WTA Finals Prize Fund Bigger Than ATP

ChaelAZ

Legend
Problem with that is you would hurt the sport long term. If only the top 20 or so are making good money, there will be less players able to support themselves and build up their skills, as they will not have much time to do so. Imagine a player trying to make it on tour for 3 to 4 years outside the top 50 or even top 100? If they dont bring home $300,000 + a year, then it will be hard to keep doing it. You would most likely have a fallout in level except for the very top players. In this case, you might have to reduce draws to have a more competitive tour.

Just looked it up. The 75th ranked player made $630,000 a year, however, if you reduce this to under $400,000 by decreasing early rounds and giving more money to the top end players, these players will have less resources, and possibly even less drive. While this is a great salary, it would rank about the worst of any major sport in the world for average top 100 players. Most of the major sports have minimum of like $600,000... minimum, and those guys are like outside the top 300 top players.
In the NFL, all top 1000 players are making close to $1 million a year. That is top 1000. Not to mention it is garuanteed contract money over multiple years. and $100's of thousands in signing bonus's. Now, there is A LOT more money in the NFL, but if you looked at the proportional funding the funding supports more players to make a good lviing and compete. Tennis could certainly do better, and giving lower ranked players more to live on for competing would allow, well...more opportunities for them to advance.

You can find salaries here:


And take a look at soccer, and how much $$$ is dumped in there and how little makes it down.


The fight there has always been the disparrity of tournament income vs. payout. Hard to draw direct line comparisons of team v individual sports, but worth noting.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
They don't have to. They can accept the fact that their tournament revenues will be decimated when the WTA boycott if they don't.
Wimbledon and the French Open could have chosen to lose a ton of money in ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights or they could have chosen to pay peanuts to close the (at that time) tokenistic difference in prize money between the genders. They did the latter. Smart decision. I don't suppose either tournament is looking back now this non-issue has been put to bed.
So you are basically agreeing that blackmail was involved... Nice way to do to business.

The Politically Correct Brigade gets their way, through violent and oppressive means only. What else is new? Give us exact equal pay - despite the fact we don't deserve it - otherwise we shall make this a very public "CNN" issue where everyone will know what sexist chauvinist woman-hating people you are... Am I about right there?

I believe the officials of these slams have chickened out, allowed themselves to be bullied by SJWs, rather than expose the hypocrisy and greed of the other side. The WTA would never dare boycott anything, it's just an empty threat. It's pretty sad that the masses are being brainwashed into submission, allowing society to degenerate like this...
 

steelcity32

Rookie
So much for the theory that women's tennis rides on the coat tails of the men's tour. Clearly women's tennis is big business in its own right and doing a better job of attracting sponsors to fund record breaking prize money that puts the ATP offering to shame.

So what's the deal here, does the WTA offer a better commercial product, is it better managed, or both?
Still, nobody's gonna watch that **** without Serena
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I see something like this would improve the sport:
Finishing the year in these ranks:
Top10: 5-10 million
11-30: 3-5 million
31-50: 2-3 million
51-75: 1-2 million
76-250: $250,000-1.5 million
Outside the top 250 really is less relevant, but should have some type of support system where they have certain things such as travel, physios, and coach expenses compensated.
Now how you set up the tour to get results like this I dont know, but it is not by giving the top more and lower players less.
I like it.
Go GMI!
 

topher

Professional
This is a horrible decision in so many ways. I hope this is just false journalism and not the truth. For starters, the increase in prize money is disproportionate and freaking ridiculous. I get that that prize money is increasing overall but a jump from 3.8 to 4.7 is crazy. Secondly, the tour finals should NEVER give out more prize money than the slams. It’s a smaller tournament and shouldn’t reward players with more money accordingly. Thirdly, prize money should be increased primarily in the BOTTOM layers of the sport. Who gives a sht if the top 8 women receive even more money than they already do? How is this fighting inequality in any way? It’s increasing it!
Pound for pound, it is essentially the most lucrative tennis event in history
men’s or women’s. The figures are astonishing: the total prize money stands at $14m (£10.75m),
As best as I can tell, I'm either missing something or this is an outright lie. See the below US Open figures, they list ~42 million for the singles. Split men/women's, that's 21 million each in singles alone. Their total for all events is ~57 million, which split two ways is 28.5 million. Last I checked, 28 > 14 by about double the amount. Most lucrative tennis event in history? Nah, top 5 after the slams.

