What exactly does the PTPA want? Who could profit, who lose?

Rovesciarete

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
First let us step back and look at the big picture. Gill does a great job as so often. Filing the lawsuit seems like the last roll of the dice after failing to enlist enough (top)players to threaten direct actions like strikes.


What seems clear is that ‘they’ want to move the Exhos, which the ‘cartel’ is accused of squeezing out. Irrespective of my personal preference for proper competitive tennis, I have a hard time seeing who most of the tour, apart from mostly top players, will profit from it. Basic market theory demands to know who regulates the access to this more lucrative endeavor.

The ranking point system is imperfect and weighted against new entries but gives them a way to compete for increasingly better pay. The filing talks much about ‘free markets’ but avoids the selection criteria and distribution mechanism. Top players in general, tennis influencers like Kyrgios or favorites of Ackman and the Saudis should all profit disproportionately.

A ‘deal’ might reduce the number of tournaments players have to play or can earn points for. This would leave more space for a larger number of invitationals, which are willing to pay a lot— think more ‘Six King Slam’. Maybe streamed by Netflix or other companies. Once again, this would work best with star or show power, leaving out players deemed less attractive due to appearance, appeal, or heritage. What about them? What about us fans?

Lower-ranked might profit from a higher player share from the big tournaments, notably the slams, but won't get that sweet exhibition money. This would increase inequality unless top players get forced to share the latter. Good luck with that.

For us fans a splintering of the tennis world could be a heavy blow after a long period of stability. More invitationals with the hand of the organizer directing the draws. In the 'Six King Slams' Alcaraz was set up to play against Nadal, Sinner against Djokovic with the old superstars not having to play a quarterfinal. Is this really the tennis we fans regularly want?
 
The claim is designed to win a case in court. How tennis is re-designed if the PTPA wins is "to be decided".
 
Rovesciarete said:
A ‘deal’ might reduce the number of tournaments players have to play or can earn points for. This would leave more space for a larger number of invitationals, which are willing to pay a lot— think more ‘Six King Slam’. Maybe streamed by Netflix or other companies. Once again, this would work best with star or show power, leaving out players deemed less attractive due to appearance, appeal, or heritage. What about them? What about us fans?
Click to expand...

Players should not be forced to play in a certain number of tournaments or forced to play in a Masters. Have no problem with changing that rule.
But fans have an expectation that most/all of the top players will be at Indian Wells. If some of these top players then go off to chase KSA exhibition money,
it hurts the ATP Indian Wells brand.

These rules are in place not to restrict players earnings but to protect the ATP brand.

This PTPA lawsuit is not at all about helping low-ranked players. It is all about helping the fatcat superstars get fatter.
 
Last edited:
Now you hate the fatcats, you commie!

Better_Call_Raul said:
Players should not be forced to play in a certain number of tournaments or forced to play in a Masters. Have no problem with changing that rule.
Suspect that the vast majority of players would still end up playing at a Masters while a handful of superstars might go off to play an exhibition.
In the end it dilutes the appeal of a Masters since some superstars would be absent. It ultimately hurts the sport.
These rules are in place not to restrict players earnings but to protect the ATP brand.

This PTPA lawsuit is not at all about helping low-ranked players. It is all about helping the fatcat superstars get fatter.
Click to expand...
 
Very good analysis from Gill Gross as usual. I feel like the nature of a competitive sport stands very much in the way of equality: the best players naturally take the best part of the cake and have more power, and one way or another the audience is attracted mostly to the superstars. One way to, for instance, help lower ranked players earn more could be to not allow any top 10 to play a 500 tournament or lower, but it's easy to see how that would then hurt the appeal of those tournaments and eventually not translate into better pay for the participants. Ultimately, the main issue with that is that lower players are perceived to generate much less profits, leading to less prize money and endorsement deals for them. So perhaps it would be beneficial to study strategies and change the product to try and make them more relevant to the public: they need to sell me a 100 ranked player, sell me his story and why I should care whether he/her wins the next game. There must be ways to tackle that. At the moment, for the general public tennis is a "story" with a handful of real main characters. But there are strategies that can change that, there are examples of products with tens or hundreds storylines and characters, and perhaps something can be leant from those. And if that happened, all of a sudden those players would have followers, endorsements, leverage.
 
