Sam Groth: "I make no money on tour"

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM95

Hall of Fame
$20,343 in a year that isn't complete isn't "no money". The greater your talent, the more you earn. If you can't do your job well then you don't get paid well.

i'd like to see how you'd do on the tour. 20k in 8 months is a pitiful salary for a person who is among the best 250 players in the world. there is no sport in the world that is like this. if you're among the best 250 basketball players in the world, you're making at least 200k a year (with all expenses for food/lodging payed for by the team).

the guys who play/win a challenger make 10k. they're lucky to keep maybe 10% of that sum.

sam groth isn't asking for tournament organizers to pay for his expenses. he's asking for there to be an even distribution of wealth. this can only BENEFIT the sport. the fact that you think that he's not doing his job well when he's playing at ridiculously high level (when compared to the rest of the 1000+ active ATP players) is ridiculous. this kind of rubbish would come from a blind *******.
 

flymeng

Semi-Pro
I agree with people getting paid their economic value.

It's not a function of working hard. I can work very hard every day building lego buildings, but if I'm not providing a service that people are willing to pay for, I don't deserve pay for it.

Absolutely, it all comes to the service you are providing and the supply/demand factor. If consumers can get your service from more competitors, you will have to charge less. Also, the level of difficulty of your service is crucial. Being a surgeon is a lot more difficult than being a gardener. There are less surgeons than gardeners, so a surgeon can charge a lot more for his service.
 

ChanceEncounter

Professional
Its like welfare. You're essential paying for someone else's living expenses, but (at least hopefully) when that person is well, they contribute to the economy.

And many of them do not. Welfare is often a political instrument so it looks like the government cares about the disenfranchised. In reality, if they wanted to help, they would cut pork spending and close loopholes that end up costing way more money than they spend on welfare.

If this becomes an issue, restructure the challengers tour and see if you can't get better sponsors. But there's no reason why people should make money if they aren't contributing and demonstrating their value economically. Just because you work hard does not mean you deserve money. You have to work hard and people have to value your work.
 

ChanceEncounter

Professional
too bad most wont be born with the sheer talent it takes to be fed.

you act like its just a matter of hard work. if that were the case, you'd be a minor league pro too, but you arent are you?
I don't have the talent to be a successful pro tennis player.

So I chose another career, one which I can make money. It's amazing how the economy works, right?

as I said before, people act like the futurs and challenger events have no value when they do. they allow future superstars to mature their games.

if a player's talent level maxes out at that level, sure no one is saying they should make millions a year, but they can make a living wage no?

and what about the real elephant in the room. players in the top 100 still not making money.
You're not offering any value by 'maturing your game.' You're maturing your game for the purpose of offering value.

It's no different than if you go to school in order to get a better career. You don't deserve to get paid big bucks while going to school. You go to school in order to make big bucks.
 
Right so Federer, who generates waaaaaaaayyy more money for these tournaments than Sam Grothe, should be obligated to give his money to Sam Grothe instead.

Players like Nadal and Federer are already being underpaid for how much money they're making for tournaments. You're just suggesting they be underpaid further so the overpaid people who are worth nothing to tournaments get paid better.

If Sam Grothe wants to make more money playing tennis, there's an easy solution. Win.

30,000 a year is considered poor in the US. If Sam has made $20,343 so far, that is about 6000 dollars below poverty.

Fed makes millions, which is rich in any country.

Its not like I want the IRS to go and repose Fed's house and give it to lower ranked players, but considering he wants to grow the game, he has to realize that money is going to have to be subtracted from someones paycheck, whether its his or the tournament directors or the USTA or whoever.

And they don't even have to give a lot, maybe 2 or 3% of there grand slam prize money would be enough.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
And many of them do not. Welfare is often a political instrument so it looks like the government cares about the disenfranchised. In reality, if they wanted to help, they would cut pork spending and close loopholes that end up costing way more money than they spend on welfare.

