Stakhovsky: I am in the Negative

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
Interesting interview about prize money and expenses.


On prize money tennis:

I’m in the negative after the IW and Miami Masters. About five thousand. And that’s while reaching the second round in Indian Wells.

This year I’ve been flying economy. From London to Dubai and back I flew for 1200 Euros. And we can’t order tickets in advance. In addition, you can’t give up the cheap tickets. Often, we buy the tickets on the day of departure. And those are completely different numbers.

In a year, I spend 170 thousand Euros on the “game expenses” category. Last year, only the tickets cost me 85 thousand. I earned $428 thousand. Take out 30%, on average, for taxes.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray – that’s simply another world. … We simply don’t exist in comparison with them.

Players who aren’t inside the top-20, don’t have any money, except for the prize money. Contracts, clothes – that’s all for the top-5 or top-10 players.

On the slowing of the courts:

This year, the fastest courts were in Dubai. We came to Indian Wells with the hope that the courts will be at least the same as last year. But they laid a new surface, and they became super-slow with high bounce. In Miami it’s the same, and additionally the balls fluff out more because of the humidity.

Actually, the courts used to be too fast, and they decided to slow it down to make the game more colorful. But they overdid it. And nobody really liked the final in Australia, which lasted 6 hours. … The fastest court was in Bercy. … And now, even in Wimbledon the grass grows the wrong way – to slow down the game.

On Federer-Nadal:

Federer plays a less physical tennis. Someone has more God-given talent; someone has more of something else. For me, Nadal is more talented in terms of discipline and hard work. Thanks to that he became the No.1 player at the time. But Federer – that’s a tennis player from God, a talent which found “his own” sports field.

Everyone learns from Federer. In 2006-2008, Roger moved tennis in an absolutely different direction. He played so quickly that everyone followed him. But then the slowing down of courts started.

On Federer v Nadal, off court, rift:

(Roger’s) a good person, but too neutral for my taste. He’s too Swiss. He wants to keep out of any bad stories too much. When players want to change something, he looks at it too passively, because it can harm his image.

I respect Nadal more in that context, because he openly supports the players’ interests.

(Nadal) wasn’t offended by Federer, exactly. He was disappointed that his ideas – useful for the tour, as he thinks – aren’t heard.

Federer says the same, just not in the presence of all the other players. He doesn’t want to speak publicly about certain things. Because if suddenly there’s a scandal with the boycott of Grand Slams by players, it can be connected to his name.

In fact, Nadal didn’t leave because of Federer, and the players’ council, for the most part, doesn’t decide anything. It’s a consulting body. But there are three people who represent the players in the ATP. And Rafa thought that they didn’t defend the players’ interests in the extent that they should. And about certain things, I’m prepared to agree with him.

On having his kids becoming pro tennis players:

if I had kids now, I’d never send them to play tennis … If I didn’t make it in the top-100 – what next? I mean, I become a tennis instructor, and what life is that? To be on court from 8 till 8 for the rest of my life, to play with amateurs? Yes, it can be financially rewarding, but it’s a hell of a work.






http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-04-10/9291.php
 
Last edited:

CDestroyer

Professional
That really sucks. Top 100 in the world in the negative. I wonder if he feels like it was all a big waste of time. I sure would.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
Excellent interview and Sergiy comes off as someone able to articulates his view point very well. The complete interview has lots of information:

http://letsecondserve.blogspot.com/

Kind of sad that the top players make all the money - on the one hand that demotivates people from taking up tennis as a serious career but on the other hand it could motivate players in the top 100 to be hungry and work super hard to get in the money. Either way though, right now the payment structure looks too top heavy.

"
You lose the reason to enter the top-100. If you travel with a coach – you’ll be in a small “plus”, $20-30 thousand per year. And those are the 100 best people in this sport all over the world. If you take the 100th soccer player, the 100th golfer, any sport that’s on TV – their salaries will be immeasurably greater. Even the 100th soccer player in Ukraine earns more."


Also Sergiy offered his views on Rafa leaving the ATP council.

"In fact, Nadal didn’t leave because of Federer, and the players’ council, for the most part, doesn’t decide anything. It’s a consulting body. But there are three people who represent the players in the ATP. And Rafa thought that they didn’t defend the players’ interests in the extent that they should. And about certain things, I’m prepared to agree with him. "
 
Last edited:

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I totally get his point - the popular image of the majority of pro tennis players bathing in riches is not true - most have to be sponsored, most have a ton of costs and taxes which can easily reduce net profit considerably, even if they made a decent amount of money during a given year.

