Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
The butthurt is strong, not as strong as the butthurt after the RG final in here. :twisted:
Tipsarevic: "pay in tennis is ridiculously low"
- Thread starter Achilles82
- Start date
The butthurt is strong, not as strong as the butthurt after the RG final in here. :twisted:
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
You know who won't complain about the state of tennis today? RF.
TopFH
Hall of Fame
From the article by USA Today posted a few pages back:
Federer, a 30-year-old with a record 16 major singles titles, is well aware of the building discontent among the rank-and-file. He is president of the Player Council.
He understands that it's more "sexy" to offer a big winner's check and that it's hard to say no when someone offers more money, strings or no strings.
Everyone, he says, has an equal shot to win it. But Federer isn't numb to the needs of players at the other end of the spectrum.
"I believe it's a winner's tour, so the money is there for everyone to play for," he said in a recent conference call. "But at the same time, we wish as well that the lower rounds would also get a bigger raise as well.
"Obviously it's an important task for the council and the board to make sure all the lower rounds get a bigger raise in the future."
TopFH
Hall of Fame
Fixed it for you.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
jakemcclain32
Banned
HELL NO!
Talk about no motivation to really get to the top. Let's bust our asses to get to the top, with the chance to make all kinds of money, then get it taken out from under us because "the lower guys need a few more bucks".
ATP has enough money...they can supply the bigger checks. Taking it from the top guys is just garbage.
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
simple concept. apparently some are to dense to understand this.
from what i understand, most other sports, and even all the smaller ATP tourneys (including masters 1000s?) give a much closer to 50-50 split of the revenue as prize money. if the slams gave up even 30% of the revenue it would make a huge difference to the lower players.
also it is complete bs that the mens tour has subsidized the womens. sepperate them, and that frees up more money also.
Last edited:
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
yea the top guys are who really draw the crowds. they deserve all they make, even more. but the lower guys have to get by also. the itf needs to be paying out more from there pockets, not taking from the top guys
ClairHarmony
Rookie
No matter how small he may look from the bottom, it takes an even smaller man up top, to never look back.... Talent deserves a chance to be heard, but to get there...at some point, someone must have given back, and cared. Laying the groundwork down so that footsteps maybe followed long after our own departure. Long term, it is good for the game. To become the best in the world requires something more. Life is short. It's a huge risk to give it all up on a do or die premise...which is what a shocking number of families did to give their "golden egg" child that one in a million shot in the dark...at the *pinnacle of human achievement.* It's more than just going through the motions that is required. A top ten talent who goes through the motions on a day, *is going to lose* period, to about 200 or more players in the world, *at least.* Even Takao Suzuki was fiesty enough to push Roger Federer...so what does that tell you? That's how *unbelievably* good you have to be to reach that level. It's something you usually either have in you, or don't...because, not just anybody can be world class. How many students at Harvard every year, at every elite institution in the world why don't we multipy the numbers just to get some perspective here...how many well-to-do, upper middle class students at the very least go onto really nice universities and really nice careers, how many in each class/grade...no seriously, can you not even *begin* to see the difference? The difference is simply unfathomable; it's downright astronomical. The odds of being a world class anything is amazing...and it's also why no one would really pay to watch a surgeon just to be entertained, or a trial just to watch...unless a sensational "somewhat white hottie" like Casey Anthony was involved.... Again, you need something more. The fear of throwing your life away into an abyss is simply astonishing...and yet that's what the Agassi, Sharapova, Seles, Kournikova's, Pierce's, Williamses, Capriatis, and on and on and on have done for their one shot at *immortality.* Ever hear the theme song to Fame? It was not inspired by a typical working man's plight. The path is clearer, when you're not expected to be EXTRAORDINARY...to DEFY what the human *spirit* should be capable of. The ability to move the soul is a very real aspect of the human spirit, and those with that capacity...it can be a terrible thing to waste. If your buddy *really* did actually have a chance...however, *remote*, yet still a *legitimate* chance at going down in history...would you let him slip? Would you want him to? If you were that parent, what would you do? Because just ask Andre Agassi's dad about that, you take anything less than G.O.A.T. territory, and make it clear that it's worth NOTHING to you, and then proceed to snap-crack-fracture the soul in half...as though it were a twig. It's not pretty, but sometimes that IS what is required, to SEAR it into the brain...*let not society* ever deter you, you must be completely utterly delusional and *until that day,* that I say you've "made it," you don't really deserve to live. You have no right to.
