WTA Finals Prize Fund Bigger Than ATP

[Thriller]

The eight best women’s tennis players and doubles teams in the world have descended on the complex as the WTA Finals comes to Shenzhen for the first time.

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), far outstripping the $8m on offer by the ATP’s equivalent event at the O2 Arena in London. If undefeated, the champion will take home $4.725m compared with the record $3.8m pocketed by the US Open champions this year.

Steve Simon, the WTA’s CEO, has said: “There was a true commitment here, trying to do something about ‘walking the walk’ when it comes to women’s empowerment. It made a huge impression on us when we saw someone who didn’t just talk the talk.”

It is clearly a symbolic moment: women being paid more than men, slowly gaining even more access to the money usually reserved for male athletes.

Women’s tennis takes victory lap in China despite troubling backdrop | Tumaini Carayol

The best women’s tennis players in the world gather in Shenzhen for the most lucrative event in the sport’s history. But might the setting in China overshadow this hugely symbolic moment?

www.theguardian.com

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?

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[merwy]

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!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

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?

They can ride the coat tails of the men's tennis (by demanding equal pay with the men) and be managed better to earn more than them (where they can negotiate separately).

That is one of the reasons why many men have voiced their opinion about the equal pay demanded by the WTA: because men know that apart from the quality of their tennis there is very little they can fall back on, which obviously isn't the case with the women.

As usual, and as I have said before, they should be separate, so if they can negotiate better deals than the men: good for them.

 

[Thriller]

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!

We must agree to disagree on more prize money for lesser ranked players. IMO the 1st round prize money at the slams is ludicrous. Paying too much to also rans creates a journeyman mentality which pollutes the tour.

As for prize money decisions, they are commercial ones ultimately. If businesses think they will make more money back if they associate themselves with an elite women's tennis event, who are we to disagree?

 

[metsman]

Happy for them, can they negotiate this for the slams too so we can have separate slams now?

 

[Thriller]

They can ride the coat tails of the men's tennis (by demanding equal pay with the men) and be managed better to earn more than them (where they can negotiate separately).

That is one of the reasons why many men have voiced their opinion about the equal pay demanded by the WTA: because men know that apart from the quality of their tennis there is very little they can fall back on, which obviously isn't the case with the women.

As usual, and as I have said before, they should be separate, so if they can negotiate better deals than the men: good for them.

I think you have it the wrong way around.
The women can demand equal prize money because they have a highly commercially valuable product and the slams will lose a lot of money without it.

If men's double was as valuable, they would have parity with the singles tournaments too.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I think you have it the wrong way around.
The women can demand equal prize money because they have a highly commercially valuable product and the slams will lose a lot of money without it.

If men's double was as valuable, they would have parity with the singles tournaments too.

The "slams" can lose a lot of money if the women separate and the women can still have a lesser commercial value (than the men), so that is a second time you are trying to flame in two posts by trying to imply things without it being noticed. Saying half-truths is not the path to clarity here.

The last sentence of your post is straight out of the big green book of trolling, I think. Not that I am surprised that you do that when it comes to such issues.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Happy for them, can they negotiate this for the slams too so we can have separate slams now?

Your avi is so incredibly American

 

[zep]

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?

The real question is do you have a problem with this? Shouldn't equal pay advocates be against his?

PS: If WTA has better sponsors for this event, it's perfectly fine to have a bigger prize money than ATP finals, just like it's perfectly fine for men to have higher prize money at other events.

 

[Thriller]

The real question is do you have a problem with this? Shouldn't equal pay advocates be against his?

PS: If WTA has better sponsors for this event, it's perfectly fine to have a bigger prize money than ATP finals, just like it's perfectly fine for men to have higher prize money at other events.

No I don’t.
First it has nothing to do with equal pay. Pay is something you do for work. This is not relevant here.

It is equal prize money, the prize you get for winning a round or even all seven.

I am in favour of equal prize money because I believe that being the men’s or women’s Wimbledon Champion is equally prestigious and the prize should reflect that. I don’t think that being doubles champion or girls champion or wheelchair champion (because the draw is so small) is equally prestigious so they should receive lesser prizes.

