Appearance Fees - Honest incentive, or pure greed? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Appearance Fees - Honest incentive, or pure greed?

Eclectic Goddess
09-14-2005, 03:50 AM
I usually don't start threads that seem doomed to break down into petty bickering and name-calling, but this has been bothering me for a couple days now, and I wanted to address it.

Lately it seems like a lot of people have a bug about appearance fees. For those who aren’t familiar with the way professional tennis works, many top players are offered these “fees” as an incentive to play some tournaments. The promoters consider it an investment, as a bigger name is more likely to draw in fans, thereby increasing their ticket sales. These fees are completely separate from any prize money and non-refundable. (They are often as much, if not more, than the prize money anyway.) If the player loses in the first round, they can still keep their appearance fee. Some players have been known to give back the fee anyways if they perform poorly (Patrick Rafter springs to mind.), but it’s not common practice.

It’s worth noting that almost ALL tournaments offer some form of incentive to players. Players who lose in the first round still get a paycheck. Tournaments provide free first-rate hotel rooms and fancy cars to drive, regardless of how well they play.

In the past few days, I’ve heard a lot of snarky remarks about appearance fees regarding the tournament this week in Beijing, China. It’s true that many of the top names, including Nadal, Moya, Ferrero, Nalbandian, and T. Johansson, made the long trip over to play there when they could have gone to Romania or taken time off, and there’s no arguing that they probably went because they were offered ridiculous appearance fees.

My question is: What’s wrong with that?

Tennis is a business. Of course rankings and titles and all of that are important, but why do we criticize players for also wanting to make money? Just like any athletes, their careers have a relatively short time span, and there’s no reason they shouldn’t make the most of it. Football players are offered contracts worth tens of millions of dollars before they set foot on the field. It’s the same for basketball players and baseball players.

Am I saying that outrageous appearance fees are great and players should only play tournaments that can afford to throw $100,000 at them just for showing up and taking a few photos? Hell no. On the other hand, do I blame them for doing it during slow periods in the season, when there isn’t a more competitive or prestigious tournament to play? Again, hell no.

This is just my opinion. I’m curious to know what other people think about appearance fees. Do you think they should be banned? Do you think they improve the state of tennis by bringing top players into places that would usually go without? Could you not care any less?

R.Federer
09-14-2005, 04:00 AM
Appearance fees by themselves are not a problem, they do generate the interest by getting the player and increase Revenue

The problem arises when some players abuse the system to get the appearance fee for a lower-tier tournament and give 1/10 their effort (because the $ is already in the bag), while conserving their effort for a bigger event, like a slam or T.M.S where there may be little or no fee to appear but where points, prestige, etc. are of selfish interest to them.

vogus
09-14-2005, 04:18 AM
It doesn't matter if people on this board don't like appearance fees. They are an integral part of the professional tennis business and they are not going anywhere. Such fees are basic market economics in action.

megadeth
09-14-2005, 04:42 AM
makes you feel bad for the players ranked below 50 who are trying so hard to earn.

they go through these qualifying events, struggle to get WCs and pay for expenses while the top stars get these fees and sometimes even go on to win the tournament.

but that's just plain and simple economics. if i were a tournament director of a non masters or non slam event, i'd go for these incentives to make sure that my event has a substantial ROI.

AgassiFan
09-14-2005, 04:48 AM
Where does incentive end and greed begins? Where does human nature end and evil begins? And so forth.

LoveFifteen
09-14-2005, 04:52 AM
Appearance fees are fine. I have no problem with them. Fans want to see stars!

Action Jackson
09-14-2005, 05:17 AM
Where does incentive end and greed begins? Where does human nature end and evil begins? And so forth.

Well said and who is going to be the judge of that line between all these factors.

To answer this question, if you banned appearance fees, then it would be easier to see who would truly play for the love of the game.

Scotso
09-14-2005, 05:43 AM
Why do we need appearance fees? We don't. It's capitalism at its worst.