If this becomes an issue, restructure the challengers tour and see if you can't get better sponsors. But there's no reason why people should make money if they aren't contributing and demonstrating their value economically. Just because you work hard does not mean you deserve money. You have to work hard and people have to value your work.

from your mouth to the voters ear...
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
30,000 a year is considered poor in the US. If Sam has made $20,343 so far, that is about 6000 dollars below poverty.

Fed makes millions, which is rich in any country.

Its not like I want the IRS to go and repose Fed's house and give it to lower ranked players, but considering he wants to grow the game, he has to realize that money is going to have to be subtracted from someones paycheck, whether its his or the tournament directors or the USTA or whoever.

And they don't even have to give a lot, maybe 2 or 3% of there grand slam prize money would be enough.

Sam Groth is average. Federer is an all time great. How can you compare their earnings.
 

ChanceEncounter

Professional
30,000 a year is considered poor in the US. If Sam has made $20,343 so far, that is about 6000 dollars below poverty.

Fed makes millions, which is rich in any country.

Its not like I want the IRS to go and repose Fed's house and give it to lower ranked players, but considering he wants to grow the game, he has to realize that money is going to have to be subtracted from someones paycheck, whether its his or the tournament directors or the USTA or whoever.

And they don't even have to give a lot, maybe 2 or 3% of there grand slam prize money would be enough.

Sam contributes nothing to the purpose of making money for himself. His personal draw to these tournaments is probably less than $20k. He did not attract $20k worth of fans or sponsors to the tournaments that he's entered.

On the other, Federer probably has attracted more than the amount of money he's earned to tournaments via fans and sponsors.

In other words, the only reason Sam can make the money he's making already is because higher draw players elevate the profile of the tournaments he's entering and not winning.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
If you live near a forest, you can always have a good life by collecting mushrooms and berries in the woods.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
30,000 a year is considered poor in the US. If Sam has made $20,343 so far, that is about 6000 dollars below poverty.

Fed makes millions, which is rich in any country.

Its not like I want the IRS to go and repose Fed's house and give it to lower ranked players, but considering he wants to grow the game, he has to realize that money is going to have to be subtracted from someones paycheck, whether its his or the tournament directors or the USTA or whoever.

And they don't even have to give a lot, maybe 2 or 3% of there grand slam prize money would be enough.


wasnt it revealed slams spend less than 10% of revenue on the purses. and that the cost of running the slam is less than 50% or some such?
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
"average" players should be making money too. if there weren't any "average" players there would be no ranking system.

The shadow of Communism is wandering around and very soon there will be equitable wages for bad tennis players. We need money and guns.

Marx n' sobad
 
And many of them do not. Welfare is often a political instrument so it looks like the government cares about the disenfranchised. In reality, if they wanted to help, they would cut pork spending and close loopholes that end up costing way more money than they spend on welfare.

If this becomes an issue, restructure the challengers tour and see if you can't get better sponsors. But there's no reason why people should make money if they aren't contributing and demonstrating their value economically. Just because you work hard does not mean you deserve money. You have to work hard and people have to value your work.[/QUOTE]

Think about this..
At this moment in the Futures, there may be a player who will in time break all of Fed's records. He works hard, and no one values his work because he hasn't fully matured yet. He quits because he can't make ends meet.

Tennis has now lost a player who in time would have been extremely valuable because he wasn't "in demand" yet. I hate the thought of losing these players.

Do they actually exist. Probably not. But if they did, it would suck to lose them because they didn't catch peoples attention early enough.
 

chrischris

G.O.A.T.
Sam is right.

Look at Golf...90+ players make a million each year on tour. Compare that to tennis, I think the number is 15.

It did read like a pity party, but he's correct in that something needs to be done to get more money for the initial rounds of Majors.

But is golf really a sport?
 

ChanceEncounter

Professional
Think about this..
At this moment in the Futures, there may be a player who will in time break all of Fed's records. He works hard, and no one values his work because he hasn't fully matured yet. He quits because he can't make ends meet.