Drighiz said:
Very good analysis from Gill Gross as usual. I feel like the nature of a competitive sport stands very much in the way of equality: the best players naturally take the best part of the cake and have more power, and one way or another the audience is attracted mostly to the superstars. One way to, for instance, help lower ranked players earn more could be to not allow any top 10 to play a 500 tournament or lower, but it's easy to see how that would then hurt the appeal of those tournaments and eventually not translate into better pay for the participants. Ultimately, the main issue with that is that lower players are perceived to generate much less profits, leading to less prize money and endorsement deals for them. So perhaps it would be beneficial to study strategies and change the product to try and make them more relevant to the public: they need to sell me a 100 ranked player, sell me his story and why I should care whether he/her wins the next game. There must be ways to tackle that. At the moment, for the general public tennis is a "story" with a handful of real main characters. But there are strategies that can change that, there are examples of products with tens or hundreds storylines and characters, and perhaps something can be leant from those. And if that happened, all of a sudden those players would have followers, endorsements, leverage.
Click to expand...
Yeah agree. If tennis players or their performances are products - it's not hard to see why the top players are perceived to sell much more - people like to see winners; people like to see familiar faces, and in a sport utilizing almost exclusively the knock-out format only a few faces rise to the top to be familiar enough to the audience. I was initially thinking even if they are both perceived and in actuality more profitable, it doesn't hurt to restructure the pay scale for humanitarian reasons...but I guess as someone has suggested, it makes sense for the top players and the ATP to continue appeasing one another as both can benefit off the other's leverage in terms of the sport.

So as you said, raising the profile of the lower ranked to make them more worth the fans' buck in actuality and therefore the ATP's attention could definitely help.

Another thing I wondered if other posters have brought up is geographical allegiance and historical legacy - another reason lower-ranked teams and players thrive better in team sports compared to in tennis is the allegiance they get from fans in the locality and the district government due to its location and past legacy, creating a high financial incentive to keep the team afloat from loyal supporters alongside support from the system. The players and the club benefit from the location and legacy regardless of who they are and how much time has passed. As an individual, tennis players generally lack that kind of support as legacies generally aren't continued based on nationality in tennis and overall patriotic/sentimental support is minimal compared to in club sports. Yes the state can sponsor them but it's not gonna be as good as being part of a legacy with a loyal following as that is instantly more marketable.

I wonder if something can be done to leverage this kind of support in tennis or if this is a bad idea for tennis.
 
Bartelby said:
Now you hate the fatcats, you commie!
Click to expand...

Fatcats tossing some cash to the field is all about strengthening the ATP Tour's brand, not wealth redistribution.

If the PTPA were really serious about helping the average player, they would focus on solutions like flattening prize money instead of crying 'ATP cartel!'

Indian Wells pays $1M to the finalist, $30K to a first-rounder, a 33x gap. $100K for a first-rounder might keep a 200th-ranked player from quitting, strengthening the ATP Tour’s depth.

This frivolous lawsuit is all about fatcats like your precious coddled Kyrgios chasing fatter stacks, not saving the 200th-ranked player.
 
Last edited:
The question for the ATP and WTA is - do they try and find some sort of deal or do they take the opportunity to try and crush the PTPA completely?

Not being a lawyer have no idea whether there's any likelihood of the case succeeding - but the fact that the ATP attacked the PTPA quite strongly rather suggests their lawyers are reasonably confident.
 
This attack by PTPA is destined to end up in a soap bubble.
Like all the requests of alleged unions that set themselves up as a party.
This is not a union that tries to take care of the rights of the players, but they are more requests from a party that wants to gain power in a system of power.
The few adhesions are a normal consequence, no player who is an integral part of the system could ever support requests so delirious as a whole that make you lose credibility even in the few points of those 169 pages that deserve to be discussed.