Dirk
09-14-2005, 05:43 AM
What makes it evil to take such money and what is human nature anyways Agassifan? I guess you must hate Andre then because he takes the money and runs for the most part. I bet Roger would still play a lot of smaller events although I am not sure he would still keep Bangkok on his schedule this year if the fee wasn't there. How about blaming some of these events for making such bad decisons that could put their events in the red.

Dirk
09-14-2005, 05:46 AM
Why do we need appearance fees? We don't. It's capitalism at its worst.

The ATP could never ban them because then it would be harder for those events to find sponsers. Thus there wouldn't be nearly as many tennis events.

Chloe le Bopper
09-14-2005, 05:50 AM
What makes it evil to take such money and what is human nature anyways Agassifan? I guess you must hate Andre then because he takes the money and runs for the most part. I bet Roger would still play a lot of smaller events although I am not sure he would still keep Bangkok on his schedule this year if the fee wasn't there. How about blaming some of these events for making such bad decisons that could put their events in the red.

Erm, I think that you need to read Agassifan again. That or I do, because one of us clearly completely missed the point. And I don't think that it was me this time!

Dirk
09-14-2005, 05:52 AM
Erm, I think that you need to read Agassifan again. That or I do, because one of us clearly completely missed the point. And I don't think that it was me this time!

No I get his point but he needs to more clearly define his view of greed, incentive, human nature and evil.

AgassiFan
09-14-2005, 06:35 AM
It's capitalism at its worst.

Craving socialist paradise, I see? Good on ya. :haha:

AgassiFan
09-14-2005, 06:42 AM
What makes it evil to take such money and what is human nature anyways Agassifan? I guess you must hate Andre then because he takes the money and runs for the most part.

Huh?

Chloe le Bopper
09-14-2005, 07:08 AM
See?

1sun
09-14-2005, 07:53 AM
nothing wrong with them, could you honeslty say if some dude said to you heres 500,000 dollars, come and play in our tournament, would you not? hell i would!!

BigboyDan
09-14-2005, 08:08 AM
The problem with appearance fees is the that the tournament is no longer a tournament, it's turns into an exhibition. WWE.

mandoura
09-14-2005, 12:29 PM
Where does incentive end and greed begins? Where does human nature end and evil begins? And so forth.

Entirely true. Pretty deep too.

mandoura
09-14-2005, 12:38 PM
makes you feel bad for the players ranked below 50 who are trying so hard to earn.

they go through these qualifying events, struggle to get WCs and pay for expenses while the top stars get these fees and sometimes even go on to win the tournament.

but that's just plain and simple economics. if i were a tournament director of a non masters or non slam event, i'd go for these incentives to make sure that my event has a substantial ROI.

Don't forget that players at the top went thru the same situation when they were ranked below 50 themselves. That's life.

LoveFifteen
09-14-2005, 04:42 PM
Capitalism at its worst? Puh-lease! :rolleyes:

Lee
09-14-2005, 05:07 PM
The problem with appearance fees is the that the tournament is no longer a tournament, it's turns into an exhibition. WWE.

huh? Last time I check, there's still ranking points. There's still competition. What's wrong with that?

Are you saying other than Slams, TMC and AMS tournaments, all the rest are exhibitions?

And as long as the players take the money, do the promotion and play their games, it's good entertainment for everybody.

Nadal, Moya and Ferrero all won their matches this year in China Open, Moya and Ferrero winning 2 rounds, which are not common for them these days. It's very good for the organiser and the players.

Duncan
09-14-2005, 05:15 PM
i dont really have a problem with appearance money, they should be told to make a certain round in order to get it though!

Eclectic Goddess
09-14-2005, 05:27 PM
i dont really have a problem with appearance money, they should be told to make a certain round in order to get it though!
Well, then is wouldn't be an "appearance fee", would it? It would be prize money.

Aguante_el_Gato
09-14-2005, 05:31 PM
Why do we need appearance fees? We don't. It's capitalism at its worst.the organizers look for profit, and if they want to maintain the profit for long term, the tournament must be successful.... , with it they will gain good sponsors, and sponsors shows interest if they have many consumers / public to sell their products; and the public will be present in amount if there are good players...
so yes , is capitalism, but it's also real life

Lee
09-14-2005, 05:31 PM
Well, then is wouldn't be an "appearance fee", would it? It would be prize money.