But it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is who can put bums on seats live and in front of the TV? Who can bring in the sponsors? Who can bring in the TV companies to pay for coverage?

Well based on the story above, if anything it looks like the WTA Tour.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

No I don’t.
First it has nothing to do with equal pay. Pay is something you do for work. This is not relevant here.

It is equal prize money, the prize you get for winning a round or even all seven.

I am in favour of equal prize money because I believe that being the men’s or women’s Wimbledon Champion is equally prestigious and the prize should reflect that. I don’t think that being doubles champion or girls champion or wheelchair champion (because the draw is so small) is equally prestigious so they should receive lesser prizes.

But it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is who can put bums on seats live and in front of the TV? Who can bring in the sponsors? Who can bring in the TV companies to pay for coverage?

Well based on the story above, if anything it looks like the WTA Tour.

Bolded: no, it doesn't just like it doesn't when a country with cash to burn and trying to raise its international profile and is paying inordinate (meaning not equal to any direct value) amounts of money is competing with countries/tournaments, where the market decides the prize funds etc.

That is a third time in a very short time, so you are out.

 

[Pistol10]

Fortune cookies...Prefer hotties!

 

[merwy]

We must agree to disagree on more prize money for lesser ranked players. IMO the 1st round prize money at the slams is ludicrous. Paying too much to also rans creates a journeyman mentality which pollutes the tour.

As for prize money decisions, they are commercial ones ultimately. If businesses think they will make more money back if they associate themselves with an elite women's tennis event, who are we to disagree?

What’s a “journeyman mentality” and how does it pollute the tour? Would you mind explaining these terms that you’ve made up yourself?
And these players need that “ludicrous” amount of money to break even.

 

[Lleytonstation]

We must agree to disagree on more prize money for lesser ranked players. IMO the 1st round prize money at the slams is ludicrous. Paying too much to also rans creates a journeyman mentality which pollutes the tour.

As for prize money decisions, they are commercial ones ultimately. If businesses think they will make more money back if they associate themselves with an elite women's tennis event, who are we to disagree?

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.

 

[James P]

I want the 500th ranked guy to break even in the sport. I'm all for more money being dumped into the 100-500 ranks.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I want the 500th ranked guy to break even in the sport. I'm all for more money being dumped into the 100-500 ranks.

Number 200 in the world made $65,000. Number 500 made less than $10,000. NFL league minimum is $500,000 and there are around 1600 players. If you reduce these guys salaries then the tour would be dramatically affected in the long term, especially noticeable in slams where you have many players outside the top 75.

 

[James P]

Number 200 in the world made $65,000. Number 500 made less than $10,000. NFL league minimum is $500,000 and there are around 1600 players. If you reduce these guys salaries then the tour would be dramatically affected in the long term, especially noticeable in slams where you have many players outside the top 75.

When I say break even, I mean factoring in travel, equipment, maybe even so far as to say a coach and/or physio on hand, plus a modest salary for themselves. That probably means upwards of $250k (possibly much more, I admittedly don't know the costs of tennis). That should be what a 500th ranked player should be able to earn, imo.

 

[Lleytonstation]

When I say break even, I mean factoring in travel, equipment, maybe even so far as to say a coach and/or physio on hand, plus a modest salary for themselves. That probably means upwards of $250k (possibly much more, I admittedly don't know the costs of tennis). That should be what a 500th ranked player should be able to earn, imo.

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.

 

[zep]

I am in favour of equal prize money because I believe that being the men’s or women’s Wimbledon Champion is equally prestigious and the prize should reflect that. I don’t think that being doubles champion or girls champion or wheelchair champion (because the draw is so small) is equally prestigious so they should receive lesser prizes.

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

But it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is who can put bums on seats live and in front of the TV? Who can bring in the sponsors? Who can bring in the TV companies to pay for coverage?

Well based on the story above, if anything it looks like the WTA Tour.

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...-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.

 

[Thriller]

What’s a “journeyman mentality” and how does it pollute the tour? Would you mind explaining these terms that you’ve made up yourself?
And these players need that “ludicrous” amount of money to break even.

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?

 

[Thriller]

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, 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 2000s show it may not remain that way forever. After the big 3 retires ATP may see a drop.

