Nadal agrees with Federer "Grandslams should pay more money to the players." [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal agrees with Federer "Grandslams should pay more money to the players."

Pfloyd
09-02-2008, 03:17 PM
I though this was an interesting article I found at marca.com, a spanish sports page.

Link: http://www.marca.com/edicion/marca/tenis/us_open/2008/es/desarrollo/1160354.html

This is what Nadal said (in Spanish):

"Cuando unos ganan tanto dinero en un torneo y nosotros, que somos la parte central del espectáculo, nos llevamos un tanto por ciento tan pequeño creo que es injusto. Nos tendríamos que poner duros y pedir más. No es por ganar más dinero, sino por ética. Los pequeños torneos pagan un porcentaje muy alto a los jugadores y los Grand Slam pagan uno mucho más pequeño que el resto. El por qué, esa es la pregunta", recalcó.

To paraphrase, he´s basically saying that players who win Grandslams are a big part of the main entertainment scene in tennis, and he finds that Grandslams give away a small percentage of prize money compared to small tournaments. The main reason, he says, is not about winning more money, but more a matter of ethics. Why Grandslams pay relativley less in terms of percentages than small tournaments, is a good question.

Where Federer said this, I´m not sure, perhaps in an Interview after one of his matches. A link to his statement would be nice.

Any thoughs? Agree, disagree?

TankingTheSet
09-02-2008, 03:21 PM
:o A bit of a self-interest eh? A Grand-Slam tournament has 128 players, a normal tournament 32, it's only logical that the amount for the winner is a smaller percentage of the total price money :shrug:

Sunset of Age
09-02-2008, 03:24 PM
Money whores. Perhaps they should do more exho's to fill their empty wallets? :p

rafa_maniac
09-02-2008, 03:26 PM
Lol, no.

prima donna
09-02-2008, 03:28 PM
No es por ganar más dinero, sino por ética.
Nadal could potentially have a promising future in politics. It's a question of ethics; not money. Sounds like a well-spun argument to me.

RagingLamb
09-02-2008, 03:30 PM
maybe the other tournaments should pay less if it's only the ethics that bother him.

Fumus
09-02-2008, 03:30 PM
Tennis doesn't pay well enough to the lower ranked players anyways. They definitly could pay the first couple rounds a lot more.

Mecir
09-02-2008, 03:30 PM
The rising petrol prices must be killing them when they have to refuel their leer jets!

Jelena
09-02-2008, 03:34 PM
The men should be better paid at Grandslams than the women, that's for sure. When I see that some women matches are over, when men just finished one set, I think it's ridiculous that women get the same amount of money. But this is reopening another discussion that had it's own thread too.

leng jai
09-02-2008, 03:36 PM
Awww poor Nadull, did you have to look under your couch for poo change so you could afford dinner last night? :hug:

Pfloyd
09-02-2008, 03:40 PM
Well if increasing the pay-check of the lower ranked players in Grandslams is to be acheived, there are A LOT of MM tournaments that could be eliminated and the money from these tournaments can be added to the total pool of money of the Grandsams.

JolánGagó
09-02-2008, 04:21 PM
:o A bit of a self-interest eh? A Grand-Slam tournament has 128 players, a normal tournament 32, it's only logical that the amount for the winner is a smaller percentage of the total price money :shrug:

Why don't you read a bit more carefully? He (and Fed the other day) is not asking more for the winner but for the players. They want the total prize money to be a higher share of the revenues.

JolánGagó
09-02-2008, 04:28 PM
I don't get why all the bashing here. Who do you want to get the biggest slice of the cake? the tournaments? atp? the TVs?

Who on earth is not a "money whore" for God's sake... spare all that sanctimonious BS. Tennis is a huge business, without players there is no business, why should others get the biggest slice? mistery, riddle, enigma...

Sunset of Age
09-02-2008, 04:34 PM
I don't get why all the bashing here. Who do you want to get the biggest slice of the cake? the tournaments? atp? the TVs?

Who on earth is not a "money whore" for God's sake... spare all that sanctimonious BS. Tennis is a huge business, without players there is no business, why should others get the biggest slice? mistery, riddle, enigma...

A sense of humour isn't your strongest point, is it?

Denaon
09-02-2008, 04:35 PM
Why don't you read a bit more carefully? He (and Fed the other day) is not asking more for the winner but for the players. They want the total prize money to be a higher share of the revenues.

Absolutely, as in any play on any theatre, these players are the ones capturing the audience and making the Grand Slams profitable, they should earn a bigger percentage than they do.

JolánGagó
09-02-2008, 04:37 PM
A sense of humour isn't your strongest point, is it?

Well it's probably as strong as your irony writing skills :p

Andi-M
09-02-2008, 04:44 PM
No and hell no.
There is so much poverty in the world and these megarich superstars want more??