Obviously only @Bartelby could ideally support these requests for power from this Brancaleone army that is PTPA.
 
Rovesciarete said:
First let us step back and look at the big picture. Gill does a great job as so often. Filing the lawsuit seems like the last roll of the dice after failing to enlist enough (top)players to threaten direct actions like strikes.


What seems clear is that ‘they’ want to move the Exhos, which the ‘cartel’ is accused of squeezing out. Irrespective of my personal preference for proper competitive tennis, I have a hard time seeing who most of the tour, apart from mostly top players, will profit from it. Basic market theory demands to know who regulates the access to this more lucrative endeavor.

The ranking point system is imperfect and weighted against new entries but gives them a way to compete for increasingly better pay. The filing talks much about ‘free markets’ but avoids the selection criteria and distribution mechanism. Top players in general, tennis influencers like Kyrgios or favorites of Ackman and the Saudis should all profit disproportionately.

A ‘deal’ might reduce the number of tournaments players have to play or can earn points for. This would leave more space for a larger number of invitationals, which are willing to pay a lot— think more ‘Six King Slam’. Maybe streamed by Netflix or other companies. Once again, this would work best with star or show power, leaving out players deemed less attractive due to appearance, appeal, or heritage. What about them? What about us fans?

Lower-ranked might profit from a higher player share from the big tournaments, notably the slams, but won't get that sweet exhibition money. This would increase inequality unless top players get forced to share the latter. Good luck with that.

For us fans a splintering of the tennis world could be a heavy blow after a long period of stability. More invitationals with the hand of the organizer directing the draws. In the 'Six King Slams' Alcaraz was set up to play against Nadal, Sinner against Djokovic with the old superstars not having to play a quarterfinal. Is this really the tennis we fans regularly want?
Click to expand...
NO! Why anyone would pay lots of money to see an exho in order to give money to multi-millionaires, is beyond me.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Players should not be forced to play in a certain number of tournaments or forced to play in a Masters. Have no problem with changing that rule.
But fans have an expectation that most/all of the top players will be at Indian Wells. If some of these top players then go off to chase KSA exhibition money,
it hurts the ATP Indian Wells brand.

These rules are in place not to restrict players earnings but to protect the ATP brand.

This PTPA lawsuit is not at all about helping low-ranked players. It is all about helping the fatcat superstars get fatter.
Click to expand...
Half agree..

I would even go to this extent. Players SHOULD be forced to play a certain number of masters. Going with history of tennis, how the ATP formalized the mandatory tour after players asking for it, this lawsuit is directly in opposition of it.
 
I feel so sad that our Djoko aligned with this useless organization . Better late than never. He made at least a few comment about the words used in the lawsuit.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
I would even go to this extent. Players SHOULD be forced to play a certain number of masters. Going with history of tennis, how the ATP formalized the mandatory tour after players asking for it, this lawsuit is directly in opposition of it.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Masters should be mandatory. Else we will have a situation where half the players are off chasing exhibition $$$ and half are playing Masters.
The top players may often end up not even having to face each other or even competing in the same tournament. Not acceptable.
:unsure:
The rule for commitment players (Top 30 in ATP Rankings from the previous year) is as follows:

  1. They must play 8 out of the 9 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments.
  2. Monte Carlo is the exception and is not mandatory.
  3. Players can reduce their Masters 1000 commitments based on longevity in the league.
 
ND-13 said:
I feel so sad that our Djoko aligned with this useless organization . Better late than never. He made at least a few comment about the words used in the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

It's literally his organization and wouldn't have done this without him signing off on it
 
Clay lover said:
Yeah agree. If tennis players or their performances are products - it's not hard to see why the top players are perceived to sell much more - people like to see winners; people like to see familiar faces, and in a sport utilizing almost exclusively the knock-out format only a few faces rise to the top to be familiar enough to the audience. I was initially thinking even if they are both perceived and in actuality more profitable, it doesn't hurt to restructure the pay scale for humanitarian reasons...but I guess as someone has suggested, it makes sense for the top players and the ATP to continue appeasing one another as both can benefit off the other's leverage in terms of the sport.

