Income inequality grows on ATP Tour [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Income inequality grows on ATP Tour

Arkulari
03-16-2012, 05:40 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/story/2012-03-14/bnp-paribas-open-indian-wells-pay-disparity-on-the-atp-tour/53538094/1

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. – 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.


By Debby Wong, US Presswire

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).
STORY: Djokovic, Azarenka advance
MORE: Is it time for a shot clock in tennis?
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.
But it also highlighted a little publicized but growing income inequality in men's tennis that's not unlike the wealth disparity shaping political discourse across the country.

A USA TODAY analysis of the Association of Tennis Professionals prize money from 1990-2011 shows the wealth disparity between players ranked in the top 100 has never been greater. The study, which uses a commonly accepted method of measuring income distribution called the Gini co-efficient, also demonstrates that the gap has been greater over the course of the past three years than ever since the ATP's inception in 1990.
The prize money figures also include money earned at the four majors, which are not governed by the ATP.
Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, who have shared the top three ranking spots since 2007, have been more dominate in terms of prize money accumulation than any trio since the men's tour was formed more than two decades ago. They've raked in between 20% and 26% of available prize money the past five years. The only other trio ever to break 20% was Federer-Nadal-Andy Roddick in 2006.
The 20% mark had never been crossed before — not in the heydays of the Boris Becker-Stefan Edberg-Ivan Lendl or Pete Sampras-Andre Agassi-Jim Courier rivalries.
"It's really bad," says Michael Russell, 33, a veteran who has never ranked higher than No. 60 in his 14-year career. "It's been going on a long time. You look at the difference of a guy ranked 80 and a guy ranked 10. They are going to make a lot more money, but the differences are astronomical. Compared to other sports, it's not even close."
Recent prize money inequalities reflect an extraordinary era of dominance by the top three. Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer have won 11 of the past 12 majors and 17 of 27 Masters 1000 events, the biggest tournaments after the four Grand Slams.
"There's no doubt that the domination of top four (including Andy Murray) has impacted the distribution of prize money," said ATP CEO Brad Drewett, who looked the data Wednesday but said he could not offer much insight without further examination. "My instinct is that this chart reflects this domination rather than any other trend."
Their domination doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
Several players decried the uneven weighting in latter rounds of events. At the BNP Paribas Open, for instance, the difference between runner-up and winner is $500,000, or half of the winner's prize.
"I have a little bit of a problem at tour events where winner gets almost double of what you make from finalist," American Robby Ginepri says.
Another factor that could be contributing to the wealth disparity is the slower pace of growth at the lower-tier Challenger level, since a portion of the top-100 players earn prize money from competing at these events.
From 1990 to 2011, total ATP prize money went from $33.8 million to $80.1 million in 2011, a 137% increase. Over the same period, total Challenger prize money barely doubled to $10.2 million from $4.9 million and even has fallen from a high of $12.3 million in 2008.
For those pros trying to break in, it can be tough to meet expense that includes travel, coaching, hotels and equipment.
"You just have to invest in yourself and pray to god that everything goes well," says Dennis Kudla, a 19-year-old American who lost to Federer in the second round. "There definitely is not enough money to have everything that these top guys have."
Not everyone sees it that way, however.
"People don't love tennis because of Challenger-level tennis," says fellow 19-year-old American Ryan Harrison. "People don't follow the Challenger players. It's a stepping stone that you know is a process you have to go through."
Federer, a 30-year-old with a record 16 major singles titles, is well aware of the building discontent among the rank-and-file. He is president of the Player Council.
He understands that it's more "sexy" to offer a big winner's check and that it's hard to say no when someone offers more money, strings or no strings.
Everyone, he says, has an equal shot to win it. But Federer isn't numb to the needs of players at the other end of the spectrum.
"I believe it's a winner's tour, so the money is there for everyone to play for," he said in a recent conference call. "But at the same time, we wish as well that the lower rounds would also get a bigger raise as well.
"Obviously it's an important task for the council and the board to make sure all the lower rounds get a bigger raise in the future."
Money has been front and center since the beginning of the year.
At the Australian Open, a chorus of discontent arose around what players see as the disproportionate amount of money being paid out by the four Grand Slam events, which operate independently from a financial standpoint. Regular tour events contribute 30% or more of revenues to prize money, while the four majors remain considerably lower — around 11-13%, players say.
That gap has generated strong emotions and calls work stoppages or other actions.
While extracting concessions from the majors is one issue, some are fighting to rectify what they see as wealth gap within the tour.
One of those is Sergiy Stakhovsky. The 76th-ranked Ukrainian has been one of the most vocal players behind the scenes, advocating a more even spread across all rounds at events.
"We are not interested in counting somebody's money," he says. "If somebody is winning it, he's winning it….But it should be equal."
Most players agree that the top players bring in fans and sponsorships and deserve a bigger cut of the pie.
"You can't really harp on the people selling the tickets of the sport that you're a part of," Harrison says.
But they also say that the money is too heavily skewed toward later rounds, especially when stars already receive guarantees - big sums paid out by tournaments organizers just to show up.
As veteran Russell says, "You need other guys to make up a whole tour just like in golf and other sports. It would be nice if it were spread around a little more. We need the top guys to stand up and help everyone else out a little bit more."
No one seems certain that there will be solutions anytime soon.
"It's like a Civil War going on inside of the sport," says Roddick, the 2003 U.S. Open champion. "I don't know that it's ever gonna work unless people put the best interests of the game ahead of the best interests of themselves. We don't have a history of doing that in tennis."
Contributing: Ryan Rodenberg