 

topher

Professional
I don’t know about other parts of the country, but that certainly isn’t the case in Shenzhen. There are quite a few nice courts (clay too) and they can be played for super cheap, yet no one plays.

I’m also hesitant to believe that the prize money is purely a direct reflection of the bolded. Corruption, money laundering, and embezzlement are rampant in China, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the sponsors were dumping money there for reasons other than what they reasonably expect to get back.
Its clearly a direction of Chinese money is more than London money. Look at the Shanghai master's or their ATP 500's prize pots, they're putting in about as much prize money as the ATP Finals for Shanghai. Is the Shanghai Master's just a much more popular event than the ATP Finals and many other master's? No, just look at the audiences.

China and their sponsors are simply willing to pay more for the privilege of the tournament. If the ATP was willing to shop around they likely could get a 20 million prize pot, in either America or China.
 

merwy

Legend


As best as I can tell, I'm either missing something or this is an outright lie. See the below US Open figures, they list ~42 million for the singles. Split men/women's, that's 21 million each in singles alone. Their total for all events is ~57 million, which split two ways is 28.5 million. Last I checked, 28 > 14 by about double the amount. Most lucrative tennis event in history? Nah, top 5 after the slams.

US open divides that amount by 128. Shenzhen divides it by 8. Quite the difference. That’s why you’re always looking at prize money per capita instead of total.
 

topher

Professional
US open divides that amount by 128. Shenzhen divides it by 8. Quite the difference. That’s why you’re always looking at prize money per capita instead of total.
That's true, although how much of that USO money goes to the top 8 finishers? Probably about half.

Also as elsewhere is discussed in this thread, giving the top players a greater disparity in money and advantages over the lower ranked isn't necessarily the best thing for the competitiveness of the sport. The USO, and the other slams, are certainly infinitely more lucrative for players 9 through 128.

Perhaps they should've been more truthful with their statement. The WTA Finals may be the most lucrative tennis event for the top 8 players. For everyone else, including the tournament organizers and the other players, the slams have them beat by infinity.
 
Last edited:

merwy

Legend
That's true, although how much of that USO money goes to the top 8 finishers? Probably about half.

Also as elsewhere is discussed in this thread, giving the top players a greater disparity in money and advantages over the lower ranked isn't necessarily the best thing for the competitiveness of the sport. The USO, and the other slams, are certainly infinitely more lucrative for players 9 through 128.

Perhaps they should've been more truthful with their statement. The WTA Finals may be the most lucrative tennis event for the top 8 players. For everyone else, including the tournament organizers and the other players, the slams have them beat by infinity.
Well yeah of course other tournaments are more lucrative for players 9 to 128. The WTF don’t have a player 9 to 128! Let’s put it this way: the tournament winner has never gotten so much prize winner as the winner of Shenzhen will get.
 

topher

Professional
Well yeah of course other tournaments are more lucrative for players 9 to 128. The WTF don’t have a player 9 to 128! Let’s put it this way: the tournament winner has never gotten so much prize winner as the winner of Shenzhen will get.
That would've been the honest way for them to put it and leave it at that. But they had to say most lucrative tennis event ever though, with no qualifications. Misleading at best. Any casual fan reading that would assume that 14 million prize pot was the largest prize pot ever in tennis, which was likely their intention. Very poor journalism imo.
 

Rogfan

Semi-Pro
Hmm .... You follow tennis, English is your first language and you have never heard the term 'journeyman'? You cannot work out what it might mean to combine the term with the word 'mentality'?

Well, there are dictionaries for that, I suggest you consult one.

£45,000 for winning a 1st round match at Wimbledon is ludicrous and way too much in my opinion. It encourages too many players at the 80 - 120 level to plateau and not exploit their talent.