I think everyone should try to develop their abilities only as far as they think it'll take humanity. Because, certainly, looking back, didn't Agassi give back? It became more important to him than the tennis itself, and that right *therein* was the key to him not jumping the shark, *too early.* This said, just think if Nick Bolletieri did nothing but feed him gruel on day on full scholarship...what would he have become? What, about 5'2" and several inches shorter than his 1st generation dad? He never would have made it then, now would he? No matter how talented, he would have had *no shot whatsoever.* Better to just focus on becoming the best brick layer you can be, than waste your spirit away on the dumbest, most idiotic, pointless, hopes and dreams, you never in a million years asked for...but, it was kinda just lumped on you, and you don't know why. If you're naturally gifted, it's the easiest thing in the world to just walk away because you can...but if you're a "good" person, you can't. And after awhile, you don't really have a choice, for too much time has past. I used to cram for every test 1 hour before school in a public park walking 45 minutes all the way just to get there in time...of the two consistently best I put in 1/50th the time for just about the same "caliber" of top scoredness, even if I did end up ditching school exactly 57 times. Life is easier when you have a clear coscience to follow the *set* path, knowing there maybe something there for you. The outcomes in hindsight were statistically *completely predictable.* Die for one shot in the dark...*for virtually NOTHING* in return...and see how that feels. Does that rob you of your human spirit to "fight," to continue on with this life any longer? Yeah, I freaking bet. Of all the predictables, who took the set and *relatively* clear path to the *promised land*...there is NOT EVEN ONE who ever cared enough to look back. Nope, not even my own sister...who know what I'd gone through already, how much "will" to continue could their possibly be left? And yet who really "deep down" would want me to give up right, after all? The administration who surely must have known the repurcussions. So why should I care anymore? Because, it's the *right* thing to do. No other reason, because it's what little gift I have to "save" the untouchables, in one shot, I breathed, and I gave (however, stupid it's made me feel...and yet, I feel what good is a "theory," if you haven't actually been willing to "die" to give it life.). Anyway, to me, everyone has a different set of problems, help who you can, so they FEEL like they can make a *contribution* to society today. Gosh darn it, you never know, if you pay challenger players better; they might actually show up and put on all that razz-matazz that they're "handlers" always said they were "capable" of. And you never know, an old geezer might be having a heart attack, then stop and change his mind right in the middle of it...because he did not want to miss that point...WOW! That single point, has truly made my life worth living. Boy, hot diggity, dawn! God, I'm not ready to die yet...ok, now that I've truly seen everything, I'm ready, ker-Plunk! Save David Nalbandian the trouble, this here challenger player here is more than splendid enough to cover the funeral expenses...tada! Yawn, such is another remainder of why yes, even challenger players "deserve" the right to not be so miserable all the time. You've got problems!?! Who cares about your problems, when it's only the passion to actually *contribute* that can possibly turn a life around today. Encourage...don't just assume (not speaking to you, but someone else in this thread, sorry) that challenger players "gave up" their whole *soul* for what is by comparison relatively unsure...just got in it for "the babes." 'Cause it's not true. Once in the real world, a balding politician with a rhinocerous laugh becomes by far more attractive...as the years wear on, it becomes clear what really mattered most of all. It's the *sure* thing, a *fully-realized* Patrick Rafter that captures all the hearts...not so much, not nearly as much, an unrealized vision of Patrick Rafter still sleeping in a locker room, on a razor blade. It's only in the aftermath, that you see who was really ever there for you to come through, or not. It's how life is. It's what makes it exciting. :-?
Larrysümmers
Hall of Fame
once they got the pro tour up and going, they kinda forgot to keep on promoting tennis. thats why tennis got so big, because it was promoted so much.
diggler
Hall of Fame
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/21/us-tennis-open-money-idUSTRE80K09S20120121
Talk of a boycott at the Australian Open (didn't happen of course).