A very interesting read, I understand the big names are what bring crowds and attract audiences but the difference is incredibly big, I believe prize money should be more equally divided since the top guys got huge amounts of cash by appareance fees and advertising contracts.

This is a lot like the inequality of tv money in La Liga in Spain, one of the reasons why no one can challenge RM and BCN for the title.

Filo V.
03-16-2012, 06:09 AM
This forum represents the majority of "average" tennis fans-------they're PLAYER fans who only really follow the elite players and big names, in big events. Tennis is different than other sports in that regard. You'll see teams that are consistently bad in other sports still continue to have die-hard fans and attain revenue. That doesn't happen in tennis because the average tennis fan only cares about the top players. So, nothing will change. The ATP doesn't care about the lower-ranked players at all. I don't really think Roger, Rafa and some of these others guys who say they care, actually do so. They're making their money. And, ultimately, like Harrison said, it's those guys who are bringing in the attention. Nothing will change for that reason.

Kworb
03-16-2012, 06:40 AM
Ryan speaking the truth as usual. If you're "only" a top 100 player and not happy with the money you're making then get another job.

Serenidad
03-16-2012, 06:49 AM
"People don't love tennis because of Challenger-level tennis," says fellow 19-year-old American Ryan Harrison. "People don't follow the Challenger players. It's a stepping stone that you know is a process you have to go through."

I love how Harrison comes in running his mouth as if he isn't in the middling ground between challengers and the tour. He seriously talks like he is a top 5 player.

Shut the hell up. You don't matter and never will.

LisaKoh
03-16-2012, 06:58 AM
It's an interesting conundrum because once you get to the top 4, I don't think that prize money constitutes half of what the players earn. Federer got something like 6 million dollars in prize money last year but he made 52 million overall so prize money, for him, is just a small piece of the pie. Djokovic supposedly has a 20 million dollar agreement with HEAD, probably has some equity or other stake in Sergio Tacchini. Nadal rakes in the big bucks too with all his endorsements so it's not like any of these guys need the prize money, they're playing into the latter rounds of the mandatory Masters Series for the points, rankings and bragging rights more than anything. I remember getting a strange look from Federer when I was joking with another fan about what a strange zoo it was (practice courts in a tournament) and I said something like, "Yeah, all the animals here make 70 million bucks a year."

