abhimawa
Rookie
Interesting article: https://tennistranslations.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/riches-and-poverty-on-the-atp-tour/
Not all glitz & glamour.
Not all glitz & glamour.
Money comes from TV. Low ranked players are seldom seen on TV. Ob-la-di, ob-la-da..........
Very true. That creature is ungrateful and does not deserve endorsement whatsoever.Sorry to tell you this, but Kyrgios needs to read this
that's more reasonable, provided that they be careful with the elimination. Some talented & passionate players may have some tough luck while some ungrateful trash enjoys what they don't deserve.The ATP will actually be eliminating hundreds of the bottom ranking positions in the near future to reduce this problem and strengthen the Futures and Challenger tours. Most of the below-500 rank players will be forced to pursue more lucrative careers or become teaching pros or something non-player related in tennis.
I don't know about careful elimination but the ranking cutoff will be at 750 for both tours. I made a mistake saying it was the ATP doing it, it's actually the ITF. So this is affecting both the men and women.that's more reasonable, provided that they be careful with the elimination. Some talented & passionate players may have some tough luck while some ungrateful trash enjoys what they don't deserve.
Perhaps the ATP should restructure its funding management? some low-ranked are actually very interesting to watch eg. Stakhovsky, Diego Schwartzman, Dustin Brown
Challenger tour and Futures are minimum wage jobs. Jason Jung is a Univ. of Michigan Grad and represents Taiwan at international level. He's been lounging between 200-800 for a while and writes blogs describing what life is in the futures tournaments week in week out.
Another player that's a great guy to follow is Alex Donski. He plays futures and his series always explains how it's a struggle to play and qualify for futures tournaments. It's on his YouTube channel "Operation Liftoff".
Also, lower ranked players are less likely to get sponsorships and endorsements. That's why a lot of challenger tour players will wear lesser known brands because they're the only ones who sponsor them.
The whole point of professional sports is that you don't do it only for passion. And if players are being filtered out in their teens and early 20s because they can't afford to continue it only means a lower level of quality going forward.Athletes in general do it for the passion and to follow their dreams. Just a small portion rise to the millionaires club.
Guga tells in his biography that he felt dressed like a clown when he received the blue/yellow Diadora uniform in 1997 Roland Garros. He wasn't able to choose what to wear. Some may see it as a classic today, but it was not the perception back then.
I am a subscriber to Alex Donski YouTube Channel! He is ranked at 1,250! I did not know that even in the Futures, their are levels and you have be in a certain ranking to qualify to get into qualifying so you have to win the qualifying round or rounds to get into a $10,000 Future Tournament where the winner gets like $800-$1,000 for a week or week and half of play! This basically covers travel, hotel, food, etc... only one winner out of twenty or thirty player draw! Ugh!Challenger tour and Futures are minimum wage jobs. Jason Jung is a Univ. of Michigan Grad and represents Taiwan at international level. He's been lounging between 200-800 for a while and writes blogs describing what life is in the futures tournaments week in week out.
Another player that's a great guy to follow is Alex Donski. He plays futures and his series always explains how it's a struggle to play and qualify for futures tournaments. It's on his YouTube channel "Operation Liftoff".
Also, lower ranked players are less likely to get sponsorships and endorsements. That's why a lot of challenger tour players will wear lesser known brands because they're the only ones who sponsor them.
why, he's too talented to ever drop down to Challenger level, , he can make a comfortable living clowning around like Monfils with the odd run of consistency.Sorry to tell you this, but Kyrgios needs to read this
that's more reasonable, provided that they be careful with the elimination. Some talented & passionate players may have some tough luck while some ungrateful trash enjoys what they don't deserve.
It's the fact we have to deal with, just like the consequences they have to deal with, and the companies which products they endorsed.You realize that none of these proposed "solutions" will deal with the Tomics and Kyrgios' right? They're good enough to be seeded at Slams. The fact a couple thousand pros will be told to find another line of work won't do a thing about it.
Your link is behind a pay wall unfortunately. Hadn't heard that - thanks for posting.I don't know about careful elimination but the ranking cutoff will be at 750 for both tours. I made a mistake saying it was the ATP doing it, it's actually the ITF. So this is affecting both the men and women.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/49e673ed1cb086879cb706f383992e13
Your link is behind a pay wall unfortunately. Hadn't heard that - thanks for posting.
But those new limits won't stop tournaments from handing out wildcards will they?
