Rafael Nadal Says Lower-ranked Players Need More Money
- Thread starter Backspin1183
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atp australian open djokovic itf nadal
octobrina10
Bionic Poster
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think it works that way. It's not that simple.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
You have to admit it's such a good caricature of the replies you'd expect in a "2 year ranking" or "more clay tournaments / fewer HC tournaments" thread!
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.
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:
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
Last edited:
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Maybe he is a communist at heart.
No wonder you like him.
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.
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.
EloQuent
Legend
WYK
Legend
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.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
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
or maybe alongside the big tournaments, events for younger players.
Yes, perhaps a parallel 64 player draw at slams, 32 at Masters events/the odd 500 for 18-21 year olds...that type of thing.
Similar threads