I think one thing that would prevent the money being redistributed to the lower end of the scale is not so much the top tier (aka Fedal, Djokovic, Murray) but the second tier of guys such as the Mardy Fishes, the Berdychs, the Davydenkos, the Monacos, the Wawrinkas and the Isners. These are guys who benefit from the protection that seeding gives them, don't receive as much sponsorship money as the Top 4 and for whom prize money is 40-50% of their annual income. I think that the cash in an MS is pretty immaterial to guys like Fedal who are each worth a couple hundred million dollars already and even for the Djoker and Murray who are well approaching (or past) that fifty-million dollar mark. The protest will come from the second-tier, the supporting cast that stays unti the latter parts of the big tournaments but are not so well-known that prize money is not a consideration for them.

Action Jackson
03-16-2012, 07:30 AM
Challenger level prizemoney hasn't increased since the 80s relatively to the amount of money on tour. It's not important to the vast majority of gloryhunters and nuthuggers.

All the levels need to be flourishing, having a top 4 like this, only papers over the cracks. There are scheduling issues, the lack of an off season to recover from the wear and tear of the previous ones. So what they do increase the points at Challengers, but not the cash.

Mikey Russell is one of the smarter guys on tour and not someone who whines in general. He is right on the money here, but the ATP have never cared about the governance of the game or anyone who can't make them money. It's not going to change at any point soon.

It's no different than other sports the higher up the food chain, more recognition is received through sponsorship, when they speak their words are analysed to death and taken out of context to suit a certain viewpoint.

The top guys of course deserve more of the pie, no one denies that at all, but the income distribution through the levels is very poor relative to other sports.

Whole lot of nothing will change. The ITF are even worse.

Pirata.
03-16-2012, 07:36 AM
ATP/ITF are a joke wrt how they treat lower ranked players.

All about the money, as always :o

Kworb
03-16-2012, 08:02 AM
I love how Harrison comes in running his mouth as if he isn't in the middling ground between challengers and the tour. He seriously talks like he is a top 5 player.

Shut the hell up. You don't matter and never will.

But did he lie?

LisaKoh
03-16-2012, 08:38 AM
It's interesting because tennis now is in a much better state than when the TMC or WTF or whatever the hell it's called was held at Mattress Mac's venue but the same financial concerns are there for the guys at the bottom of the food chain. I can definitely see some improvements with how the players are being marketed and how the tour is handled but it's still not enough to address the inequality issues.

I think one of the problems with how tennis has been marketed these past few years is that it's always related to a prominent player's storyline. For instance, tennis was pretty dull until Federer came along and then suddenly the storyline fed to the media was "Will he ever beat Sampras' record?" And then Nadal came along and the storyline was "Is Nadal going to beat Federer's record?" Now of course are the two other stories that take precedence in the media: "Will Murray ever win a Slam?" and "Witness the second coming of Lendl, Monsieur Djokovic." Unless you're part of a player's native country, most of the world's press seem concerned with those storylines and they don't even consider the other guys in the sport. It's a shame because the sport has so many great, articulate personalities and all of them are engaging in their own way, with their own personal struggles.

However, I also think that Twitter or self-authored blogs are going to play a large part in how the lower-ranked players market themselves to the fans and eventually I think this could help them in their campaign for equity. Consider Karlovic who has elevated the tennis tweet into sheer comedic genius-- he's used his twitter account to build a following and then as a platform for his views on compensation and how GS's should share the profits with the players. Players who are smart enough to use twitter or blogs to build a following (i.e. Tursunov) are in a much better position to negotiate for compensation reform than the guys who just shut up and take it. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Mystique
03-16-2012, 09:10 AM
This seems to be the problem that actually affects majority of the players on tour, not the discussed-to-the-point-of-exhaustion season length issue.
I do think the top players need to step up here really and use their influence in a good way. They will still rake the millions right?

I love how Harrison comes in running his mouth as if he isn't in the middling ground between challengers and the tour. He seriously talks like he is a top 5 player.

Shut the hell up. You don't matter and never will.