But, he then says that even if he saves $500,000 euros by the end of his career, the has to live off of that for the rest of his life. What? A majority of pro athletes, other than the very elite, have to do something else after they retire. He'll be in his early 30s with a decent amount of money. He can teach tennis to make money, he can go to school for a different career. I'm sure he has more options than most people.

Basically, the article just reveals that tennis, for the vast majority of players is just like any other job that any other person has or any other career. Most of us aren't going to make enough between the ages of 20 and 32, no matter what our profession or job, to not have to work for the rest of our lives. We have to keep on working. So do most tennis players. If they truly love tennis, some have the option of being teaching pros or tennis directors at ritzy resorts or tennis academies, or coaching. A few lucky ones might get into brodcasting. But, even more ex-players probably have to go do something more mundane.
 
Last edited:
Good article, and I agree with the point about some more of the money being moved to support more depth in the sport, but I still fail to sympathise too much with a guy who's pulling in a few hundred thousand €'s a year #1percentproblems.
 

Crisstti

Legend
I totally get his point - the popular image of the majority of pro tennis players bathing in riches is not true - most have to be sponsored, most have a ton of costs and taxes which can easily reduce net profit considerably, even if they made a decent amount of money during a given year.

But, he then says that even if he saves $500,000 euros by the end of his career, the has to live off of that for the rest of his life. What? Nearly ever pro athlete, other than the very elite, have to do something else after they retire. He'll be in his early 30s with a decent amount of money. He can teach tennis to make money, he can go to school for a different career. I'm sure he has more options than most people.

Basically, the article just reveals that tennis, for the vast majority of players is just like any other job that any other person has or any other career. Most of us aren't going to make enough between the ages of 20 and 32, no matter what our profession or job, to not have to work for the rest of our lives. We have to keep on working. So do most tennis players. If they truly love tennis, some have the option of being teaching pros or tennis directors at ritzy resorts or tennis academies. A few lucky ones might get into brodcasting. But, even more probably have to go do something more mundane.

Yeah. He also talks about teaching in a tennis academy as something pretty awful.
 
Stak's not telling us something here. He has made $121,000 in four months, which is $30,000 a month. Let's be fair for a second and add up expenses that are guaranteed, such as Airline tickets, hotels, equipment repair, stringing, bills at home, few other things.

Where's the other money going? 30 grand a month isn't Federer level, but he should be finding other ways to save. Eating out three times a day will deplete your money fast, for instance.

So where's the rest of the money going?
 
He's absolutely right about the fact that being #100 should pay more.

When you look at the 100th best players in any major American sport, those guys make 3-10M a year (some more), even though they're only the 4-5th best guy on their own team.

To net $30,000 in a year for being a top 100 athlete in a pro sport is pretty sad. Even Federer/Nadal/Djokovic in their 3 slam years made prize money that pales in comparison to the annual salaries of guys like Alex Rodriguez, Peyton Manning and Kobe Bryant.
 

niff

Legend
He actually says in the interview he thinks it would help him.
It was translated on MTF as "I am against the two-year ranking. Because many players will take two years to break into a hundred"

I agree with others on the money ... it's a problem at challenger level when players can't afford to travel, but others players who have been complaining, Davydenko? Really?
 

Crisstti

Legend
It was translated on MTF as "I am against the two-year ranking. Because many players will take two years to break into a hundred"

I agree with others on the money ... it's a problem at challenger level when players can't afford to travel, but others players who have been complaining, Davydenko? Really?

He also says something about how it would help him because it would protect his ranking.

To ask that the slams pay the players more money seems quite reasonable to me.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
Stak's not telling us something here. He has made $121,000 in four months, which is $30,000 a month. Let's be fair for a second and add up expenses that are guaranteed, such as Airline tickets, hotels, equipment repair, stringing, bills at home, few other things.

Where's the other money going? 30 grand a month isn't Federer level, but he should be finding other ways to save. Eating out three times a day will deplete your money fast, for instance.

So where's the rest of the money going?

One return flight every 2 weeks is 8 flights in 4 months. If its him and his trainer thats 16 flights. International Flight tickets are easily $2k+ and if you buy last minute they are even more. So thats $32k gone there.

Food at $50 a day (conservative) for 120 days * 2 people = 12k.

A single hotel room * 2 people for half of that period (60 days) at even $100 a day= $12k

Lets say his trainer's salary is at least $100k a year (I can't think any decent trainer would work for less). Thats 25k for the 4 months.