I think it depends on the contracts players sign. I heard that some contracts may stipulate that the players have to win at least a round to take the money.

Aguante_el_Gato
09-14-2005, 05:44 PM
i dont really have a problem with appearance money, they should be told to make a certain round in order to get it though!I don't think that is necessary.... the things are known soon in the circuit, and if a player takes his fee and he doesn't make an effort to pass the first round (at least) , maybe he wouldn't receive more fees offers.
it is Capitalism, then the same market would have to punish him ;)

Margy
09-14-2005, 06:19 PM
To answer this question, if you banned appearance fees, then it would be easier to see who would truly play for the love of the game.

I think that any guy playing the pro circuit is definitely playing for the love of the game. Appearance fees are just a bonus that they reap when they get to a certain level of success ..kind of like stock options for your big corporate types. But they have all already invested years of practice and sacrifice in their lives to reach that point. When they picked up the racquet at age 4 or 5, all the way through juniors, challengers, etc, they were doing it for the love of the game. Rarely was there much financial incentive during that period. And when you look at how many players start as kids and how few end up as successful pros, they certainly had no guarantee that the money would ever come to them. So if they are there playing..they're there for the love of the game! Don't begrudge them their appearance fees.

Duncan
09-14-2005, 07:47 PM
Well, then is wouldn't be an "appearance fee", would it? It would be prize money.



They get prize money anyway

Eclectic Goddess
09-14-2005, 07:53 PM
They get prize money anyway
Yes, which they've earned by winning their matches. The point of appearance fees is that they get paid just for showing up.

Merton
09-14-2005, 07:59 PM
There is a demand for seeing top players in action, relative to lower ranked players. Appearance fees play the role of incentives to attract top players. An interesting question imo is why the compensation structure for top players takes the form of appearance fees + prize money, versus an alternative that could ensure the same expected compensation. For example, since top players are more likely to go deep, appearance fees could be incorporated into prize money. Yet, this does not happen.

Merton
09-14-2005, 08:01 PM
Yes, which they've earned by winning their matches. The point of appearance fees is that they get paid just for showing up.

Still, reputation is important. If they "earn" a reputation for bombing out in the 1st round i doubt that appearance fees would keep coming.

Action Jackson
09-14-2005, 08:01 PM
There is a demand for seeing top players in action, relative to lower ranked players. Appearance fees play the role of incentives to attract top players. An interesting question imo is why the compensation structure for top players takes the form of appearance fees + prize money, versus an alternative that could ensure the same expected compensation. For example, since top players are more likely to go deep, appearance fees could be incorporated into prize money. Yet, this does not happen.

You know Merton you speak too much sense.

Action Jackson
09-14-2005, 08:02 PM
Still, reputation is important. If they "earn" a reputation for bombing out in the 1st round i doubt that appearance fees would keep coming.

Well some tournaments have not paid them the guarantees when they didn't put in the effort, too bad Agassi never got one revoked for some of his efforts.

Dirk
09-14-2005, 11:32 PM
I do remember in 02 when Roger's appearance fee was withheld because they thought he tanked vs. Rainer so the next year he got it after he won the event. :) SSSSSSWWWWWWEEEEEEETTTTTT :)

Scotso
09-14-2005, 11:35 PM
To answer this question, if you banned appearance fees, then it would be easier to see who would truly play for the love of the game.

:worship:

I'd like to see.

Scotso
09-14-2005, 11:36 PM
Craving socialist paradise, I see?

With every waking moment.

zimzim
09-14-2005, 11:36 PM
I like the idea of paying appearance fees, but it would make it more exciting for tennis fans if the amount paid to players is made public. At least it would give us something to talk about, or fight about.

Eclectic Goddess
09-14-2005, 11:40 PM
I like the idea of paying appearance fees, but it would make it more exciting for tennis fans if the amount paid to players is made public. At least it would give us something to talk about, or fight about.
Oh yes, because we don't have enough to fight about ALREADY!

