at those events has.

I think that the current ranking cutoff to enter a grand slam qualifying draw is at world no. 234? I would like to see increased earning potential for the players ranked from 101-300, as this would help the sport and its depth massively. I think it's fair that players further down the food chain than that, especially those stuck in futures events that are unable to made to step up to become established at challenger level, don't really deserve to making a living from professional tennis.
 
Last edited:

Enga

Hall of Fame
I think for top players it doesn't really matter that much if lower ranked players make it or not. Even if Federer and Nadal win all the money there is in tennis, they won't feel guilty because it's only the faults of other players for not being good enough, and they put that money to good use in their various foundations and donations. Helping players who should be able to help themselves vs helping children around the world get a better education, the choice should be obvious.

The only thing that should be considered is the game's health. If players aren't good enough to win, then it's just a wakeup call for them to give up. Not that they should get paid more. The only reason they should be paid more is to help keep the game alive. But as far as I can tell the game is pretty well alive right now.
 

WYK

Hall of Fame
Here is an evidence-based analysis of tennis compared to golf:

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ant-more-money-its-not-as-absurd-as-it-sounds

An excerpt:

One hundred and thirty men on the USPGA tour earned more than did the 50th best players on the ATP tour in 2017.

In 2017, 42 men on the ATP tour earned over US$1m, compared to 102 on the USPGA. And that is not including the European golf tour, which had 40 players earn over $1m.

That is definitely a problem. It is utterly confusing how anyone can make a living at golf. How can we put an end to this? The sooner the better.
 
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
Well he should put his money where his mouth is and give some of his money towards helping lower ranked players succeed.
 

reaper

Legend
Lots and lots of great talent is lost, that we never get to see, because the young one cannot afford to travel and survive on the challenger/future circuit.

Rafa is right, the lower players do need more to make it survivable. Maybe not even that much more, but enough so that they are not having to string with synthetic gut and hoping it lasts all tournament and sleeping in cars, etc.

ATP should see it as positive investment in future stars, or future crop from their eyes since players are all slaves and products.

There's probably an argument for an age restricted tour (say ages 18-21) rather than more money for lowly ranked players across the board. In total there are probably only 10 male players aged 18-20 making a living from the sport, but in 7 years when they reach ages 25-27 about 60 of the top 200 will be from that age group. There must be young players who are lost to the sport because they're not viable at 19, but who would have made it in their mid 20's.
 

EloQuent

Legend
There's probably an argument for an age restricted tour (say ages 18-21) rather than more money for lowly ranked players across the board. In total there are probably only 10 male players aged 18-20 making a living from the sport, but in 7 years when they reach ages 25-27 about 60 of the top 200 will be from that age group. There must be young players who are lost to the sport because they're not viable at 19, but who would have made it in their mid 20's.
or maybe alongside the big tournaments, events for younger players.
 
Top