Win a couple of rounds a year, top up your income with doubles, minor sponsorship and betting, why bother putting in the hard yards to really make it?
Your argument can barely stand. No matter how much work some girls and women put in, there are only 10 spots in top 10, 20 in top 20 and so on. Some people are just not going to make it to the top. The prize money on the top in itself is always a big enough incentive, the journeymen really don’t need less on their level to motivate them to work harder.
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
So you are basically agreeing that blackmail was involved... Nice way to do to business.

The Politically Correct Brigade gets their way, through violent and oppressive means only. What else is new? Give us exact equal pay - despite the fact we don't deserve it - otherwise we shall make this a very public "CNN" issue where everyone will know what sexist chauvinist woman-hating people you are... Am I about right there?

I believe the officials of these slams have chickened out, allowed themselves to be bullied by SJWs, rather than expose the hypocrisy and greed of the other side. The WTA would never dare boycott anything, it's just an empty threat. It's pretty sad that the masses are being brainwashed into submission, allowing society to degenerate like this...
You call it blackmail. I and the rest of the untriggered world call it business.

The WTA has a valuable product so they call the shots. They name the terms and conditions that the slams must adhere to if they want that product. The slams are free to take it or leave it. Strictly business.
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
That would've been the honest way for them to put it and leave it at that. But they had to say most lucrative tennis event ever though, with no qualifications. Misleading at best. Any casual fan reading that would assume that 14 million prize pot was the largest prize pot ever in tennis, which was likely their intention. Very poor journalism imo.
It will be the most lucrative event for the winner who will win the biggest prize money in the history of tennis male of female.

"In comparison to the $4.75 million prize money for the undefeated winner, the men’s equivalent, the ATP Finals, pays out only $2.7 million, Wimbledon $3 million and the United States Open $3.8 million. It also eclipses other major sports tournaments, including the Masters at $2 million and the Women’s World Cup at $4 million."
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
You call it blackmail. I and the rest of the untriggered world call it business.

The WTA has a valuable product so they call the shots. They name the terms and conditions that the slams must adhere to if they want that product. The slams are free to take it or leave it. Strictly business.
It's not business at all, that's the whole point.

It's politics.

Liberal politics. Which interferes and meddles in free markets. All the time, and way too much, distorting the economic reality. Equal pay was never an economic issue, it was always a political issue. Surely you understand the difference...
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
It's not business at all, that's the whole point.

It's politics.

Liberal politics. Which interferes and meddles in free markets. All the time, and way too much, distorting the economic reality. Equal pay was never an economic issue, it was always a political issue. Surely you understand the difference...
One thing we agree on.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
equal pay is always an economic issue for the person being paid less. Clearly you both are not that person.
Equal pay for tennis players which is basically entertainment and equal pay f.e. in a bank for doing the exact same job are 2 completely different things. This paycheck isn't justified by anything other than a political whim. Honestly I don't care because it doesn't affect me one bit but I'm just calling a spade a spade here.
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Equal pay was never an economic issue, it was always a political issue.
Yeah because less pay did not mean less money.

What stupidity.

Less pay for women and African Americans led to a vicious cycle, making them substantially less net-worthy than men at the end of their career, sometimes by ratios of 10:1. Go learn the facts before peddling your right-wing hate here.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Yeah because less pay did not mean less money.

What stupidity.

Less pay for women and African Americans led to a vicious cycle, making them substantially less net-worthy than men at the end of their career, sometimes by ratios of 10:1. Go learn the facts before peddling your right-wing hate here.
Hello to you, too, my noble virtue-signaling justice warrior...
 

Nicholo

Rookie
Equal pay for tennis players which is basically entertainment and equal pay f.e. in a bank for doing the exact same job are 2 completely different things. This paycheck isn't justified by anything other than a political whim. Honestly I don't care because it doesn't affect me one bit but I'm just calling a spade a spade here.
Equal pay means equal pay. It’s a straightforward concept. And you are not calling a spade a spade — You’re moving the goalposts because you know your argument is not reason based but weak and biased (apparently against women in this context).
 

mahesh69a

Rookie
The mods are awesome ... they are allowing this thread to continue while removing my light-hearted thread as a bait thread (I understand humor is subjective, I thought the thread was funny) about tennis as a side gig.
Don't get me wrong - ANY discussion including political rhetoric like this thread is always welcome for me.
My point is, why stifle discussion?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
lol. It doesn’t take a Marxist to advocate for equality. Who hurt you ?

and just so you know, North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship which is falls under a right-wing ideology.
Extreme Right = Extreme Left.