Seleshfan
09-15-2005, 12:24 AM
Well I inherently think greed is bad. Why want for more than you need? I could see wanting a little more, but not tons more, which is why I think all rich people will burn in hell. The great Jesus foresaw appearance fees thousands of years ago when he said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." Matt. 19:24

Federer being the son of God, will gain automatic entry into heaven regardless of the millions he wins from Grand Slams and appearance fees.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 01:05 AM
Craving socialist paradise, I see?

With every waking moment.


My condolences.

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 01:10 AM
I like the idea of paying appearance fees, but it would make it more exciting for tennis fans if the amount paid to players is made public. At least it would give us something to talk about, or fight about.

Agrrreid. I am getting appearances fees to post on this board, for example. Like my tennis idol, I too frequently phone it in.

missbungle
09-15-2005, 01:45 AM
Craving socialist paradise, I see? Good on ya. :haha:

I guess you crave capitalist hell... I feel sorry for you

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 02:00 AM
Well I inherently think greed is bad. Why want for more than you need? .



"Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can't already afford?"

-Jake Gittes.

megadeth
09-15-2005, 04:42 AM
Well I inherently think greed is bad. Why want for more than you need? I could see wanting a little more, but not tons more, which is why I think all rich people will burn in hell. The great Jesus foresaw appearance fees thousands of years ago when he said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." Matt. 19:24

Federer being the son of God, will gain automatic entry into heaven regardless of the millions he wins from Grand Slams and appearance fees.

not all rich people will burn you know, it all depends on what they do with their money.

if they spend it on a lavish lifestyle just for them, then they're condemned.

but if you're like andre who really, genuinely cares about his foundation for kids, then that's a different story...

AgassiFan
09-15-2005, 06:26 AM
I dunno, Hell will be overcrowded with some awfully cool/interesting people.

And in case y'all forgot: an eternity in Heaven is still an eternity! The horror...

I'd rather just cease to exist, in every fathomable and unfathomable sense of the word, when my time comes, thank you very much.

Seleshfan
09-15-2005, 06:47 AM
not all rich people will burn you know, it all depends on what they do with their money.

if they spend it on a lavish lifestyle just for them, then they're condemned.

but if you're like andre who really, genuinely cares about his foundation for kids, then that's a different story...


No, I'm afraid the Bible is quite clear on the fate of the rich. Rich-kabobs anyone?

Action Jackson
09-15-2005, 08:19 AM
So if they are there playing..they're there for the love of the game! Don't begrudge them their appearance fees.

I am not begrudging them at all and if you really want to know my view on this, it's quite clear.

There is a market place and these promoters want the best stars for their events and it's supply and demand, no more and no less, they pay the most to who will sell them the most tickets.

The comment was reference to see who would actually try and it's pro sport, therefore they have the right to make money, but if these fees weren't around then it's a better indication who really enjoys playing for the game and not the rewards.

Note I am not saying they should get rid of these fees, just offering a different view about human nature.

hitchhiker
09-15-2005, 08:29 AM
i should get appearance fees on this forum for bringing it to life sometimes.

Margy
09-15-2005, 04:21 PM
I am not begrudging them at all and if you really want to know my view on this, it's quite clear.

There is a market place and these promoters want the best stars for their events and it's supply and demand, no more and no less, they pay the most to who will sell them the most tickets.

Yep, it's definitely a marketplace issue. As corporations pay execs bonuses and stock options so that they will stay and not take their talents elsewhere; so do tournaments offer appearance fees so that players will choose to bring their talents (or pretty faces in some cases...hmm...Moya...hmm :) )to their event. Tennis, like other professional sports, is big business to many people. They know that bringing in certain names will sell tickets. So, tournaments and players make money and the fans see the big names. That's a win-win situation to me.