Clara Bow
09-02-2008, 04:48 PM
No and hell no.
There is so much poverty in the world and these megarich superstars want more??

For a lot of the more journeymen type of players who go out in the first or second round- they are not rich and between paying for airfare and going to challengers do not make much.. I think that the winners get enough but I don't see anything wrong with spreading some wealth in the qualies and first rounds- where many of the players are not mega-rich at all.

jcempire
09-02-2008, 04:52 PM
No

Already a lot money

Sunset of Age
09-02-2008, 04:55 PM
For a lot of the more journeymen type of players who go out in the first or second round- they are not rich and between paying for airfare and going to challengers do not make much.. I think that the winners get enough but I don't see anything wrong with spreading some wealth in the qualies and first rounds- where many of the players are not mega-rich at all.

That's very true - I once read somewhere that when you're not in the top-100 or so (don't know the exact 'breaking point' for this, if anyone knows better do let me know), you can barely make a decent living out of tennis! It's only the 'top' that is indeed exceedingly rich.
It wouldn't be bad at all if the 'wealth' would be spread around a bit more - but as the general public is barely aware of any players besides the top three or so, and as such the top players are the ones drawing the crowds and making the Cash Machine go 'ping!', that will be a rather difficult thing to get done I suppose.

Andi-M
09-02-2008, 04:58 PM
For a lot of the more journeymen type of players who go out in the first or second round- they are not rich and between paying for airfare and going to challengers do not make much.. I think that the winners get enough but I don't see anything wrong with spreading some wealth in the qualies and first rounds- where many of the players are not mega-rich at all.

If your not at the top of your sport you can't really expect to get alot of money at the end of the day all players in top 200 are earning a fantastic living. Do you think the 200th best sprinter, or swimmer are getting the bucks these guys do. No way.

Tennis is a very well funded, sponsored sport and it treats its professionals well.

dam0dred
09-02-2008, 05:01 PM
No

Already a lot money

Yes but the fact is these tournaments make insane amounts of profit - who would you rather have it go to, the players or the suits who run the tournament?

Ideally I'd like to see more of the money go to the development of the sport or investing in the actual event (challenge system on ALL courts anyone?) but that's not going to happen, so yes I would rather have the players get more than for all this money go to a bunch of corporate assholes.

Jelena
09-02-2008, 05:03 PM
For a lot of the more journeymen type of players who go out in the first or second round- they are not rich and between paying for airfare and going to challengers do not make much.. I think that the winners get enough but I don't see anything wrong with spreading some wealth in the qualies and first rounds- where many of the players are not mega-rich at all.
I agree fully
No

Already a lot money
when you go down and see what is paid at the challenger tournaments, then the players who "just get into" a grand slam tournament don't get soooo much money. Have a look into the "year to date" amount a regular challenger player get.
This option in the poll....and since I sincerely don't know for sure, isn't this already happening? Women get lower prizes than men, right?
at Grand Slams women get the same money like men.
That's very true - I once read somewhere that when you're not in the top-100 or so (don't know the exact 'breaking point' for this, if anyone knows better do let me know), you can barely make a decent living out of tennis! It's only the 'top' that is indeed exceedingly rich.
It wouldn't be bad at all if the 'wealth' would be spread around a bit more - but as the general public is barely aware of any players besides the top three or so, and as such the top players are the ones drawing the crowds and making the Cash Machine go 'ping!', that will be a rather difficult thing to get done I suppose.
I think the border is when you are a regular challenger player you don't get too much money.

Denaon
09-02-2008, 05:07 PM
I agree fully

when you go down and see what is paid at the challenger tournaments, then the players who "just get into" a grand slam tournament don't get soooo much money. Have a look into the "year to date" amount a regular challenger player get.

at Grand Slams women get the same money like men.

I think the border is when you are a regular challenger player you don't get too much money.

Thanks for the answer, I'm happy with the news then :p

Neely
09-02-2008, 05:10 PM
To paraphrase, he´s basically saying that players who win Grandslams are a big part of the main entertainment scene in tennis, and he finds that Grandslams give away a small percentage of prize money compared to small tournaments.

Why don't you read a bit more carefully? He (and Fed the other day) is not asking more for the winner but for the players. They want the total prize money to be a higher share of the revenues.
My first thought when reading this paraphrased statement of Pfloyed in the first post "players who win Grandslams" I thought: What??? Is he still not getting enough money looking a possible paycheck of 2.5 millions if he wins this year?

However, if JolánGagó is more accurate when he says that Nadal means the players as a whole, also thinking of the ranked #100 players, then I agree with this statement.

But I would rather handle it this way. Give the winners 200.000 less, the finalists a bit less and distribute this money among some others, namely for those it makes a big difference if they're getting 12.000 or 20.000$.