We haven't even added basic living like car loan payments, Rent, groceries etc. Thats at least 2k a month * 4 months = 8 k.

Add it up and you have 32k+12k+12k+25k+$8k = $89k.

All in all, he basically made $120k and spent $90k so he saved $30k in 4 months or $90k a year. Obviously this 4 months is poorer than his usual but its crazily low for someone who is 70th best at a sport in the world. College basketball players make MUCH more money!
 
Last edited:
Who is making 30 grand a year? Not anyone I see. Bjorn Phau has made 78 grand for four months, Stak made 121, Mike Russell has made 57 this year, and he has been out a little bit. Even Rui Machado could lose every single match this year and take home 50 or 60.
 

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
He wasn't in the negative. He clears about $130K per year after taxes and coaches.

Wow, $130K for all that travel and training and hard physical work. That's horrible.

Pro Tennis really is like boxing or MMA, the big purses go to the top fighters. The rest get a mere pittance.

Sad that they give all of the revenues to only the top players, but I guess that's the only players fans want to see.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Tennis is simply not a big money sport. Never mind the top 100, the male player ranked TENTH had made about 500,000 after the first quarter of the year, on pace to make about two million for the year. Most of these guys probably should have gone into the family business.
 
D

decades

Guest
Who is making 30 grand a year? Not anyone I see. Bjorn Phau has made 78 grand for four months, Stak made 121, Mike Russell has made 57 this year, and he has been out a little bit. Even Rui Machado could lose every single match this year and take home 50 or 60.

they are in very high tax brackets cuz all of their income is prize money. don't they also have to pay fees to ATP? the agent takes a cut if they have one. flights hotels meals equipment are deducible. I wonder what level hotel room these guys stay at?
 
D

decades

Guest
Tennis is simply not a big money sport. Never mind the top 100, the male player ranked TENTH had made about 500,000 after the first quarter of the year, on pace to make about two million for the year. Most of these guys probably should have gone into the family business.

there are perks to being a pro tennis player if you are single. :shock:
 
I am not a fan of giving more money for lower ranks, and Ernests Gulbis is a big reason why.

He's a filthy rich kid who has zero hunger to get better, and he makes a mockery out of this career.

Now his example is an anomaly, I understand, but my point is the same. Give the lower ranked players more and they will lose their hunger to move up. NBA bench players make a mother load, and 98 percent of them never advance past that bench, and a lot of them get fat there. They simply do not have the hunger.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
"If I didn’t make it in the top-100 – what next? I mean, I become a tennis instructor, and what life is that? To be on court from 8 till 8 for the rest of my life, to play with amateurs? Yes, it can be financially rewarding, but it’s a hell of a work."

What the heck does he mean by that? Doctors work with the sickest of people, teachers teach kids who don't know the alphabet, janitors clean toilets the whole day, and this guy thinks it is beneath him to teach? With that attitude, no wonder he resents those with talent who make more money.

He should be asking himself how many other professions allow school drop-outs to work from 8 to 8 and have a "financially rewarding" life.

Tennis is part of the entertainment industry. No one needs to watch an actor act in a movie or a tennis pro hit a forehand. It is not a police officer's job.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
He should be asking himself how many other professions allow school drop-outs to work from 8 to 8 and have a "financially rewarding" life.

Tennis is part of the entertainment industry. No one needs to watch an actor act in a movie or a tennis pro hit a forehand. It is not a police officer's job.

Right on the money.
 

lim

Professional
Same scenario for every individual sport/career.

People do it because they want to be number one, and the number one gets rewarded for it.

Just shows that you have be in it for the love.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
He mentions that the 100th soccer player in Ukraine makes more money. But I suspect that the most talented kids in Ukraine are going into soccer, and being 100th there is very very difficult.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Interesting court speed related comments by him also. I agree in some ways re: the Aussie Open final. Having got it recorded still I've re-watched parts of it and without fast-forwarding between points it is bordering on unwatchable.

This year, the fastest courts were in Dubai. We came to Indian Wells with the hope that the courts will be at least the same as last year. But they laid a new surface, and they became super-slow with high bounce. In Miami it’s the same, and additionally the balls fluff out more because of the humidity.

Q. Why do the organizers do that?
Actually, the courts used to be too fast, and they decided to slow it down to make the game more colorful. But they overdid it. And nobody really liked the final in Australia, which lasted 6 hours.

Well, for the first time it will do.
But if this becomes a tendency, people won’t understand. So you need either to change the structure of scoring, or to make the courts faster. Because – well, no way.....
 