Shabazza
09-15-2005, 05:18 PM
There is a demand for seeing top players in action, relative to lower ranked players. Appearance fees play the role of incentives to attract top players. An interesting question imo is why the compensation structure for top players takes the form of appearance fees + prize money, versus an alternative that could ensure the same expected compensation. For example, since top players are more likely to go deep, appearance fees could be incorporated into prize money. Yet, this does not happen.
a good question, but won't ever happen.

here's the answer to your question:
I like the idea of paying appearance fees, but it would make it more exciting for tennis fans if the amount paid to players is made public. At least it would give us something to talk about, or fight about.
zimzim made a good point.
How would it look, if the top seeded player (e.g. top 10) get way more prize money (normal PM +AF) than the other players in the tournament? Well it won't look good, at least. They would be labled as greedy etc. and for sure most people, wouldn't understand the AF part. AFs are a legitim part of any sport, but as soon as they become public or like you suggest are included in the prize money, it would create a huge uproar among the media and other tennis player.
It's like the saying in german: "Was ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß!"
or in english: "What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over." ;)

Seleshfan
09-15-2005, 05:56 PM
i should get appearance fees on this forum for bringing it to life sometimes.

See how greedy people are? V-cash isn't enough for you?

kundalini
09-15-2005, 06:27 PM
The event in Bangkok managed to spill the beans about appearance fees:

"Marcar revealed that Federer, who tamed Andy Roddick for the title last year, was being paid between US$400,000 and $500,000 to make his second visit to the capital.

Safin’s rate was about $350,000 and Henman and Haas will pocket $100,000 each." (the relevant articles are in the Bangkok tournament thread)

That means the total appearance fees are over twice the size of the total prize money.

And the tournament is not expected to break even for another couple of years - hardly a surprise if they are paying Henman and Haas and a few others to show up. Financial madness.

Merton
09-15-2005, 07:33 PM
The event in Bangkok managed to spill the beans about appearance fees:

"Marcar revealed that Federer, who tamed Andy Roddick for the title last year, was being paid between US$400,000 and $500,000 to make his second visit to the capital.

Safin’s rate was about $350,000 and Henman and Haas will pocket $100,000 each." (the relevant articles are in the Bangkok tournament thread)

That means the total appearance fees are over twice the size of the total prize money.

And the tournament is not expected to break even for another couple of years - hardly a surprise if they are paying Henman and Haas and a few others to show up. Financial madness.

Not quite, this is like project financing that will generate future revenues (think of building a road and start collecting rents from drivers once the road is done). All that matters is what are the sponsors' expectations of future revenues. Inviting top players now increases awareness of the event, so it might very well increase revenues in the future.

Scotso
09-15-2005, 08:05 PM
No, I'm afraid the Bible is quite clear on the fate of the rich. Rich-kabobs anyone?

You're right, it is.

Amazing that so many of the rich people in this country are Christian. You'd think they would want to be Scientologists, where they can buy their salvation.

Paul Banks
09-15-2005, 08:42 PM
My condolences.

:devil:

Appearance fees are a good thing because many tournaments without star would get not attention at all. At least with a big name, you generate interest so people get interest to the tournament and for other players as well.

Being against appearance fees is liking being against the sky, you might not like it but it's there to stay.

I really don't see what's wrong, person A wants to give money to person B, they both get a benifit from it without any illegal or degrading activity. It's all fine.

Seleshfan
09-15-2005, 10:56 PM
You're right, it is.

Amazing that so many of the rich people in this country are Christian. You'd think they would want to be Scientologists, where they can buy their salvation.

Well, I think people tend to just blindly adopt the religion of their parents. So if their parents were Christian, they're going to grow up identifying themselves as such, regardless if they live very un-Christian like lives. Rest assured, America sends more people to hell, per capita, than any other country.

alelysafina
09-15-2005, 11:22 PM
No, I'm afraid the Bible is quite clear on the fate of the rich. Rich-kabobs anyone?

So, who would like to join Marat and I in our little romp through hell? :devil:

Seleshfan
09-15-2005, 11:42 PM
So, who would like to join Marat and I in our little romp through hell? :devil:

Now keep in mind, it's so hot in hell that Safin's pleasure pump will be burned off, so.....count me out.

alelysafina
09-15-2005, 11:58 PM
Now keep in mind, it's so hot in hell that Safin's pleasure pump will be burned off, so.....count me out.

No it wouldn't ;)


"Safin's pleasure pump" :lol:

Seleshfan
09-16-2005, 12:01 AM
No it wouldn't ;)


ah huh!

alelysafina
09-16-2005, 12:08 AM
ah huh!