And whoever denies that, likes one or the other.

Who hurt me?

Two Commie dictatorships.

Did you ever live under a Commie dictatorship?... ANY dictatorship?

I rest my case.

Couch idealist.

As for North Korea being Fascist... too funny. They are a typical Marxist Monarchy. We had those in Cuba, Nicaragua...
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
All televised sports (including streamed ones) should be made to cover women's sports 50% of the time.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Prestige is an abstract concept, it always boils down to viewership, and TV rights+sponsorship which are directly related to viewership.



That's simply not true. It's well documented that ATP has significantly more viewership (therefore bigger TV deal and sponsorship). According to a BBC report, in 2015 ATP had 973 million viewers whereas WTA had 395 million. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35859791

I don't know how WTA is paying so much money to the winner of the tour finals this year, but this seems like a one off thing. Maybe they found some of that Chinese money because the event is in Shenzen, China. If they have, then good for them. Or they're just paying a higher percentage of their revenue as prize money, which is not a very wise thing IMO. I'd much rather they pay the lower ranked players more. In any case, throughout the year, ATP makes considerably more money than WTA.



It's a little old but you get the point, ATP's revenue in 2018 was $150 million (source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/new-15-million-dollar-team-competition-to-launch-2020-tennis-season.htm ), I don't have the data for WTA but the difference must be huge considering the trend till 2014. Actually in the 2000s both tours made comparable money but ATP's grew considerably in the last decade, way more than WTA. But as the 2000s show it may not remain that way forever. After the big 3 retire ATP may see a drop.
Holy holy, ATP had $150M revenue?? And WTA less? I didn't realize tennis was such a niche sport..
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
As best as I can tell, I'm either missing something or this is an outright lie. See the below US Open figures, they list ~42 million for the singles. Split men/women's, that's 21 million each in singles alone. Their total for all events is ~57 million, which split two ways is 28.5 million. Last I checked, 28 > 14 by about double the amount. Most lucrative tennis event in history? Nah, top 5 after the slams.

They are probably taking into account the fact that slam prize money is split among 128 players, this event features 8 players
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
It's not business at all, that's the whole point.

It's politics.

Liberal politics. Which interferes and meddles in free markets. All the time, and way too much, distorting the economic reality. Equal pay was never an economic issue, it was always a political issue. Surely you understand the difference...
LOL. Yes those well famous Chinese "social justice warriors" meddling in the "free market" to bankroll the WTA, in the name of "liberal politics" ...

Just a tip, try reading what you write before you post it to avoid making a complete and utter fool of yourself.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
LOL. Yes those well famous Chinese "social justice warriors" meddling in the "free market" to bankroll the WTA, in the name of "liberal politics" ...

Just a tip, try reading what you write before you post it to avoid making a complete and utter fool of yourself.
You seem very triggered by something or other... Can't put my finger on what... First the phony "LOL" then calling another poster a "fool". (Two definite signs of high anger.)

This isn't specifically about the Chinese event this month. Duh. We are discussing equal pay in general.

No, not General Ming! You take things way too literally...
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
You seem very triggered by something or other... Can't put my finger on what... First the phony "LOL" then calling another poster a "fool". (Two definite signs of high anger.)

This isn't specifically about the Chinese event this month. Duh. We are discussing equal pay in general.

No, not General Ming! You take things way too literally...
You might be. The rest of us are discussing the WTA Champion taking home $2 million more than the equivalent on the ATP next week. Hint: the clue is in the thread title.

Apparently this has something to do with liberal politics, virtue signalling and social justice warriors. In your head.

In the real world, it's strictly business.
 

blablavla

Professional
You might be. The rest of us are discussing the WTA Champion taking home $2 million more than the equivalent on the ATP next week. Hint: the clue is in the thread title.

Apparently this has something to do with liberal politics, virtue signalling and social justice warriors. In your head.