There are 2 issues.
Increasing the size of the pie from 11% to 30% of total revenue.
The other issue is redistributing the pie so more goes to the lower ranked players. Based on market forces, I couldn't justify a redistribution because these lower ranked players do not generate TV and bums on seats. You could justify redistribution of the pie in terms of socialism (not that there's anything wrong with that).
The other way to increase the men's pie is to decrease the women's pie, but I'm not sure that will happen.
Talk of a boycott at the Australian Open (didn't happen of course).
There are 2 issues.
Increasing the size of the pie from 11% to 30% of total revenue.
The other issue is redistributing the pie so more goes to the lower ranked players. Based on market forces, I couldn't justify a redistribution because these lower ranked players do not generate TV and bums on seats. You could justify redistribution of the pie in terms of socialism (not that there's anything wrong with that).
The other way to increase the men's pie is to decrease the women's pie, but I'm not sure that will happen.
diggler
Hall of Fame
TennisLovaLova
Hall of Fame
Talking to the press is useless.
The only way to make things change is to go on strike asap and as long as the players dont have 50% of the revenue, they dont play and that's it.
The money issue is clearly the cause of the weak era, not enough players able to provide for themselves.
The only way to make things change is to go on strike asap and as long as the players dont have 50% of the revenue, they dont play and that's it.
The money issue is clearly the cause of the weak era, not enough players able to provide for themselves.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
The trouble with the article is that he makes a lot of assumptions with very little facts about non-Slam events.
What are the economics of paying Nadal 750,000 pounds to play two ordinary rounds of tennis at Halle?
What are the economics of paying Nadal 750,000 pounds to play two ordinary rounds of tennis at Halle?
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
You need to take an holistic approach to this, the number 300 ranked golfer in the world doesn't generate any income for the tour, either, but he needs to be well enough paid to want to continue so there will be a large enough pool of players to support the tour.
In tennis, there needs to be a reason for players to continue. The game's history is full of late bloomers who never really made an impact until their twenties. Under the current model, many of those players are lost to the game because they can't afford to keep playing unless they are somehow self funded.
With the average age of the top 100 steadily increasing in line with the growing physical demands of the sport the future of the game lies mostly outside on teh challenger circuit...
Think about it
In tennis, there needs to be a reason for players to continue. The game's history is full of late bloomers who never really made an impact until their twenties. Under the current model, many of those players are lost to the game because they can't afford to keep playing unless they are somehow self funded.
With the average age of the top 100 steadily increasing in line with the growing physical demands of the sport the future of the game lies mostly outside on teh challenger circuit...
Think about it
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
Good points. Also, paying the lower ranked players more will most likely increase their level and make the tour more competitive and better overall. Able to hire full time traveling coaches, better schedules and so on. There is a lot of pressure to keep going when you're counting on each win and every dollar earned to be able to finance your next tournament. Its not an easy living. Once the public notices how competitive and good the lower ranked players really are, the seats will get filled. So I say help them out and the other pieces of the puzzle (fans, sponsors) will follow. My 2 cents.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
Edited, kind of pointless comment.
Basically, I agree with tennis_balla, the standard at the futures and challenger level is very, very high, and properly promoted, people will go..
Basically, I agree with tennis_balla, the standard at the futures and challenger level is very, very high, and properly promoted, people will go..
Last edited:
D
decades
Guest
excellent article. it is very illuminating. it talks about two journeymen players who pretty much say what I've been saying all along.
They want for little on tour, where organisers lay on food, alcohol and transport. Laundry is taken care of. Practice courts are easily arranged and physiotherapists are available to work on niggles.
"Life is beautiful, I don't know why anyone complains. I have two kids and I still do it and I make a living from it," said Erlich, who won the doubles title here with Ram in 2008.
"We love the game, we love the travelling and we make a good living from it.
"We go to different countries every week. So I think a lot of people can't complain about it."
The players themselves are misinformed about the economics of the GS events. For example, they overestimate the revenue of the event. They don't have the correct data. They don't have the complete information.