How would you know?

Seleshfan
09-16-2005, 12:11 AM
How would you know?

I am the devil :devil:

No seriously, in a failed suicide attempt last summer, I visited for awhile.

Okay, really, I know because I was possessed by a demon. Have you seen the movie the Exorcism of Emily Rose? Well I was possessed by that same demon.

Honestly now, I communicate with a Oijua board with the dead in hell. They told me.

For reals this time, I just know.

alelysafina
09-16-2005, 12:34 AM
I am the devil :devil:

No seriously, in a failed suicide attempt last summer, I visited for awhile.

Okay, really, I know because I was possessed by a demon. Have you seen the movie the Exorcism of Emily Rose? Well I was possessed by that same demon.

Honestly now, I communicate with a Oijua board with the dead in hell. They told me.

For reals this time, I just know.

You're weird.

Seleshfan
09-16-2005, 12:44 AM
You're weird.

And you're rude. Didn't your mama teach you any manners? You will certainly be burning in hell.

alelysafina
09-16-2005, 12:55 AM
And you're rude. Didn't your mama teach you any manners? You will certainly be burning in hell.

She taught me plenty, but denial will get you nowhere. I will not, I talked to the lord yesterday and he said that I wouldn't :)

Although, I do feel bad calling you weird so, here's a peace offering :hug:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y185/AlelyNoemi/chocolate-chip-cookies.jpg

Seleshfan
09-16-2005, 01:05 AM
She taught me plenty, but denial will get you nowhere. I will not, I talked to the lord yesterday and he said that I wouldn't :)

Although, I do feel bad calling you weird so, here's a peace offering :hug:


You call me weird, then you offer me cookies? I can stand being weird, but I'll be God-damned if I'll be weird and fat. You can keep your cookies!!


Edit to add: Now if you have some Lean Cuisines to serve up, I may take you up on that peace offering. :haha:

alelysafina
09-16-2005, 01:12 AM
You call me weird, then you offer me cookies? I can stand being weird, but I'll be God-damned if I'll be weird and fat.


:haha: :haha: :haha:

You can keep your cookies!! Are you sure? :aplot:

Seleshfan
09-16-2005, 07:30 AM
Are you sure? :aplot:

Well, maybe just one, or two. Thanks. Peace out.

RonE
09-16-2005, 06:04 PM
Why do we need appearance fees? We don't. It's capitalism at its worst.

You're right capitalism stinks. :secret: By the way, why don't you ask Andrei Chesnokov what he thought about the Soviet tennis federation when they took away 90% of his prizemoney.

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 06:06 PM
You're right capitalism stinks. :secret: By the way, why don't you ask Andrei Chesnokov what he thought about the Soviet tennis federation when they took away 90% of his prizemoney.

Do you want me to find the articles I have from that?

RonE
09-16-2005, 06:13 PM
Do you want me to find the articles I have from that?

You know I always enjoy the blast to the past ;)

cobalt60
09-16-2005, 06:23 PM
Do you want me to find the articles I have from that?
Yes I am curious. Thanks maybe this stuff will spice up GM ;)

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 09:30 PM
You know I always enjoy the blast to the past ;)

Here is what I found on the Chesnokov cases.

One came from a book about tennis in 1990.

He cracked the top forty in 1986, slid back during one of his moody periods, but reached the top twenty in 1988. Early in 1989, encouraged by the reforms being made by the Gorbachev government, he signed a personal-services contract with ProServ. No Soviet player had ever taken this step before. ProServ had represented the Soviet Federation from 1986 through 1988, and Chesnokov had been pleased with what the company had done for him.

But in 1989, the federation signed a new deal with IMG. That was when Chesnokov took the step of signing his own deal with ProServ. Zvereva did the same thing several months later. Both then announced, within a couple weeks of each other, that they were tired of turning their prize money over to the federation. For the rest of the year, both were hounded everywhere they went with questions about the money.