DunlopDood

Semi-Pro
It may be juvenile to bring this to poke fun at someones looks, but the sad fact is that sponsors gravitate towards good looking players to market their products. Alas Stakhovski is a pretty butt ugly dude. It's really the only reason why the WTA is still relevant based on the boring style of tennis played on that tour nowadays.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
He actually says in the interview he thinks it would help him.
So he stinks at math and common sense too? A system that would force him to have many more good results (than his career up to now has not been able to achieve) to get up to a ranking of getting into all Masters 1000 events without qualifying would be better?

No sympathy. No one is holding a gun to his head. Read an article about Robert Kendrick - he's scuffling on tour for over a decade too - he's making contacts for his life after Tennis. He'll have plenty of job offers.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Interesting court speed related comments by him also. I agree in some ways re: the Aussie Open final. Having got it recorded still I've re-watched parts of it and without fast-forwarding between points it is bordering on unwatchable.

yeah, that bit caught my eye as well. Im suprised nobody in the article made the correlation between and median age of tennis players getting older and how it relates to court speed.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
So he stinks at math and common sense too? A system that would force him to have many more good results (than his career up to now has not been able to achieve) to get up to a ranking of getting into all Masters 1000 events without qualifying would be better?

No sympathy. No one is holding a gun to his head. Read an article about Robert Kendrick - he's scuffling on tour for over a decade too - he's making contacts for his life after Tennis. He'll have plenty of job offers.

and thats not even really what he said. chrissti misquoted him :-?

He said if the tournaments paid out a greater percentage of the money they earn in prize money, he would be against the two year ranking system for the obvious reasons you listed:

the Grand Slam tournaments, as we know, pay the players an abnormally low percent of their earnings. For instance, the US Open spends 4-6% of their profit on prize money. The ATP tournaments – around 30%. Since 2004, the prizes in the big tournaments rose less than the inflation.

You lose the reason to enter the top-100. If you travel with a coach – you’ll be in a small “plus”, $20-30 thousand per year.


The Slams are holding everything, and if they start sharing their profits, it’ll make sense to make it to the top-100. Yes, it will look vulgar if a player who lost in the first round, makes $50-100 thousand, but how much he invested in himself to even play there. To fly to Australia – that’s already a feat. It’s 24 hours. I’m not risking flying economy there, it’s just unrealistic.




If the Slams make concessions, I’m against a 2-year ranking. Because many players will need two years to make it in the top-100. And now people are really working on it. Now, the 70- or the 200-ranked player – are the same.
 

tistrapukcipeht

Professional
Some scary thoughts and ideas.

As said before, these guys need to get paid a lot more, the tournaments get almost everything for free through sponsors.

ATP 250-

1st round loss- 10K
2nd round loss- 20K
3rd round loss- 35K
quarter loss- 50K
semis- 80K
finalist-100K
winner- 120K

Also that is true about working on the sun 8-8pm it is a hard work.

-AO Final- I thought wasn't interesting either, too long, too much of the same baseline game. I slept and walk up a couple pf times during that match.

-They need to speed up the courts, no doubt about it.

2 year ranking is the biggest stupidity to be considered, in that way Nadal would take 3 months off come back and still be # 2.

WE ARE TENNIS NOT GOLF MR NADAL.

Nadal's ideas aren't good for tennis, but only for his best interest as He plays a very physical game.

The difference between top 4 and the rest as far as earning s is just like the difference between top class and lower class in 3rd world countries based in oil exports.

Last, yet another player, who plays against them says Federer is a tennis player made by God, how can this even be an argument?



-
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
I am not a fan of giving more money for lower ranks, and Ernests Gulbis is a big reason why.

He's a filthy rich kid who has zero hunger to get better, and he makes a mockery out of this career.

Now his example is an anomaly, I understand, but my point is the same. Give the lower ranked players more and they will lose their hunger to move up. NBA bench players make a mother load, and 98 percent of them never advance past that bench, and a lot of them get fat there. They simply do not have the hunger.


Quite right, either quit complaining, win more matches and move up the ranks if you want more money or move out and change your profession if you can't make a living out of this one. If you don't have training or education to do a real job because you've been playing tennis, stop playing tennis and get training and education. End of the day, pro tennis is just entertainment. This guy sounds articulate, sounds reasonable yadada, but the bottom line is, he wants more for doing less. Give somebody who demands that, they will keep doing less and demanding more, naturally.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
I totally get his point - the popular image of the majority of pro tennis players bathing in riches is not true - most have to be sponsored, most have a ton of costs and taxes which can easily reduce net profit considerably, even if they made a decent amount of money during a given year.