So as you said, raising the profile of the lower ranked to make them more worth the fans' buck in actuality and therefore the ATP's attention could definitely help.

Another thing I wondered if other posters have brought up is geographical allegiance and historical legacy - another reason lower-ranked teams and players thrive better in team sports compared to in tennis is the allegiance they get from fans in the locality and the district government due to its location and past legacy, creating a high financial incentive to keep the team afloat from loyal supporters alongside support from the system. The players and the club benefit from the location and legacy regardless of who they are and how much time has passed. As an individual, tennis players generally lack that kind of support as legacies generally aren't continued based on nationality in tennis and overall patriotic/sentimental support is minimal compared to in club sports. Yes the state can sponsor them but it's not gonna be as good as being part of a legacy with a loyal following as that is instantly more marketable.

I wonder if something can be done to leverage this kind of support in tennis or if this is a bad idea for tennis.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely right, the local allegiance to players is almost untapped because the way tennis currently works is by focusing on venues around the world rather than on players. I'm not sure if I've mentioned this idea in this forum before or somewhere else, but imagine if there were some kind of mini leagues, maybe organised by tiers, where players get to face each other home and away, controlling the conditions and locations of their home games. That would create geography-based allegiances, and potentially add a layer of uncertainty on the outcome. Just a fun idea, but I don't want to hijack the thread
 
If the PTPA wins they will have collapsed an unfree market. Capitalism can throw up some nasty surprises in its wake. But players will benefit if the PTPA can stay in control.
 
Drighiz said:
Ultimately, the main issue with that is that lower players are perceived to generate much less profits, leading to less prize money and endorsement deals for them. So perhaps it would be beneficial to study strategies and change the product to try and make them more relevant to the public: they need to sell me a 100 ranked player, sell me his story and why I should care whether he/her wins the next game. There must be ways to tackle that. At the moment, for the general public tennis is a "story" with a handful of real main characters. But there are strategies that can change that, there are examples of products with tens or hundreds storylines and characters, and perhaps something can be leant from those. And if that happened, all of a sudden those players would have followers, endorsements, leverage.
Click to expand...

It isn't nice to talk about a relatively low market value for lower-ranked players in an individual sport but I fear I share the same impression as Gill. The current system is an imperfect meritocracy which puts a premium on past merit - but allows new one to rise through the ranks. Despite all the open and hidden advantages the superstars enjoy, their influence is far more restrained than in sports like boxing. Most of what I read in the PTPA should loosen the bindings on the stars of show while disadvantaging lower-ranked and upcoming players.

I found it quite instructive to look at what happened to golf. First new tour 'LIV' was founded and filled with bought-out stars.


After lots of controversy a 'merger' was announced. Lots of interesting details on who wanted to do what.


Lots of financial firepower from the Saudi means that maybe the big question is not if the PGA and golf is for sale but at what price....


Interesting to hear him talk at once about the 'prestigious venue' and the 'quality of the players'. Shows the importance of the latter and hope into the former. Without deep-rooted club fan allegiance in football* its superstars would have sold out our dear sport already completely.

*Soccer for Americans.
 
Bartelby said:
The ATP was supposed to place players "in control". which is why they left the ITF, but instead they found themselves as minority shareholders. This is not being "in control".
Click to expand...

You said earlier: "But players will benefit if the PTPA can stay in control."

The PTPA isn't in control right now. They don't even have an organisation of which you can become a member (there is no such thing as a PTPA membership: https://www.ptpaplayers.com/faqs/
They don't seem to currently be part of anything meaningful within the tennis community. So what is it they control when 'they can stay in control' ?
 
Stay in control of the process of change if and when a lawsuit is successful. I didn't say it was in control of tennis right now. You simply misunderstood.

jeroenn said:
You said earlier: "But players will benefit if the PTPA can stay in control."