In the real world, it's strictly business.
not gonna touch the rest of the discussion, only about "In the real world, it's strictly business."
Not exactly.
There is as well the part mentioned earlier: prestige, or country prestige.
Sometime political decisions affect other variables, for example the investment into a big sport event: Olympic Games, FIFA World Championship. So why WTA Finals couldn't be part of such exception?
Why are you so convinced that it is excluded that some high ranked China official wanted to see this event in China and hence didn't approve and facilitate payments that exceed what a purely business decision would pay?

P.S.
Some time ago I was reading about a big China based corporation, don't remember the name yet, that is in its business for more than several years, yet hasn't posted any profitable years.
A business decision might well result in bankruptcy or change of strategy.
But that doesn't happen in case of the corporation.
Could it be that politics has something to do?

P.P.S.
And China is not alone in such things.
I doubt that corporations like Boeing and Airbus need subsidies from government, yet that happens on regular basis, and as well on regular basis triggers counter reactions.
And I thought business is business and disconnected from politics.
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
not gonna touch the rest of the discussion, only about "In the real world, it's strictly business."
Not exactly.
There is as well the part mentioned earlier: prestige, or country prestige.
Sometime political decisions affect other variables, for example the investment into a big sport event: Olympic Games, FIFA World Championship. So why WTA Finals couldn't be part of such exception?

Why are you so convinced that it is excluded that some high ranked China official wanted to see this event in China and hence didn't approve and facilitate payments that exceed what a purely business decision would pay?

P.S.
Some time ago I was reading about a big China based corporation, don't remember the name yet, that is in its business for more than several years, yet hasn't posted any profitable years.
A business decision might well result in bankruptcy or change of strategy.
But that doesn't happen in case of the corporation.
Could it be that politics has something to do?

P.P.S.
And China is not alone in such things.
I doubt that corporations like Boeing and Airbus need subsidies from government, yet that happens on regular basis, and as well on regular basis triggers counter reactions.
And I thought business is business and disconnected from politics.
It is still business. Some regions are willing to take a loss on a big sporting event because it raises the region's profile and they think they will make more back on tourism, national and international business opportunities. It's s gamble but that is fundamentally a business decision.

Companies like Shiseido want to raise awareness of their beauty products to millions of Chinese and worldwide consumers. A few million dollars spent on a marketing campaign, they think they will get it back.

Or ... The Shenzhen Government and Shiseido are raging social justice warriors who have bankrolled the WTA for political reasons to annoy sexists in the west. But that is far-fetched garbage, obviously.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
You might be. The rest of us are discussing the WTA Champion taking home $2 million more than the equivalent on the ATP next week. Hint: the clue is in the thread title.

Apparently this has something to do with liberal politics, virtue signalling and social justice warriors. In your head.

In the real world, it's strictly business.
When liberals start talking economics, I flee the scene...

I am fleeing.
 

Djokodal Fan

Hall of Fame
If you separate Women's event in slams and host it by itself. Winner would probably pocket $100K or so. Let's not kid ourselves and convince women's tennis is awesome and has a huge fan following.

Many in this forum don't even know when WTA events happen(let alone final) except who those shout out of their keyboards for equal rights!
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
If you separate Women's event in slams and host it by itself. Winner would probably pocket $100K or so. Let's not kid ourselves and convince women's tennis is awesome and has a huge fan following.

Many in this forum don't even know when WTA events happen(let alone final) except who those shout out of their keyboards for equal rights!
If you can get $4.7 million on the WTA Tour, why would you compete at a low rent slam that only pays $100K? Go back to logic school.
 
The amount of money is ridiculous. WTA need to support ITF event to support players outside of top 100.
Barty earned 11 Mio
Halep, Osaka, Andreescu and Svitolina made more than 6 mio each.
Rank 100: Bernarda Pera made $433K
Rank 200: Destanee Aiava made $132K
Rank 300: Raluka Serban made $48K
Rank 400: Francesca Jones made $23K
 

topher

Professional
NBA revenue was almost $6billion last year. I doubt 4 majors makes up a difference of, well...$6billion
What qualifies a niche sport to you, anything less than the NBA? That would be a very restrictive list: football (both kinds), baseball - that’s a list of four sports. Less than a billion?

Tennis likely exceeds a billion when you add the revenues together.
 
Top