But, he then says that even if he saves $500,000 euros by the end of his career, the has to live off of that for the rest of his life. What? A majority of pro athletes, other than the very elite, have to do something else after they retire. He'll be in his early 30s with a decent amount of money. He can teach tennis to make money, he can go to school for a different career. I'm sure he has more options than most people.

Basically, the article just reveals that tennis, for the vast majority of players is just like any other job that any other person has or any other career. Most of us aren't going to make enough between the ages of 20 and 32, no matter what our profession or job, to not have to work for the rest of our lives. We have to keep on working. So do most tennis players. If they truly love tennis, some have the option of being teaching pros or tennis directors at ritzy resorts or tennis academies, or coaching. A few lucky ones might get into brodcasting. But, even more ex-players probably have to go do something more mundane.

For the vast majority of these players ranked like 50-500, unless you are Fed/Nad/Djok/Murray, I would guess that getting a degree and a professional qualification would already earn and saved them way more money by age 32 which is when they have to retire as tennis players and start over again, probably as coaches. By 32, a professional like an accountant for example is only getting started, the more experience they get, the more highly paid they get until they retire at 65. Of course, 65 these days is young, they probably have another 10 years working life.

Thing is most of these tennis players have known nothing but tennis all their lives from age six or seven when their talent is spotted. Not many of them make it big of course. Even fewer are good at managing money or saving it. Look at Mark P. Or even if you were a mega star, the multiple divorces and child support probably cost you 10's of millions. Then if you trusted your parents to handle your money, well, look at Graf and Sanchez.

Not everybody is like Edberg who manages his own money fund now and is rolling in dough. No doubt Edberg took finance and accounting courses in his off court time while he was playing. How many did the same in their free time? Edberg apparently knows all about money, unlike, say Borg.

For nearly all of these players, if they don't crack, say, top 20 within say 3 or 4 years of turning pro, they'd be better off in terms of future earning power by taking what money they have made on the tour, going back to university and getting their degree and a job, rather than continuing doing what they are doing, floating around the 100 200 mark, never getting anywhere, complaining about their pay and occupying the space for younger up coming players for years to come.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wy2sl0

Hall of Fame
What more motivation do you need to work harder?

Golf is the same way - you don't earn if you don't win. Being in Canada and being a Hockey fan we see the amount of money thrown at "stars" that do not give 100% on a regular basis. Tennis doesn't allow that. Even the people who take matches off, simply have either worked hard in the past to allow them to do so, or are just willing to give up the money. At the end of the day, 130K is plenty of money. I would be happy making 70k a year.
 

Clay lover

Legend
"If I didn’t make it in the top-100 – what next? I mean, I become a tennis instructor, and what life is that? To be on court from 8 till 8 for the rest of my life, to play with amateurs? Yes, it can be financially rewarding, but it’s a hell of a work."

What the heck does he mean by that? Doctors work with the sickest of people, teachers teach kids who don't know the alphabet, janitors clean toilets the whole day, and this guy thinks it is beneath him to teach? With that attitude, no wonder he resents those with talent who make more money.

He should be asking himself how many other professions allow school drop-outs to work from 8 to 8 and have a "financially rewarding" life.

Tennis is part of the entertainment industry. No one needs to watch an actor act in a movie or a tennis pro hit a forehand. It is not a police officer's job.

BEST POAST EVER.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
"If I didn’t make it in the top-100 – what next? I mean, I become a tennis instructor, and what life is that? To be on court from 8 till 8 for the rest of my life, to play with amateurs? Yes, it can be financially rewarding, but it’s a hell of a work."

What the heck does he mean by that? Doctors work with the sickest of people, teachers teach kids who don't know the alphabet, janitors clean toilets the whole day, and this guy thinks it is beneath him to teach? With that attitude, no wonder he resents those with talent who make more money.

He should be asking himself how many other professions allow school drop-outs to work from 8 to 8 and have a "financially rewarding" life.

Tennis is part of the entertainment industry. No one needs to watch an actor act in a movie or a tennis pro hit a forehand. It is not a police officer's job.

+1 This is one of the very few times I agree with you. Poor guy, playing a game from 8-8, and all the traveling and hotel lifestyle not to mention the girls lining up outside his room door waiting for their turn to be serviced. (read Richard Evans if you don't know what I'm talking about) What a hard life. He really should switch jobs with some Foxconn factory worker.
 