"While lucrative, the Australian Open earns far less than Ram's estimate of $200 million, with Tennis Australia reporting revenues of A$149 million across all of its events for the 2010-11 financial year."
What's really interesting is that these journeymen don't want to strike. they say a strike would be disastrous for them. One of them has two kids to support. He says he is doing fine.
"Strike action would be terrible for the game, said Butorac, but worse for players like him who survive off the profile players like Nadal bring to the sport."
The only argument they seem to be able to make is a nebulous one of "fairness". The sport of tennis is set up as a meritocracy, and does not conform to the economic precepts of Socialism.
"We would obviously like it split a little more 'socialistically'... When they're upping their prize money, it's not actually true for most of the players. Their prize money is not going up at the same rate that the winner's cheque is."
Last edited by a moderator:
ductrung3993
Hall of Fame
Seriously, I dont know why folks swinging a stick after like 2 mins of working around get pay the most from the sports world...
Is the 13-15% confirmed. Obv Tipsy knows better than anyone else here. But I thought the revenue share was all very confidential, and usually needs to be subpenaed
How would people feel about a strike? That seems to be their only leverage, maybe they are scared replacement pros would be even more appealing? It's hard to see the difference in playing level to many spectators outside of these boards.
How would people feel about a strike? That seems to be their only leverage, maybe they are scared replacement pros would be even more appealing? It's hard to see the difference in playing level to many spectators outside of these boards.
analysis_king
Rookie
because golf is perfectly designed for tv, and thus advertising. they can pretty much break anytime they like for advertising, there are frequent breaks, there are usually no rain delays, and there are long, uninterrupted shots which showcase the sponsors' emblems and images for a really long time.
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
The biggest shame in tennis right now is the laughable prize money offered at Futures and Challenger tournaments. Its down right embarrassing and this is where they failed big time.
They promote the big names, you hear and see ads all the time that feature players from the top 10. Sometimes it feels like no one else exists. There are a ton of great personalities and good looking chics (WTA) they can feature. No wonder in the early rounds the stands are 80% empty when no one knows who the hell Azarenka is playing, or who Nadal is taking on. Even the commentators on tv are clueless. It looks bad for the sport when a tv commentator has absolutely no background information on a player. If you watch the NHL in Canada the commentators are very well informed, they know the rookies coming up and they are quick with stats. Compare that to the lazy tennis commentators and its a laugh. Its not the players fault, the problem lies elsewhere and it'll only get worse.
They promote the big names, you hear and see ads all the time that feature players from the top 10. Sometimes it feels like no one else exists. There are a ton of great personalities and good looking chics (WTA) they can feature. No wonder in the early rounds the stands are 80% empty when no one knows who the hell Azarenka is playing, or who Nadal is taking on. Even the commentators on tv are clueless. It looks bad for the sport when a tv commentator has absolutely no background information on a player. If you watch the NHL in Canada the commentators are very well informed, they know the rookies coming up and they are quick with stats. Compare that to the lazy tennis commentators and its a laugh. Its not the players fault, the problem lies elsewhere and it'll only get worse.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
They are not journeymen players.
They are among the very best doubles players in the world and have been enormously successful and they actually don't agree with you as they clearly state that the players share of total revenue at Slams should be doubled.
There is no prospect of any strike action as there is no organisation that could organise one.
Would you care to read the article again or is this beyond your cognitive skills?
They are among the very best doubles players in the world and have been enormously successful and they actually don't agree with you as they clearly state that the players share of total revenue at Slams should be doubled.
There is no prospect of any strike action as there is no organisation that could organise one.
Would you care to read the article again or is this beyond your cognitive skills?
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
What Butorac said, and he is a journeyman:
"I know from doubles players' point of view we haven't had a raise in prize money, especially in the early rounds in... any of the slams for the last 10 years," said American Eric Butorac, a doubles representative on the ATP Players Council.
"When it's the same level over 10 years, if you count inflation, we're actually at a 30 percent discount.
"We understand the top players bring in most of the money of the sport," added 28-year-old Butorac, who has made nearly $900,000 in prize money over an eight-year career.
"I know from doubles players' point of view we haven't had a raise in prize money, especially in the early rounds in... any of the slams for the last 10 years," said American Eric Butorac, a doubles representative on the ATP Players Council.