OP, welcome to the boards. We've had this debate before; Stakhovsky said #100 wasn't doing very well. The majors, at the urging of Fed and others, has increased the money to 1st round losers recently.
I have mixed emotions: the top guys are the draws and deserve the money they receive. And should guys aged 25-28 still be getting wildcards? If you don't make it on tour in 3 or 4 years, time to move on. The other end of the spectrum - only those from very wealthy families get a chance isn't good either.
Instead of paying huge amount of money to talented players but are taking things for granted, I wonder if ATP&ATP should do the following:
I believe there are a lot of talented and passionate players at the same time but lack some facility. By making tennis more accessible, it might bring more talents into the sports
- Arrangement with some airlines & hotels so players can travel & stay with discounted price
- Hiring several quality trainers (or ask ex-players to participate) for those who cannot afford elite-level trainers
I don't want to see only 1%er's kids playing either. The quality would go down for sure. But once you start subsidizing the lower players, where does it stop? And for how long?What I don't understand is why people don't want there to be a lot of tennis pros? Sure there is a jackwagon or two, but that is in every line of work. But where does a guy get ranking points if there is no one to play? I think the risk is beyond just the rich kids being the only ones, it's going to be a closed shop that you can't break into without some form of intervention.
I think it's better for tennis if there are a lot of pros making a good amount of money. Might as well have 8 man grand slams if it's only about stars.
Sorry to tell you this, but Kyrgios needs to read this
There was a NYT (or new Yorker, can't quite remember) article that followed two women on the lower end of the rankings, very interesting read. One was Wozniak, after an injury and trying to work her way up, the other was a younger player supported by her parents and national federation. I'd imagine the women have it even tougher, there was a lot about lodging and how a lot of players are taken in by locals free of charge durign the tournament so they can lower costs.
I see some players promoting tennis camps on Twitter and Instagram. Apparently you go to some camp in Hawaii and Steve Johnson or Allie Riske will play doubles with you? I don't know. But if Johnson is doing that in his offseason he can't be that wealthy.
So when they say the US Open champ will get 3.7 million, that is only for that one match right? They get other amounts for their previous matches as well? So that means its over 3.7 million if they win the entire tournament close to 4 million?
"The ITF’s proposed restructuring will radically reduce the number of professional players competing for ATP and WTA ranking points. The ITF’s extensive modelling work has led to a recommended professional player group of no more than 750 men and 750 women players. This new approach will introduce a clearer and more effective professional pathway and ensure that prize money levels at ITF Pro Circuit events are better targeted to ensure that more players can make a living from the professional game."Your link is behind a pay wall unfortunately. Hadn't heard that - thanks for posting.
But those new limits won't stop tournaments from handing out wildcards will they?
OP, welcome to the boards. We've had this debate before; Stakhovsky said #100 wasn't doing very well. The majors, at the urging of Fed and others, has increased the money to 1st round losers recently.
I have mixed emotions: the top guys are the draws and deserve the money they receive. And should guys aged 25-28 still be getting wildcards? If you don't make it on tour in 3 or 4 years, time to move on. The other end of the spectrum - only those from very wealthy families get a chance isn't good either.
I don't want to see only 1%er's kids playing either. The quality would go down for sure. But once you start subsidizing the lower players, where does it stop? And for how long?
And does every player need a full time physio, coach that travels with them?
And funny you should mention '8 man grand slams'. Not sure how old you are or if you know the history. But that's kinda what happened - players got fed up getting crumbs under the table while the tournament directors and national federations got most of the money. Upset Fed, Rafa and the top 20 and someone starts a rival tour paying them a lot more.
Yes. When you take money from one group and give it to another group, that's a subsidy. The fact that Fed and the others make huge amounts on and off the court doesn't change that.Subsidizing? There is a ton of money in tennis. Why should it go so heavily to 50 players.
Yes. When you take money from one group and give it to another group, that's a subsidy. The fact that Fed and the others make huge amounts on and off the court doesn't change that.
And yes, there's a lot of money in tennis - because of the top guys. I respect how good 100-200 are - but no one is paying to watch them.
Fed did help get the 1st round losers more money - once. Now you and a few others are back for more. Lady Thatcher was right 'you run out of people to tax'.
And what's wrong with the 750 number? How many pro tennis players does the world need? And how many years should they be able to try (and apparently get subsidized) to chase their dream? There were guys earlier this year that were 28 getting wildcards. Shouldn't they get sent home and let some 19-22 yr old have that chance?