Tennis has now lost a player who in time would have been extremely valuable because he wasn't "in demand" yet. I hate the thought of losing these players.

Do they actually exist. Probably not. But if they did, it would suck to lose them because they didn't catch peoples attention early enough.
There are probably plenty of players with the POTENTIAL to break Federer's records. The vast majority of them fail because they don't convert potential into action. Whether or not this is mentality, work ethic, circumstance, etc is ultimately inconsequential.

The bottom line is, these guys do not contribute much to the prize pool. They do not draw much attention and do not offer much value. It's like saying you should be paid livable wages just for going to university.

If you want Sam Grothe to make more money, you should do something about it. Organize a fan club, get people to go watch him play. Instead, you ask that Federer should give up some of his money in order to subsidize Sam Grothe.
 
There are probably plenty of players with the POTENTIAL to break Federer's records. The vast majority of them fail because they don't convert potential into action. Whether or not this is mentality, work ethic, circumstance, etc is ultimately inconsequential.

The bottom line is, these guys do not contribute much to the prize pool. They do not draw much attention and do not offer much value. It's like saying you should be paid livable wages just for going to university.

If you want Sam Grothe to make more money, you should do something about it. Organize a fan club
, get people to go watch him play. Instead, you ask that Federer should give up some of his money in order to subsidize Sam Grothe.

I'll put it in odds and ends. I expect you to join:)
Done.
 
Last edited:

ChanceEncounter

Professional
I, like most tennis fans, don't care about Sam Grothe. I might not care to see him play even if it was free. I'd probably find something else to do.

Now if Nadal were to play Federer, I would pay money to see.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
The only player in the Futures who would be a candidate for breaking Federer's records would have be be a junior Wimbledon + Orange Bowl champion. :)
 
ChanceEncounter;6845271[B said:
]I, like most tennis fans, don't care about Sam Grothe.[/B] I might not care to see him play even if it was free. I'd probably find something else to do.

Now if Nadal were to play Federer, I would pay money to see.

This is just me, but I don't care if he's ranked 1000. He's still a pro, and I would rather watch a match with 2 lower ranked pros than 2 top players if the former match were competitive.
 

flymeng

Semi-Pro
I, like most tennis fans, don't care about Sam Grothe. I might not care to see him play even if it was free. I'd probably find something else to do.

Now if Nadal were to play Federer, I would pay money to see.

I have been to futures and challengers. Most of them were free except some challengers where they charged $10. These are solid players but not good enough to make it big. I enjoyed watching them played on small stadiums and venues.
 

Cormorant

Professional
So when does Tennis Australia (or the Australia Institute for Sport) stop forking out for their players? I'd assume Groth has had a lot of support from his national body, which will have given him a foundation for his years of perseverance on the tour. By comparison, I don't know that Czech players or Ukrainians or Serbians get nearly as much help. He'll already have had a lot of advantages as an Australian athlete, and now that he wants yet more assistance I'd like to know where he thinks it can come from. I'd be in support of an expenses fund covering sub-#150 pros for an allotted period of time, but I haven't looked into the economics of how the ITF and ATP could collaborate to make that a reality. It doesn't sound like Groth has either, and whilst I accept his grounds for whining I'm more interested in hearing about some feasible solutions.

By the time Groth hits 25 I still won't have seen him play, and that'll be because he hasn't been good enough to qualify for the elite events. It's an individual sport, and it's hard to countenance funding players for a 10-15 year stretch when they've been on the periphery and generating no money for that whole period. I'd like to see a financial bridge between federation funding and ATP support that would give a lot more players the time to realise their potential, but I'd just as ruthlessly endorse the withdrawal of that help if a pro still hasn't made it by their mid-twenties.
 