"When it's the same level over 10 years, if you count inflation, we're actually at a 30 percent discount.
"We understand the top players bring in most of the money of the sport," added 28-year-old Butorac, who has made nearly $900,000 in prize money over an eight-year career.
TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
Just recently a commentator dismissed second highest ranked Canadian, Vasek Pospisil, with "Vasek who?" The other commentator repleid: "exactly!"
Both were very proud of their professional ignorance and arrogance. Vasek is only around 100 in the world. These guys make a living out of commenting on tennis matches, you'd think they show more respect to tennis players and knowledge of the game, instead of self-satisfied stupidity and lack of professionalism.
As to decades, it's hard to take the kid seriously if he can't deal with the only question that matters in this debate: the pitiful and outrageously low percentage of the tournaments' revenues that go to players.
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
Thats exactly what I'm talking about. They are not professional commentators and are severely lacking. I knew Vasek's parents and brothers when I lived in BC, last time I saw him he was about 8. Heard about his junior results a few years back and its great to see him doing well on tour.
There are 4 Grand Slams each year, you'd think the commentators would do their homework beforehand instead of just showing up and talking about the same lame crap. They should know the guys coming up, where they came from, who coaches them, how they're playing. Just general knowledge, I mean the US Open in golf has amateurs and they do a nice job presenting them. In hockey there's a lot of talk about upcoming rookies and so on. Tennis is horrible in this regard.
What planet are u from? I call bs
FedererUberAlles
Professional
Congratulations, you found something that validates your flawed, assumption driven argument. Do you realize that the plural of anecdote is not data?
D
decades
Guest
you're way over my head man. what are you doing slumming on a tennis forum? and I wonder why I seem to push your buttons so easily? I certainly don't intend to. but it might be something to look at.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
D
decades
Guest
interesting. so you can make a very good living simply by being a good ATP doubles player. perhaps this is why there is no Strike. things aren't so bad for the anonymous pro as the article suggests?
FedererUberAlles
Professional
Don't worry, it's not personal, but your belief that it is makes me think you realize how wrong you are – or perhaps at a loss for a better riposte.
D
decades
Guest
It would be cool if you used that brain power of yours to make a ++ contribution to the discussion and bring some ideas to the thread. I am at least putting ideas out there to be debated. And I don't think I have resorted to attacking anybody personally, except as a way to defend myself when I am first attacked. But you're using your intellect to instead try to diminish my stature in the thread, as a way to disagree with my points. Why not critique the performance instead of the performer? And why not try to "perform" yourself instead of playing the role of critic?
Last edited by a moderator:
dominikk1985
Legend
Don't forget that those 12% are not from profit but from revenue.
The big tournaments have huge costs. they could maybe pay 50% from profit but not 50% from revenue.
and those 12% is only true for the slams. a lot of small tournaments can hardly avoid losing money some even do lose money
The big tournaments have huge costs. they could maybe pay 50% from profit but not 50% from revenue.
and those 12% is only true for the slams. a lot of small tournaments can hardly avoid losing money some even do lose money
Last edited:
TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
The winner of a futures tournament in my neck of the woods (Stefan Seifert) won a whopping 2K or was it 1800? Pathetic and outrageous.
dominikk1985
Legend
that futures tournament also makes almost no revenue.
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
$2000 for winning a Futures event is very low considering average prize money tournaments will offer that more or less.
Wuppy
Professional
Janko's a smart man. But it's also true in golf that you can have a relative unknown guy ranked #35 or whatever win a major tournament. Whereas this will never happen in tennis. Golf is a much less consistent sport. You can be #1 and shoot an 80 and miss the cut.
But if they want to improve tennis they will increase first- and second-round prize money.
But if they want to improve tennis they will increase first- and second-round prize money.
tennischemist
Rookie
1) why are so many people dumping on the commitment and skill required to be a successful golfer? just because some number of them look kinda fat doesn't mean they don't work hard at their game.
2) revenue is not that useful of figure when we don't know what its components are so I would imagine that a large part of the French Open's revenue will be going to maintaining Roland Garros.
still on a moral level I would be totally OK w/ late round checks decreasing and early round checks increasing.