Devilito

Legend
Big part of tennis is sponsorship money and it makes a difference what country you’re born in. Way more money in being a young American breaking into the top 100 than a young Ukrainian. Donald Young is not nearly as successful as Stakhovksy but rakes in tons more money in sponsorship deals because he’s American getting money from American sponsors. Things like that need to be taken into account when talking about who gets how much from playing tennis.
 

rufus_smith

Professional
How can he complain? If I was his age I would switch places with him in a second. You get to play a sport you love to play, and travel the world, and he expects to retire from the tour with about $500k in the bank. This would be a dream for many kids.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
How can he complain? If I was his age I would switch places with him in a second. You get to play a sport you love to play, and travel the world, and he expects to retire from the tour with about $500k in the bank. This would be a dream for many kids.

Do you think a successful surgeon would say "hey I save lives, I'm well respected, maybe I should do my surgeries for free".

$500k in the bank is nothing, any decent engineer in the US(and there are at least a million of these) could save up 500k and have a 401k, pension etc to fall back on not to mention a steadily rising salary.

From a general philosophical "be happy with what you have", I can agree with you but the reality is that for these guys, tennis is work, not some weekend hobby.
 

OTMPut

Hall of Fame
A 21 year old excel monkey in a second tier investment bank makes 100-150K a year. But it is a dog's life. And to earn that life, you will have to make the cut in a top school.

A run of the mill coding monkey would perhaps make about 40-60K a year.

For someone who did not go to a good school and who just whacks the heck out of a ball year around, getting paid 130K a year is not too bad. Come on people, what could be Sergei's other choices? What would his kids have to do in today's europe to earn 130K a year when they are 20-25 year old?
 

Crisstti

Legend
Do you think a successful surgeon would say "hey I save lives, I'm well respected, maybe I should do my surgeries for free".

$500k in the bank is nothing, any decent engineer in the US(and there are at least a million of these) could save up 500k and have a 401k, pension etc to fall back on not to mention a steadily rising salary.

From a general philosophical "be happy with what you have", I can agree with you but the reality is that for these guys, tennis is work, not some weekend hobby.

They get to work in and make a living off something they love to do. Not many people can really say that. He could show a little gratefulness... :-?
 

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
Guess I'm in the minority, but these guys should be making way more than they are for being as good as they are. Spread the wealth a bit.
 

Crisstti

Legend
"If I didn’t make it in the top-100 – what next? I mean, I become a tennis instructor, and what life is that? To be on court from 8 till 8 for the rest of my life, to play with amateurs? Yes, it can be financially rewarding, but it’s a hell of a work."

What the heck does he mean by that? Doctors work with the sickest of people, teachers teach kids who don't know the alphabet, janitors clean toilets the whole day, and this guy thinks it is beneath him to teach? With that attitude, no wonder he resents those with talent who make more money.

He should be asking himself how many other professions allow school drop-outs to work from 8 to 8 and have a "financially rewarding" life.

Tennis is part of the entertainment industry. No one needs to watch an actor act in a movie or a tennis pro hit a forehand. It is not a police officer's job.

Couldn't agree more.

He mentions that the 100th soccer player in Ukraine makes more money. But I suspect that the most talented kids in Ukraine are going into soccer, and being 100th there is very very difficult.

I think he was probably exaggerating there actually... a lot.

Anyway, tennis players should be aware that there's just a lot more money to be made in football than in tennis, so you just cannot expect that a football player and a tennis player of roughly the same talent and accomplishments will make the same money. They just won't.
 

Crisstti

Legend
and thats not even really what he said. chrissti misquoted him :-?

He said if the tournaments paid out a greater percentage of the money they earn in prize money, he would be against the two year ranking system for the obvious reasons you listed:

I don't think I misquoted him... he mentioned the two year ranking twice. Anyway, will check tomorrow.

Guess I'm in the minority, but these guys should be making way more than they are for being as good as they are. Spread the wealth a bit.
I actually agree that they should, and I get the impression most agree, but the way he talks about it... let's just say I'm not about to feel sorry for him.
 
Last edited:

niff

Legend
Anyway, tennis players should be aware that there's just a lot more money to be made in football than in tennis, so you just cannot expect that a football player and a tennis player of roughly the same talent and accomplishments will make the same money. They just won't.
Exactly, wrong sport to go into if you were looking for a get rich quick scheme.

It's just like in any job .. the bank managers make the millions, the office workers make a living. Easy to feel resentful and lose perspective about how good you actually have it.
 
Top