The PTPA isn't in control right now. They don't even have an organisation of which you can become a member (there is no such thing as a PTPA membership: https://www.ptpaplayers.com/faqs/
They don't seem to currently be part of anything meaningful within the tennis community. So what is it they control when 'they can stay in control' ?
Click to expand...
 
Golf already provided far greater incomes for a larger number of players before KSA involvement. This is a situation that current tennis players can only dream about.

I can't see how tennis players could be more disadvantaged if things change even if golfers were. The starting points in both sports is completely different.

Rovesciarete said:
It isn't nice to talk about a relatively low market value for lower-ranked players in an individual sport but I fear I share the same impression as Gill. The current system is an imperfect meritocracy which puts a premium on past merit - but allows new one to rise through the ranks. Despite all the open and hidden advantages the superstars enjoy, their influence is far more restrained than in sports like boxing. Most of what I read in the PTPA should loosen the bindings on the stars of show while disadvantaging lower-ranked and upcoming players.

I found it quite instructive to look at what happened to golf. First new tour 'LIV' was founded and filled with bought-out stars.


After lots of controversy a 'merger' was announced. Lots of interesting details on who wanted to do what.


Lots of financial firepower from the Saudi means that maybe the big question is not if the PGA and golf is for sale but at what price....


Interesting to hear him talk at once about the 'prestigious venue' and the 'quality of the players'. Shows the importance of the latter and hope into the former. Without deep-rooted club fan allegiance in football* its superstars would have sold out our dear sport already completely.

*Soccer for Americans.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Stay in control of the process of change if and when a lawsuit is successful. I didn't say it was in control of tennis right now. You simply misunderstood.
Click to expand...

And I didn't say they were or weren't in control of tennis (or anything else for that mater). I'm simply responding to your statement " to stay in control" which clearly indicates that you believe they are currently in control of something and I simply asked what that something was.

So apparently you believe they are currently in control of the process of change.
 
Fedforever said:
Long interview with one of the instigators of the PTPA action.

I get the point that there isn't a legal necessity to present alternative plans. But don't think it's helping the PTPA in the goodwill battle to not be able to say how things should be done better.
Click to expand...

Some good questions by Ben. After reading about the recent moves in golf the Trump/billionaire/Saudi triangle surfaces again.

All told this PTPA lawsuit is a much cheaper approach to bust open the old tour structure than luring superstars to a rival one.

As the plaintiffs are mostly lower-ranked and ex-players a possible financial reward for their role would not have been too costly, maybe a couple of millions.

Ackman is not directly linked so possible breakdowns are more easily mended if nothing comes out of it.

Increased revenue is always a good carrot to dangle in front of all the players and the recent investments have *proven* that the Saudi money is there.

P.S: Frankly the shadowy PTPA might recently have pushed the ATP and WTA to enact some of the reforms Gill also talked about, so it worked as a threat-in-being.

Attacking directly has upped the stakes for all and moved from reform to the threat of revolution.
 
Rovesciarete said:
Some good questions by Ben. After reading about the recent moves in golf the Trump/billionaire/Saudi triangle surfaces again.

All told this PTPA lawsuit is a much cheaper approach to bust open the old tour structure than luring superstars to a rival one.

As the plaintiffs are mostly lower-ranked and ex-players a possible financial reward for their role would not have been too costly, maybe a couple of millions.

Ackman is not directly linked so possible breakdowns are more easily mended if nothing comes out of it.

Increased revenue is always a good carrot to dangle in front of all the players and the recent investments have *proven* that the Saudi money is there.

P.S: Frankly the shadowy PTPA might recently have pushed the ATP and WTA to enact some of the reforms Gill also talked about, so it worked as a threat-in-being.

Attacking directly has upped the stakes for all and moved from reform to the threat of revolution.
Click to expand...
Ackman is paying the everyone's salaries correct?
 
Luring superstars was difficult enough in golf and too difficult in tennis. There was a Premier Tour mooted by Tiley that failed.

Rovesciarete said:
Some good questions by Ben. After reading about the recent moves in golf the Trump/billionaire/Saudi triangle surfaces again.