“I did not know what was going to happen,” Chesnokov said. “Signing with ProServ was a very dangerous thing to do. The same was true for Zvereva. We both knew we could be cut off at any time. Things have changed at home, but they are still changing – every day. No one knows what will come next.”

In October, just before he was to leave to play a tournament in Basle, Switzerland, Chesnokov was called to a meeting with the Soviet sports committee. The meeting was no in a downtown office where the newly free Soviet media might get wind of it. It was held in a small flat away from prying eyes. This sent a message to Chesnokov that the authorities meant business.

“They give me a paper saying I must turn fifty percent of what I win in Basel and for the rest of year over to them,” he said. “I didn’t want to sign. They told me if I don’t sign, I don’t go to Basel. I signed.”

Exactly what the federation was trying to prove, Chesnokov wasn’t sure. In 1990, he was allowed to keep all his prize money, make his own schedule, and have Naoumko with him on the road. In return, he pays all his own expenses and plays Davis Cup and the Olympics.

“Right now, everything is okay,” he said, twirling his watch, with the word perestroika written on it in English. “It can change anytime, though. Right now I think the government has more things to worry about than Andrei Chesnokov.

Action Jackson
09-16-2005, 09:30 PM
Another example.

Soviet federation would only send Chesnokov to certain tournaments. Then after Chesnokov and Zvereva starting doing well, the Federation kept most of their prize money.

An example below the year was 1989.

Andrei Chesnokov, announced that he, too, wanted to pocket his prize money. Chesnokov, 23, said he had been permitted to keep "maybe $10,000 to $12,000" of the $500,000 he has won since turning pro in 1984. I won $59,000 at Orlando last year, I got $496 from the federation," he said. "Can you believe that- $496?"

Paul Banks
09-16-2005, 10:47 PM
I won $59,000 at Orlando last year, I got $496 from the federation"

lolz

Lee
09-16-2005, 11:29 PM
Another example.

Soviet federation would only send Chesnokov to certain tournaments. Then after Chesnokov and Zvereva starting doing well, the Federation kept most of their prize money.

An example below the year was 1989.

Andrei Chesnokov, announced that he, too, wanted to pocket his prize money. Chesnokov, 23, said he had been permitted to keep "maybe $10,000 to $12,000" of the $500,000 he has won since turning pro in 1984. I won $59,000 at Orlando last year, I got $496 from the federation," he said. "Can you believe that- $496?"

The Chinese tennis players also have to pay the tennis federation some of the prize money as their travelling, training, etc were paid by the federation when they were not winning any. I think that's reasonable but I do agree that Soviet federation keeping more than 90% of the prize money is a bit too much.

AgassiFan
09-17-2005, 12:08 AM
I do agree that Soviet federation keeping more than 90% of the prize money is a bit too much.


No price is too high, no sacrifice too great when building and maintaining socialist utopia! KarolBeckFan made me see the light, and for that, he has my eternal, non-denominational gratitude.

missbungle
09-17-2005, 03:40 AM
No price is too high, no sacrifice too great when building and maintaining socialist utopia! KarolBeckFan made me see the light, and for that, he has my eternal, non-denominational gratitude.

Actually, the USSR was NOT socialist... it was merely state capitalism masquerading as socialism.

NYCtennisfan
09-17-2005, 06:07 AM
Andrei Chesnokov, announced that he, too, wanted to pocket his prize money. Chesnokov, 23, said he had been permitted to keep "maybe $10,000 to $12,000" of the $500,000 he has won since turning pro in 1984. I won $59,000 at Orlando last year, I got $496 from the federation," he said. "Can you believe that- $496?"

I remember reading a little about the old Soviet Federation. That's a great line by Andrei.

Action Jackson
09-17-2005, 09:37 AM
The Chinese tennis players also have to pay the tennis federation some of the prize money as their travelling, training, etc were paid by the federation when they were not winning any. I think that's reasonable but I do agree that Soviet federation keeping more than 90% of the prize money is a bit too much.

Well they don't do that now fortunately, and there were some interesting things then and in fact they missed a whole opportunity with potential players then.

That's the thing no Chesnokov or Volkov, leading the way, then it would hve been harder for guys like Kafelnikov and Medvedev to come through.