Founded on the principle of equal opportunity for women in sports by Billie Jean King in 1973, the WTA is the global leader in women’s professional sport with more than 2,500 players representing 100 nations competing for a record $164 million in prize money. In 2018, the WTA was watched by a record-breaking global audience of 600 million. The 2019 WTA competitive season includes 55 events and four Grand Slams in 29 countries, culminating with the WTA Finals in Shenzhen, China, offering an unprecedented $14 million total prize purse and honoring the season’s top singles and doubles players.

About the WTA | WTA Tennis

Founded on the principle of equal opportunity for women in sports by Billie Jean King in 1973, the WTA is the global leader in women’s professional sport with more than 2,500 players representing 100 nations competing for a record $164 million in prize money. In 2018, the WTA was watched by a...

www.wtatennis.com

The ATP and WTA value don't need to be exactly the same, it needs to be comparable. The question is will the slams lose more money by paying equal prize money or a WTA boycott? The answer is obvious and therefore the decision is simple.

 

[zep]

Founded on the principle of equal opportunity for women in sports by Billie Jean King in 1973, the WTA is the global leader in women’s professional sport with more than 2,500 players representing 100 nations competing for a record $164 million in prize money. In 2018, the WTA was watched by a record-breaking global audience of 600 million. The 2019 WTA competitive season includes 55 events and four Grand Slams in 29 countries, culminating with the WTA Finals in Shenzhen, China, offering an unprecedented $14 million total prize purse and honoring the season’s top singles and doubles players.

About the WTA | WTA Tennis

Founded on the principle of equal opportunity for women in sports by Billie Jean King in 1973, the WTA is the global leader in women’s professional sport with more than 2,500 players representing 100 nations competing for a record $164 million in prize money. In 2018, the WTA was watched by a...

www.wtatennis.com

The ATP and WTA value don't need to be exactly the same, it needs to be comparable. The question is will the slams lose more money by paying equal prize money or a WTA boycott? The answer is obvious and therefore the decision is simple.

What is your point? I countered your argument (with facts) that WTA seems to be doing better than ATP in terms of viewrship/revenue. You did not address that, instead you are coming up with fairly irrelevant quotes. Slams already pay equal prize money and why would there be a WTA boycott at slams? If there are completely separate slams (which would never happen), there's absolutely no doubt that the men's version would make more money, at least with the way things stand now.

 

[merwy]

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?

I wanted to clarify what you meant before I started to refute your point. But I can assure you that upping the prize money for lower level players (and I’m talking futures/challengers here, not just R1 of slams) will not cause people to become lazy at that level but will entice more people to take up professional tennis and thus create a bigger pool of talent out of which future Federers and Nadals to be born. At the ultimate top level , these guys are all training extremely hard. It’s talent what separates them, not the amount of work they put in.

Take a look at other sports where sub-top players receive extraordinary amounts of money: soccer, NBA, NFL. Are these players discouraged to train hard because they’re already earning a lot? You still get your Ronaldos and Messis.

PS: English is my second language, but that’s beside the point. The term journeyman mentality can be a bit insulting as it insinuates that the top 30-80 range of players are there because they’re content with that and not because they’re limited by their abilities and talent.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

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?

You made the wrong conclusion hence you're asking the wrong questions.

Hence no answers.

 

[ohiostate124]

Was something very similar found out recently about women’s soccer? All things considered they actually make more? Lol.

 

[Thriller]

I wanted to clarify what you meant before I started to refute your point. But I can assure you that upping the prize money for lower level players (and I’m talking futures/challengers here, not just R1 of slams) will not cause people to become lazy at that level but will entice more people to take up professional tennis and thus create a bigger pool of talent out of which future Federers and Nadals to be born. At the ultimate top level , these guys are all training extremely hard. It’s talent what separates them, not the amount of work they put in.

Take a look at other sports where sub-top players receive extraordinary amounts of money: soccer, NBA, NFL. Are these players discouraged to train hard because they’re already earning a lot? You still get your Ronaldos and Messis.

PS: English is my second language, but that’s beside the point. The term journeyman mentality can be a bit insulting as it insinuates that the top 30-80 range of players are there because they’re content with that and not because they’re limited by their abilities and talent.