So when does Tennis Australia (or the Australia Institute for Sport) stop forking out for their players? I'd assume Groth has had a lot of support from his national body, which will have given him a foundation for his years of perseverance on the tour. By comparison, I don't know that Czech players or Ukrainians or Serbians get nearly as much help. He'll already have had a lot of advantages as an Australian athlete, and now that he wants yet more assistance I'd like to know where he thinks it can come from. I'd be in support of an expenses fund covering sub-#150 pros for an allotted period of time, but I haven't looked into the economics of how the ITF and ATP could collaborate to make that a reality. It doesn't sound like Groth has either, and whilst I accept his grounds for whining I'm more interested in hearing about some feasible solutions.

By the time Groth hits 25 I still won't have seen him play, and that'll be because he hasn't been good enough to qualify for the elite events. It's an individual sport, and it's hard to countenance funding players for a 10-15 year stretch when they've been on the periphery and generating no money for that whole period. I'd like to see a financial bridge between federation funding and ATP support that would give a lot more players the time to realise their potential, but I'd just as ruthlessly endorse the withdrawal of that help if a pro still hasn't made it by their mid-twenties.

That would help save them a lot, considering the way every player who has complained about this (Groth and Stakhovsky) mentions the murderous travel expenses.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/...-you-play-in-the-red-zone-20120827-24wmm.html
by Sam Groth

This is not a hard-luck story. I love playing tennis, I've been to more than 40 countries, I've made wonderful friends, had great times. Everyone who steps on a court wants to one day win Wimbledon, and I'm no different. It's the dream that sustains you, even when the danger sometimes is that the credit card might not.


Sam's got what million and million other people dont: he's got to do what he loves. Isn't that rewarding enough?

Those of us making more only do so in order to buy materials to fill our empty lives.
 
Sam's got what million and million other people dont: he's got to do what he loves. Isn't that rewarding enough?

Those of us making more only do so in order to buy materials to fill our empty lives.

:oops: I quit this thread.

You win. By the way, I'm stealing that second paragraph. Hope you don't mind if I throw that in some literary work.
 
This thread is very revealing.

Look at golf as a model, is my suggestion.

The future of the game is in ensuring a viable career pathway for entry level pros.

The average age of the top 100 is mid 20s, having a system that sees players in their early 20s quit because they CAN'T AFFORD TO CONTINUE is so obviously self defeating and stupid as to almost not require comment.

And then I read this thread

You are in sales? Yes, I bet you are, says it all, really...
 
Last edited:
G

guitarplayer

Guest
Slam winners could do without that extra million:)

Seriously, if these players quit early on the sport suffers. I don't mind millionaires making slightly less to support the overall structure of tennis.

Geez, socialism tennis.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Geez, socialism tennis.

and yet if i were stricken with cancer in sweden, I wouldnt go bankrupt to keep from dying.


damn that evil socialism. unlike my friend who had to file for banktrupcy after falling ill to and eventually recovering from ovarian cancer.

pity she didnt have the grace to die and save the taxpayer.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
$20,343 in a year that isn't complete isn't "no money". The greater your talent, the more you earn. If you can't do your job well then you don't get paid well.
Do you know how much airfare, hotels, coaching, transportation, food, clothing, racquet stringing, and other expenses costs per year? :???:

That's why he's in debt after every year on tour.
 

AM95

Hall of Fame
"Average" players do make money. Sam is below average in tennis terms. Pro tennis cannot support thousands of players.

pro tennis doesnt have to. they just need to stop increasing the payouts for the finalists and semi finalists year after year. increase the paychecks for the early round losers.

don't get me wrong, im not a "99% guy". fair is fair though, and what other players (even guys in the top 100) like stakhovsky are going through isnt right.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Do you know how much airfare, hotels, coaching, transportation, food, clothing, racquet stringing, and other expenses costs per year? :???:

That's why he's in debt after every year on tour.

no need to remind NSK..he is a business owner :)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I, like most tennis fans, don't care about Sam Grothe. I might not care to see him play even if it was free. I'd probably find something else to do.

Now if Nadal were to play Federer, I would pay money to see.
That means you're not really a fan of tennis.