All told this PTPA lawsuit is a much cheaper approach to bust open the old tour structure than luring superstars to a rival one.

As the plaintiffs are mostly lower-ranked and ex-players a possible financial reward for their role would not have been too costly, maybe a couple of millions.

Ackman is not directly linked so possible breakdowns are more easily mended if nothing comes out of it.

Increased revenue is always a good carrot to dangle in front of all the players and the recent investments have *proven* that the Saudi money is there.

P.S: Frankly the shadowy PTPA might recently have pushed the ATP and WTA to enact some of the reforms Gill also talked about, so it worked as a threat-in-being.

Attacking directly has upped the stakes for all and moved from reform to the threat of revolution.
Click to expand...
 
Why not get rid of mandatory tournaments across the board?
Just make the ranking and seeding system dependent on performance in accredited tournaments and let the cards lie where they lie.
So if the best players play exos for money for 1/2 they year, their ranking would be high enough to give them good seeding in the slams and their rep will fade for not winning Wimby.

I like the idea of flattening the difference between winning 1st round and the tournament since in many events the big stars are getting appearance fees anyways.
 
Robert F said:
Why not get rid of mandatory tournaments across the board?
Just make the ranking and seeding system dependent on performance in accredited tournaments and let the cards lie where they lie.
So if the best players play exos for money for 1/2 they year, their ranking would be high enough to give them good seeding in the slams and their rep will fade for not winning Wimby.

I like the idea of flattening the difference between winning 1st round and the tournament since in many events the big stars are getting appearance fees anyways.
Click to expand...
I have read this before. I think the argument would be, these big tournaments want the big players to play at them.

I will say in principle I agree with ya. But doubtful the tourneys would like this.
 
Its a power struggle..thats it.

Please note that ATP is an association of male tennis players only. And they keep mgmt to run it.
When they started in 1972 they didnt have much power comparing with ITF. In 1988, after parking lot press conference and more controlling measures helped ATP to what it is today.

Now ultimately PTPA wants to do the same thing. Lure maximum players away from ATP and WTA and run their own show.
Since they failed it, they did a very risky thing to start lawsuit. And to add, personal agenda of kyrgios, djokovic and co. In this , suing ITF was big mistake. Because grand slams cannot be touched.

If they dont win the case, they are finished. Players may have complaints but they will side with the ones having power
 
If they don't win, then they are where they are now. If they win, then they may be the king-makers. And they will accomodate the Grand Slams. Either way they are not finished.

roysid said:
Its a power struggle..thats it.

Please note that ATP is an association of male tennis players only. And they keep mgmt to run it.
When they started in 1972 they didnt have much power comparing with ITF. In 1988, after parking lot press conference and more controlling measures helped ATP to what it is today.

Now ultimately PTPA wants to do the same thing. Lure maximum players away from ATP and WTA and run their own show.
Since they failed it, they did a very risky thing to start lawsuit. And to add, personal agenda of kyrgios, djokovic and co. In this , suing ITF was big mistake. Because grand slams cannot be touched.

If they dont win the case, they are finished. Players may have complaints but they will side with the ones having power
Click to expand...
 
www.atptour.com

ATP's $33.5M Bonus Pool Breakthrough: A New Era Of Profit Sharing In Tennis | ATP Tour | Tennis

ATP has announced an unprecedented additional $12.2 million Bonus Pool distribution to players, generated through a new 50-50 profit-sharing formula on the ATP Tour. The game-changing initiative, which aligns the financial interests of players and tournaments, raises the total ATP Bonus Pool to...
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com
www.atptour.com

ATP Unveils 'Baseline', A Pioneering Financial Security Programme For Players | ATP Tour | Tennis

The ATP has announced Baseline, a transformative financial security programme for ATP players set to launch in 2024 as part of a three-year trial. This pioneering initiative marks a major first in the history of the ATP Tour.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com