The top 30 - 80 players are looking to do better than win a 1st round at a slam.

I have been watching tennis for too long and seen too many Marcus Willis types happy to grab a fat 1st round cheque and do nothing afterwards. £45000 is too much. It should be more like £5000. Give an extra 10k to 2nd round winners and 30k to the 3rd round victors. Make the pyramid steeper.

 

[Dondon]

Era fo equal pay is over

Women tennis is commanding higher pay

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The ATP and WTA value don't need to be exactly the same, it needs to be comparable. The question is will the slams lose more money by paying equal prize money or a WTA boycott? The answer is obvious and therefore the decision is simple.

A boycott wouldn't work without top players participating and rich players threatening to boycott because they aren't paid even more would be quite immoral, so approval of moral bankruptcy detected?

 

[Thriller]

A boycott wouldn't work without top players participating and rich players threatening to boycott because they aren't paid even more would be quite immoral, so approval of moral bankruptcy detected?

No doubt some would see it like that. Others would see talented athletes who have worked all their lives for the opportunity to become a Wimbledon Champion, sacrificing their personal ambition in pursuit of a much more important principle, gender equality.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

No doubt some would see it like that. Others would see talented athletes who have worked all their lives for the opportunity to become a Wimbledon Champion, sacrificing their personal ambition in pursuit of a much more important principle, gender equality.

There is no equality else they wouldn't be playing in different tours. Equal pay for unequal work detected. Not nearly as significant as lower ranked players being underpaid except weirdos like you rather find them overpaid and would vote to kill competition on that level by withdrawing money to sustain expenses, so your moral compass is totally bonkers.

 

[Thriller]

There is no equality else they wouldn't be playing in different tours. Equal pay for unequal work detected. Not nearly as significant as lower ranked players being underpaid except weirdos like you rather find them overpaid and would vote to kill competition on that level by withdrawing money to sustain expenses, so your moral compass is totally bonkers.

Correct. There should not be equal prize money on separate tours. I have zero problem with the WTA Tour Champion taking home at least $2 million more than the ATP champion this year.

But there should be equal prize money at joint tournaments where the men's and women's participation brings comparable value to the overall show.

Clearly at Wimbledon this year some of the biggest stories (and most viewed matches) included Coco Gauff's run to the 4th round, Konta's run to the QF, Serena's ongoing pursuit of No. 24, Serena and Andy in the mixed doubles, Halep's stunning performance in the final. None of this possible without the participation of the women.

By contrast the men's tournament was an absolute snorefest until the SFs. Nadal Kyrgios being the only match of quality I can remember from week 1.

Next year it might be the reverse but I have been watching tennis for a long time, it evens itself out.

The tournaments agree, the sponsors agree, the markets agree that equal prize money is fair and good for the image and marketability of the sport as a whole. A few obsessives about this issue on message boards are howling in the wind to no effect. That ship has sailed.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Correct. There should not be equal prize money on separate tours. I have zero problem with the WTA Tour Champion taking home at least $2 million more than the ATP champion this year.

But there should be equal prize money at joint tournaments where the men's and women's participation brings comparable value to the overall show.

Clearly at Wimbledon this year some of the biggest stories (and most viewed matches) included Coco Gauff's run to the 4th round, Konta's run to the QF, Serena's ongoing pursuit of No. 24, Serena and Andy in the mixed doubles, Halep's stunning performance in the final. None of this possible without the participation of the women.

By contrast the men's tournament was an absolute snorefest until the SFs. Nadal Kyrgios being the only match of quality I can remember from week 1.

Next year it might be the reverse but I have been watching tennis for a long time, it evens itself out.

The tournaments agree, the sponsors agree, the markets agree that equal prize money is fair and good for the image and marketability of the sport as a whole. A few obsessives about this issue on message boards are howling in the wind to no effect. That ship has sailed.

The joint tournaments are paying to not have to listen to obnoxious political BS and they are successful at that. It is a very small price to pay.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Correct. There should not be equal prize money on separate tours. I have zero problem with the WTA Tour Champion taking home at least $2 million more than the ATP champion this year.