You're only a fan of celebrities. Let me guess - do you subscribe to "People" magazine or "Us" or both?

A real tennis fan, like myself, will go watch even the local Open tournaments and Futures, if they're around. I watch tennis for the tennis and the competition, not who's playing.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
even minor league players make enough money to live on.

then again, those leagues play for players to travel, eat etc.

tennis players are on their own for the most part.

Stop comparing tennis to team sports. Compare like with like. Boxing is like tennis, 1 on 1. How much money do you think the world no. 256 Boxer makes when he fights?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
And how many tens of millions of sales people make a good living in the world as opposed to only the top 100 in tennis?



I'm in sales. Same deal. If you are good, you are making a ton of money, if you are average, you will make an average income, if you are a poor sales rep, your income will also be poor.

Welcome to the real world without a free ride.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
That means you're not really a fan of tennis.

You're only a fan of celebrities.
That's a little harsh and over the top. Does everyone who somehow wrangles a wildcard or lucky loser into an ATP event deserve some level of support and our sympathy? If not one tournament, how many? 5? 10? 12? There is always a supply of young guys willing to take a shot at the tour - if some fail, I don't see the problem. There was a good article about Robert Kendrick, he's been grinding since '03 - 35-77 lifetime on the ATP tour - and tons of Challengers. Author pointed out all the contacts he's made meeting people - he'll land in a job when it's over.

Yeah, it worked so great for China and Russia that they got rid of it. Look where China is today economically.
+1. But wait for the fall of China - government is still too heavy handed 'managing' the economy - house of cards coming down in the next 10 yrs... Russia is a basket case - the wealthy live very scary lives - of course the Security Industry is booming.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
This thread is very revealing.

Look at golf as a model, is my suggestion.

The future of the game is in ensuring a viable career pathway for entry level pros.

The average age of the top 100 is mid 20s, having a system that sees players in their early 20s quit because they CAN'T AFFORD TO CONTINUE is so obviously self defeating and stupid as to almost not require comment.

But golf has a lot more money (thanks to Tiger). Actually golf and tennis were pretty similar pre-Tiger, both in money generated and how pathetically the lower ranked players were paid.

It only makes sense to do what is possible to grow the game as you suggest. But from a practical point of view (ie; where is the money going to come from), I don't see it happening. The players have been trying for years. Look where things are.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Sam's story is the reason why the former great tennis nations of the West can't compete any more.

The economic cost to the cohort of young with great tennis potential is seen by them as too high and they venture into careers or choose sports where they can earn more money.

Without these first world stars the advertising dollar flows elsewhere and the game loses traction, so the economic reality is that if the game wants to prosper it needs to pay viable levels of pay to at least the top 200 players.
 

The Wreck

Semi-Pro
Look, the whole point of this discussion is that Sam Groth, 256th ranked tennis player in the world, cannot become Sam Groth 25th ranked tennis player in the world, if he has limited funds for coaching and training and continues to run a deficit each year.

It's easy to say he gets what he deserves, he wouldn't be poor if he were better, etc. But if he never gets a fair shot at it because money is holding him back, then tennis is failing in its efforts to grow the game, and the 'rich' will continue to get 'richer'.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Isn't that communism? Aren't they different?
They are both about sharing the wealth and the government taking the money and re-distributing it as they choose and having the government take care of you, i.e., "nanny state". No incentive to work since everyone knows the government will still take care of you.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
But golf has a lot more money (thanks to Tiger).
True. Not sure where it sits now but #100 in golf made $800k the year before Tiger got his Thanksgiving night beat down. The tennis guy was barely $100k.

Golf did away with qualifiers - so the guys who don't make the tour play the minor tour - much lower expenses.

It only makes sense to do what is possible to grow the game as you suggest. But from a practical point of view (ie; where is the money going to come from), I don't see it happening. The players have been trying for years. Look where things are.
Don't agree with this. Tennis players aren't doing enough to engage the fans - more autograph events and public appearances and media interviews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top