2) revenue is not that useful of figure when we don't know what its components are so I would imagine that a large part of the French Open's revenue will be going to maintaining Roland Garros.
still on a moral level I would be totally OK w/ late round checks decreasing and early round checks increasing.
Last edited:
TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
Okay, so we lack data to make intelligent contributions. Let's have all the figures on the table and then see if players are being exploited, as it now seems. The problem lies in the fact that tennis players aren't unionized and cannot bargain as a block fairly and efficiently with tournament organizers.
Last edited:
TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
That's interesting. I remember seeing all kinds of sponsors for this one, including a large bank. Let's cut the crap, nobody holds a tournament to lose money. It's not a charity, if there's a tournament, you can bet your socks that somebody profits.
I'm a huge follower of professional golf and being in the top 100 in golf has to be just as hard as being in the top 100 in professional tennis.
I am not sure of the distrubtion of money, but if the players do only get 10-12% that seems crazy low.
The PGA Tour does pro-am events Mon - Wed before the tournament begins that week and companies donate $5-8K per 4 man team to be paired up with a PGA Tour pro. Does the tennis associations do this to help raise more money?
Also, golf is much more popular in the U.S. than tennis. Much more prize money b\c of the TV ratings it gets, has marketable players U.S. born and has a game many can relate to.
I am not sure of the distrubtion of money, but if the players do only get 10-12% that seems crazy low.
The PGA Tour does pro-am events Mon - Wed before the tournament begins that week and companies donate $5-8K per 4 man team to be paired up with a PGA Tour pro. Does the tennis associations do this to help raise more money?
Also, golf is much more popular in the U.S. than tennis. Much more prize money b\c of the TV ratings it gets, has marketable players U.S. born and has a game many can relate to.
Also the PGA Tour does not do appearance fees for their events. The Euro PGA Tour and other tours do though to help bring in top players, which increase ticket sales, which increase revenue, which increase prize money paid to the entire field.
Tennis is marketed really poorly in the U.S.
Tennis is marketed really poorly in the U.S.
Evan77
Banned
I'll try to answer your questions,
1) Golf is NOT sport. It's a recreational thing for bored fat men. and no, if you are a pro golfer you shouldn't be 'kinda fat. and no, most of them do not work out at all ...
2)I don't know what you are talking about
The problem is you have so many chubby pro golfers playing even in their 50's making millions ... on the other hand, you have so many pro tennis players who can hardly make any money (after they pay their expenses, like traveling, hotels etc,). if you are ranked outside of top #50 it's not easy at all. If you are ranked 300 or so you are f.ucked. Remind you again, tennis pros can play tennis only till they are 30-35. So, they need to save money to live after their retirement.
Do you even realize how hard it is to break through in tennis? you have so many young players playing futures and challengers, making almost nothing, being supported by their families etc.
Sponsors mostly care only about big guys ... they are throwing millions at Djokovic, Federer and Nadal (fine with me, they earned it). I'm sure that Djokovic, Fed and Rafa combined are worth more than the rest of all other players on the tour combined.
Sponsors don't really give a **** about someone who is ranked #150 or whatever.
don't get me wrong, nothing against you but it is very frustrating for lower ranked players.
Last edited:
tennischemist
Rookie
I never said anything about golfers working out (though plenty do).. but they work hard at their game. It just happens to be one that doesn't necessarily demand peak fitness. Who cares? I don't even like golf but I'm always irritated by sports fans who denigrate it because it doesn't adhere to some arbitrary threshold of being physically demanding. Breaking into the PGA Tour is probably as difficult as breaking into the ATP tour. Why wouldn't it be?
And by point 2 I meant that revenue is before expenses and since we don't know what the expenses are (or really even what the revenue is) we can't say with any certainty that 13% is an inappropriate amount.
Glad to see a high intelligence level about this thread. Well done people.
sundaypunch
Hall of Fame
Because you have a bunch of childish posters that are naive about what constitutes a "sport". There are plenty of people that don't view tennis as much of a sport if you want to go down that path.
Similar threads