But there should be equal prize money at joint tournaments where the men's and women's participation brings comparable value to the overall show.

You are not only asserting 'comparability', but also synonymising it with equality, for shame.

Clearly at Wimbledon this year some of the biggest stories (and most viewed matches) included Coco Gauff's run to the 4th round, Konta's run to the QF, Serena's ongoing pursuit of No. 24, Serena and Andy in the mixed doubles, Halep's stunning performance in the final. None of this possible without the participation of the women.

By contrast the men's tournament was an absolute snorefest until the SFs. Nadal Kyrgios being the only match of quality I can remember from week 1.

Next year it might be the reverse but I have been watching tennis for a long time, it evens itself out.

The tournaments agree, the sponsors agree, the markets agree that equal prize money is fair and good for the image and marketability of the sport as a whole. A few obsessives about this issue on message boards are howling in the wind to no effect. That ship has sailed.

People are manipulated into anything. It's clear that's not something one comes up with after much philosophical deliberation, rather something you've been strongly encouraged to think and believe and act like so as not be 'morally reprehensible'. Indepent opinions are an illusion. Nor can you judge the quality of tennis if you think the Gauff story involved high quality matches or that the women's final was any good (good only from one side = not good at all, and Halep wasn't even goating apart from defending everything).

I don't really care about this unfair 'equality', which is not nearly the most detrimental trend in tennis, there are worse things to think about. What struck me as disgusting and pathetic is that you argue how moral this unfairlity is while also advocating the reduction of prize money for lower rounds, perpetuating a much stronger unfairness. Shows your morals for what they really are.

 

[Bender]

When it comes to China, the usual free market stuff kinda goes out the window.

Great that women’s tennis has achieved another milestone in its quest for equality and all that but I actually wouldn’t read too much into this for now.

 

[Thriller]

When it comes to China, the usual free market stuff kinda goes out the window.

Great that women’s tennis has achieved another milestone in its quest for equality and all that but I actually wouldn’t read too much into this for now.

It hasn't gone out the window. The legacy of Li Na (112 million live audience for her French Open win) is that thousands of girls and women have got into tennis as participants and there is a huge appetite for women's tennis as spectators in China.

The organisers can pay the prize money because they know they will get it back and more in terms of ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights.

If/when China produces a male tennis star, similar rewards will flow to the ATP Tour.

 

[Bender]

It hasn't gone out the window. The legacy of Li Na (112 million live audience for her French Open win) is that thousands of girls and women have got into tennis as participants and there is a huge appetite for women's tennis as spectators in China.

The organisers can pay the prize money because they know they will get it back and more in terms of ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights.

If/when China produces a male tennis star, similar rewards will flow to the ATP Tour.

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.

 

[Thriller]

You are not only asserting 'comparability', but also synonymising it with equality, for shame.



People are manipulated into anything. It's clear that's not something one comes up with after much philosophical deliberation, rather something you've been strongly encouraged to think and believe and act like so as not be 'morally reprehensible'. Indepent opinions are an illusion. Nor can you judge the quality of tennis if you think the Gauff story involved high quality matches or that the women's final was any good (good only from one side = not good at all, and Halep wasn't even goating apart from defending everything).

I don't really care about this unfair 'equality', which is not nearly the most detrimental trend in tennis, there are worse things to think about. What struck me as disgusting and pathetic is that you argue how moral this unfairlity is while also advocating the reduction of prize money for lower rounds, perpetuating a much stronger unfairness. Shows your morals for what they really are.

Don't put words in my mouth. I argued for a steep reduction in 1st round prize money (for men and women) and increased prize money for 2nd and 3rd round prize money (for men and women).

Nothing unfair about that. If you want a bigger slice of the cake you should have to earn it.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

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.

The WTA finals, proudly sponsored by the Triads and the Communist Party.

 

[Thriller]

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.

That is pure speculation. It could be true. It might not be. I would have thought the WTA have experienced personnel to do due diligence and insure themselves appropriately.

 

[Bartelby]

Failing superpowers and their supporters are a somewhat pathetic sight.

The WTA finals, proudly sponsored by the Triads and the Communist Party.

