just give less to winners and the ones who reach late rounds (that is the ATP's minimum) and more to the ones who lose in early rounds, and the economical balance will be easier to find for other tournaments
In previous years, Indian Wells had increased a lot the prize money for winners and the ones who reach late rounds, not for the ones who lost early. It's completely new for them to increase only the early rounds. I even remember Indian Wells director already was in clash last year with the ATP precisely because he wanted only to increase the late rounds :
The ATP had a problem with his proposal last year for these big increases only from QF and in the end they accepted. Now he wants to increase the other rounds : it would be fair to accept for lower-ranked players, but it also means that in 2 years, the overall increase is huge ! And that's something which other tournaments can't necessarily offer. They surely wanted to stop Ellison's pressure at some point before he goes too far.
When billionaire owner Larry Ellison offered to sweeten the pot for this year's BNP Paribas Open— boosting the singles winner's check to a cool $1 million — it appeared to be prize-money manna from heaven.
But Ellison dangled his dough with strings attached.
The take-it-or-leave-it deal stipulated that his extra $700,000 would go to the final three rounds, from the quarterfinals on (a much smaller portion would go to doubles).
The winner's check would thus jump 64% from $611,000 to $1 million from the previous year. By contrast, first-round losers would pick up $7,709 instead of $7,115, a $594 bump equivalent to 8%.
That put the ATP World Tour in a squeeze. Take Ellison's money, and earlier rounds would be shut out. Turn it down, and deny income to players.
In the end, the tour accepted Ellison's offer. The decision rankled some in the game.
It looks similar to the situation in slams where the owner of the Australian open, which is the financially healthiest slam, gives more and more to the players, and has planned to go further and further in that direction in next years,
and the French Tennis Federation, owner of the French open, which has other constraints, now feels completely strangled financially.
I don't know how Indian Wells is so healthly financially, if it's because of its organization or because its owner is a hugely rich fan who can spread his own money (in a situation similar to what happens in football in Chelsea or Manchester City), but it seems clear that it has more money than other tournaments.
People on MTF may not understand it but tournaments are not necessarily at ease on the money-front and they are unequal. In recent years many challengers and a few ATP Tour Level tournaments have disappeared if that can bring something to your ear : of course the situation looks better in south America and Asia but I'm not sure at all that traditionalist MTFers would like traditional European Masters 1000 tournaments to be transferred to south America and Asia.
I feel players are not economically reasonable and ask too much overall to tournaments, but if they give less to winners who already get so much, and more to players losing in early rounds, the situation would be more balanced with players who have a hard living living better, and the tournaments feeling more at ease financially.