The ATP Tour seems to have implemented two groundbreaking programs in the last two years to share more revenue with players - a base salary program for lower ranked players and a 50/50 profit sharing program from the Masters 1000 tournaments. I haven’t seen much of these programs discussed on TTW or maybe I just missed those threads. In any case it can’t be coincidental that these programs were implemented after the PTPA was formed. Yet, many here say the PTPA hasn’t accomplished much, typically because they are either Djokovic-haters or right-wing guys who hate any organization that helps employees against the establishment.
 
socallefty said:
The ATP Tour seems to have implemented two groundbreaking programs in the last two years to share more revenue with players - a base salary program for lower ranked players and a 50/50 profit sharing program from the Masters 1000 tournaments.
Click to expand...

Additionally, the ATP has announced a record $28.5 million in prize money for the ATP Challenger Tour in 2025, reflecting a 135% increase since 2022.

socallefty said:
Yet, many here say the PTPA hasn’t accomplished much, typically because they are either Djokovic-haters or right-wing guys who hate any organization that helps employees against the establishment.
Click to expand...
As far as labor/employment laws are concerned I´m totally OK to have this examined at a court of justice - maybe there is something wrong with the ATP/WTA rules, maybe not - I wouldn´t rule out some surprises in this regard. My concerns are about the intentions of the PTPA, which would move tennis away from competitions towards an exhibition circus, in which the lower ranked players are bound to fall off the cliff entirely. Maybe the PTPA seeks to take care of the top 20 and would leave the rest to the ATP/WTA?
 
Last edited:
socallefty said:
www.atptour.com

ATP's $33.5M Bonus Pool Breakthrough: A New Era Of Profit Sharing In Tennis | ATP Tour | Tennis

ATP has announced an unprecedented additional $12.2 million Bonus Pool distribution to players, generated through a new 50-50 profit-sharing formula on the ATP Tour. The game-changing initiative, which aligns the financial interests of players and tournaments, raises the total ATP Bonus Pool to...
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com
www.atptour.com

ATP Unveils 'Baseline', A Pioneering Financial Security Programme For Players | ATP Tour | Tennis

The ATP has announced Baseline, a transformative financial security programme for ATP players set to launch in 2024 as part of a three-year trial. This pioneering initiative marks a major first in the history of the ATP Tour.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com

The ATP Tour seems to have implemented two groundbreaking programs in the last two years to share more revenue with players - a base salary program for lower ranked players and a 50/50 profit sharing program from the Masters 1000 tournaments. I haven’t seen much of these programs discussed on TTW or maybe I just missed those threads. In any case it can’t be coincidental that these programs were implemented after the PTPA was formed. Yet, many here say the PTPA hasn’t accomplished much, typically because they are either Djokovic-haters or right-wing guys who hate any organization that helps employees against the establishment.
Click to expand...

The PTPA was formed to give players (who join it) "access to a wide range of free PTPA services and resources." Could you tell readers what 'recources' the players have received from the PTPA.
GmoreIqbAAAJvzS

See: FAQS FOR PLAYERS. Why should I care about the PTPA?
www.ptpaplayers.com

Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) | FAQs

The PTPA is dedicated to uniting and mobilizing tennis players in order to create transparency and equity throughout professional tennis. By maximizing player voices, advocating for player health and wellbeing, and creating on and off-court opportunities for players, the PTPA is working to build...
www.ptpaplayers.com www.ptpaplayers.com
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
You are correct. Masters should be mandatory. Else we will have a situation where half the players are off chasing exhibition $$$ and half are playing Masters.
The top players may often end up not even having to face each other or even competing in the same tournament. Not acceptable.
:unsure:
The rule for commitment players (Top 30 in ATP Rankings from the previous year) is as follows:

  1. They must play 8 out of the 9 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments.
  2. Monte Carlo is the exception and is not mandatory.
  3. Players can reduce their Masters 1000 commitments based on longevity in the league.
Click to expand...
so what are you based this calculation on? do we have half of players that are not playing MC as non mandatory masters now?

i dont think so, and look at OG. not mandatory but people are argumenting that it is 5th most important tournament anyway if not as important as slams.
 