EnriqueIG8
09-02-2008, 05:31 PM
Yes, Nadal is right.
Okay maybe it sounds ridiculous but just take a look at the amount of cash that football players, ice hockey players and basketball players get. And those aren't even individual sports.
For example if you're an average basketball player and you're in a good/winning team you receive a great amount of money.
Next to that the top players are the most attracting to the sport, for example I'm sure if you ask a random person in France who Paul-Henri Mathieu is maybe more than 50% will say they don't know him. (And no not even like a huge choker:))

So yes, I agree with Nadal.

scarecrows
09-02-2008, 05:39 PM
shut up Rafa, you get enough from L'Oreal anyway

Clydey
09-02-2008, 06:00 PM
They get enough money. Suggesting they get paid more because the smaller tournaments pay a bigger percentage is pure greed, no matter how you dress it up. Surprised at Nadal. I think he should be happy with the money he has earned.

Pfloyd
09-02-2008, 06:17 PM
My first thought when reading this paraphrased statement of Pfloyed in the first post "players who win Grandslams" I thought: What??? Is he still not getting enough money looking a possible paycheck of 2.5 millions if he wins this year?

However, if JolánGagó is more accurate when he says that Nadal means the players as a whole, also thinking of the ranked #100 players, then I agree with this statement.

But I would rather handle it this way. Give the winners 200.000 less, the finalists a bit less and distribute this money among some others, namely for those it makes a big difference if they're getting 12.000 or 20.000$.

Yeah, its a bit confusing. He did say that Federer and he are big part of the entertainment in tennis. But he did not say that only Grandslam winners should win more money. I infer he mean all players ought to win more money.

nobama
09-02-2008, 06:27 PM
I guess it depends on how one defines what is "enough" or "too much". All I know is if nobody fatso golfers can make millions of dollars not even winning tournaments tennis players should get paid more than they do. Some joe blow on the PGA tour can win a MM event where none of the big names are playing and walk away with close to a $1M USD. Of course that's all because of Tiger Woods, but still in the overall sports world I don't think tennis players are overpaid. Especially considering they actually have to perform well to get paid.

nobama
09-02-2008, 06:30 PM
Money whores. Perhaps they should do more exho's to fill their empty wallets? :pBelow is the question/answer the article is referring to:

Q. I read that tennis players get a smaller percentage of overall revenue than basketball players, baseball player, et cetera, other athletes in other fields. I was curious what your thoughts are on that.

ROGER FEDERER: Well, we heard that, as well. I mean, I know that tournaments, you know, all around the world are raising prize money, you know, more and more.

I mean, obviously very happy where tennis has gone over 40 years ago, so that's a good thing. But I agree that I still think the biggest tournaments, they're supposed to share a little bit more with the players, but we'll see how it goes in the future.


Q. Will this lead to more unionization, perhaps, a place to organize? Make sure you get an equitable part of the pie?

ROGER FEDERER: We'll definitely have conversations, you know, over the next year or so, as we usually have. There's a quite a bit of change in the ATP at the moment. I think that's one of the issues on top of the agenda.

Bobby
09-02-2008, 06:44 PM
Yes but the fact is these tournaments make insane amounts of profit - who would you rather have it go to, the players or the suits who run the tournament?
Ideally I'd like to see more of the money go to the development of the sport or investing in the actual event (challenge system on ALL courts anyone?) but that's not going to happen, so yes I would rather have the players get more than for all this money go to a bunch of corporate assholes.


Bullshit. Those "suits" work a lot to run the tournament. Not to mention the umpires, ballboys, catering staff, transportation, cameremen etc. There are a lot of people who deserve their share of the revenues. They work very hard and still don't make all that much money.

It's very very childish to believe that there are some fat cigar smoking suits to grab all the huge profits. Top players are secured for life. They get more than enough from playing tennis. Plus they have quite good sponsors. I don't understand how player like Nadal can complain about the money he makes.

Hawkeye on every court? Great idea, let's invest all that money so we can use it two weeks every year! Oh dear.

Lopaka
09-02-2008, 07:39 PM
No es por ganar más dinero, sino por ética.
Nadal could potentially have a promising future in politics. It's a question of ethics; not money. Sounds like a well-spun argument to me.

Nice to know others see our "little Rafa" as a future politician.

There will always be a question as to who deserves what part of a tournament income. If Rafa can develope an answer acceptable to all sides he should be named head of the ATP and the United Nations.

Chloe le Bopper
09-02-2008, 08:51 PM
A sense of humour isn't your strongest point, is it?
Nobody prior to his post had been particularly amusing.

Merton
09-02-2008, 10:22 PM
At first glance, slams should roughly pay twice as much as masters series tournaments pay, based on the points they give. However, slams are not ATP tournaments and the organizations that run them carry priorities different from an ATP tournament.