 

[Bender]

That is pure speculation. It could be true. It might not be. I would have thought the WTA have experienced personnel to do due diligence and insure themselves appropriately.

Well yes, but actually no. I’ll give you two reasons:

1. A lot of what you just said is literally a part of what I do for a living, and you’d be surprised / appalled at how much actual diligence people put into due diligence

2. I also live an hour away from there and deal with PRC companies and politicians all the time. The law is such that they can do basically whatever they want.

 

[Thriller]

Yes it is speculation. It doesn't follow that because corruption in China is commonplace that every business decision is therefore corrupt. That is a thinking error in my opinion.

It also doesn't explain the huge funding spike for the WTA? If this 'dirty cash' is slushing around, why is it heading for the WTA and not the Shanghai Masters, unless women's tennis promises a better return on investment?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Failing superpowers and their supporters are a somewhat pathetic sight.

We agree on that matter.

 

[Bender]

Yes it is speculation. It doesn't follow that because corruption in China is commonplace that every business decision is therefore corrupt. That is a thinking error in my opinion.

It also doesn't explain the huge funding spike for the WTA? If this 'dirty cash' is slushing around, why is it heading for the WTA and not the Shanghai Masters, unless women's tennis promises a better return on investment?

Perhaps every business decision being corrupt is a bit of a stretch, but I also never said every business decision was a stretch, did I?

But here’s one to think about: when Xi Jinping decided to clamp down on his political enemies corruption a few years ago, Chinese business in the industry as a whole slowed down to a trickle.

Also, I’m a bit hesitant to believe at face value that China are truly paving the way for women’s rights, when even human rights is not a thing over here / there.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The top 30 - 80 players are looking to do better than win a 1st round at a slam.

I have been watching tennis for too long and seen too many Marcus Willis types happy to grab a fat 1st round cheque and do nothing afterwards. £45000 is too much. It should be more like £5000. Give an extra 10k to 2nd round winners and 30k to the 3rd round victors. Make the pyramid steeper.

First you advocate equality for the allegedly oppressed, but then suddenly you advocate capitalist-type incentive plans that make the poor even poorer!

I sense a heavy contradiction.

 

[Thriller]

Perhaps every business decision being corrupt is a bit of a stretch, but I also never said every business decision was a stretch, did I?

But here’s one to think about: when Xi Jinping decided to clamp down on his political enemies corruption a few years ago, Chinese business in the industry as a whole slowed down to a trickle.

Also, I’m a bit hesitant to believe at face value that China are truly paving the way for women’s rights, when even human rights is not a thing over here / there.

Well I 100% agree with that. They are offering the WTA $14million not for charity but because it is good for business. In that respect they are no different to any other tournament organiser.

 

[Thriller]

First you advocate equality for the allegedly oppressed, but then suddenly you advocate capitalist-type incentive plans that make the poor even poorer!

I sense a heavy contradiction.

No contradiction.

Equality of opportunity benefits everyone not just the 'oppressed'.

Tennis is a competition and it is optional. Choose another job if you don't want to compete and don't complain if you only get the scraps for being an also ran. Don't expect a huge pay check just for turning up.

At the slams, people pay to watch excellence. The lion's share should go to those who excel not those who are just there for the journey.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

No contradiction.

Equality of opportunity benefits everyone not just the 'oppressed'.

Tennis is a competition and it is optional. Choose another job if you don't want to compete and don't complain if you only get the scraps for being an also ran. Don't expect a huge pay check just for turning up.

At the slams, people pay to watch excellence. The lion's share should go to those who excel not those who are just there for the journey.

I agree with all of this, but how does that gel with the notion that WTA and ATP must award the same or similar prize money at all big events?

After all, using your logic (which is correct here), if WTA pros aren't happy earning less than men, then they should find careers that do pay equally to men - in respective fields.

So are you for market forces or for heavy government meddling? It's a one-choice poll question.

 

[Thriller]

I agree with all of this, but how does that gel with the notion that WTA and ATP must award the same or similar prize money at all big events?

After all, using your logic (which is correct here), if WTA pros aren't happy earning less than men, then they should find careers that do pay equally to men - in respective fields.

So are you for market forces or for heavy government meddling? It's a one-choice poll question.

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.