Last edited:
octobrina10 said:
The PTPA was formed to give players (who join it) "access to a wide range of free PTPA services and resources." Could you tell readers what 'recources' the players have received from the PTPA.
Click to expand...

Following the money could be quite revealing. Where does the money come from? Who gifts, who loans, who backstops? How is it spent? For whom and what?

It is fairly easy to promise a lot and finance it for a couple of years, if at all, to pile up pressure. Lots of unanswered questions and lots of 'free market' rhetoric to avoid giving answers to big problems.
 
sortof said:
As far as labor/employment laws are concerned I´m totally OK to have this examined at a court of justice - maybe there is something wrong with the ATP/WTA rules, maybe not - I wouldn´t rule out some surprises in this regard.
Click to expand...
To correct myself: legally the tennis players are not employees of the ATP/WTA, they are in fact independent contractors. Thus labor/employment laws are probably not applicable for them. The ATP/WTA appears to be virtually untouchable in this regard.
 
Commercial activities are not public ones. We are not given answers as we are not an interested party. The lawsuit will lead to new players emerging if successful.

Rovesciarete said:
Following the money could be quite revealing. Where does the money come from? Who gifts, who loans, who backstops? How is it spent? For whom and what?

It is fairly easy to promise a lot and finance it for a couple of years, if at all, to pile up pressure. Lots of unanswered questions and lots of 'free market' rhetoric to avoid giving answers to big problems.
Click to expand...
 
GoatNo1 said:
so what are you based this calculation on? do we have half of players that are not playing MC as non mandatory masters now?

i dont think so, and look at OG. not mandatory but people are argumenting that it is 5th most important tournament anyway if not as important as slams.
Click to expand...

Whether it is half or just a few players that run off to chase KSA exhibition $$$ does not particularly matter.
Nobody is interested in Indian Wells if even two of the Big Three (Sinner, Alcaraz and The Djoker) are not there.
That is why the mandatory Masters rule exists in the first place!
 
Last edited:
octobrina10 said:
I wonder how exactly the ATP prevents new players from emerging. :unsure:
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact the current system with ranking points enables every player to have a shot. Personally I would prefer a mix of ATP rankings and Elo, but every change in this sensitive area must be very rare, carefully calculated and first widely scrutinized.

With protected rankings, wild cards and the yearly point account we have mechanisms which overwhelmingly help established stars. 'Fixing' most of the PTPA's complaints should effectively increase the bias against new players further!

In fact the 'superstar' plaintiff has profited far more than most from the established rules protecting older, famous, injury-plagued players despite two years of no-shows, taking away from new players.
 
Seems that PTPA helped their non so-secret sugar daddy making tennis a joke. Roddick hasn't hold back:

Yet it may well be Sock and the Professional Tennis Players Association [PTPA] who have the most to answer for when it comes to letting the sideshow take place.

Responding to the appearance, former world No.1 and US great Andy Roddick didn’t hold back on his popular podcast.

“Bill Ackman, who’s been a massive tennis fan, supporter, funds the PTPA, does the whole thing,” he said.

“He wanted to play a pro tournament. So, there was obviously some exchange of something.
Click to expand...

Truly a player's player association, all for the good of the lower-ranked players...
 
You tell me what you know and I’ll confirm. I’ll keep you in the right direction if I can but that’s all. Just follow the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rovesciarete
PTPA defaming Sinner for political gain? Might there truly be a 'Djokovic plot'?
2 3 4
Replies
195
Views
8K
big ted
big ted
F
Sampras says Nadal could surpass Federer as slams king
2 3
Replies
104
Views
10K
ninman
ninman
Djokodalerer31
The king amongst mid-tier open era ATGs?
Replies
38
Views
2K
helterskelter
H
T
What does popularity of Laver cup and 6 kings tell us?
Replies
8
Views
599
Lauren_Girl'
L
L
THON BRYJONACKI TENNIS - Who is the tennis GOAT?
Replies
13
Views
954
Red Rick
Red Rick
Back
Top