Yeah and some internet noob who has never picked up a racquet and has too much time in his hand knows better :rolleyes:

n8
03-16-2012, 09:18 AM
I've known about this prize money issue for a while and it really annoys me. The solution is so simple yet it keeps getting further away. I really feel for the lower ranked players battling to survive financially.

Action Jackson
03-16-2012, 09:20 AM
I've known about this prize money issue for a while and it really annoys me. The solution is so simple yet it keeps getting further away. I really feel for the lower ranked players battling to survive financially.

Too logical.

Evitman
03-16-2012, 10:17 AM
It's really serious, but you know, life is naturally not fair. It's quite sad for tennis to know that last year, some Colombian (?) journeyman was struggling to find money just for his travel to Roland Garros to play the qualification rounds.

MaxPower
03-16-2012, 10:46 AM
I've said for a long time that it's stupid that the top guys make so much but the guys around 80-100 in the world makes peanuts in comparsion. On the other hand it shares some similairity with golf, boxing and other indiviual sports where the top often are waaaaaaaaay above the rest in income. Can't really compare to football(soccer), icehockey, basketball, baseball and such team sports that has an entirely different business situation

But I think for the average fan remember that when you watch some top50 player and see that he's made a million over his career don't think of him as a millionaire. Remember all the expenses over the years and also just think about how much you can make yourself with honest work over 10 years. Tennis pro doesn't mean you are automatically set for life, unless you are at the very top

makes me appreciate those lower ranked guys more. They are fighters and their life aren't as glamourous as one might think. Only so-so income and all that travel and hard training

LisaKoh
03-16-2012, 11:38 AM
Well that's true but some of the pros make a decent living out of playing the Interclubs in Germany and in France. True, it doesn't help the rankings much but if they're talking about material comfort one can make a decent living at the Interclub level in Europe for a few years. If I am not mistaken, Davydenko and Gaston Gaudio did it, as well as Callieri. (But don't quote me on that, I am not too sure) The money is good and I believe that they cover the living expenses. I think Gilles Simon still does it, so you have a range of quality players and other lower-ranked guys who can make a decent living.

Of course, the tradeoff with Interclubs is you don't get any ATP points out of it and you have to be at a somewhat decent level before a club will take you on. But if someone wants to build up a warchest of savings, I believe this is the route that is taken by many pros who are starting out before they go on to the ATP.

It also probably helps to have a strong tennis federation behind you who is willing to foot the bill for coaches and training, grant WCs to events and so on.

Alex999
03-16-2012, 12:58 PM
I do feel for the lower ranked players. Djokovic, Nadal, Rog make more money from their sponsors than tournaments. they even get money just to show up at some tournament. but what do you do? It's not going to change. Everyone wants to see the top guys.

however, Djokovic, Rog and Nadal also used to play challengers and worked their asses off to get where they are now.

bouncer7
03-16-2012, 01:11 PM
Inequality = capitalism
greatest inequality= liberal capitalism
equality = communism

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 01:59 PM
They don't give a fuck about challenger and futures players, or anyone who loses in the early rounds of tournaments.

Tennis as a whole as a sport have fucked up so many things over the years, it is tough to have any confidence in them actually getting their shit together.

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 02:01 PM
Inequality = capitalism
greatest inequality= liberal capitalism
equality = communism

Simplification isn't always correct.

No one is saying the 1st round loser and the SF should get the same money.

Just saying throw the lower players a fucking bone.

I'd rather give an extra $2,000 to a guy ranked lower to help out with his flight and hotel to the next tournament than to give another $50,000 to a top 4 player to wipe his ass with.

Henry Chinaski
03-16-2012, 02:08 PM
Ultimately if the lower ranked players can't make ends meet when they start out then the top of the game loses late-blooming talent in the long run.

If it was purely down to the market there would probably be no Challenger tour at all. There can't be many Challenger events turning a profit judging by the empty stadiums week in week out.

Action Jackson
03-16-2012, 02:22 PM
Might as well just have a top 4 big top circus exhibition tour. No, what am I saying we have that now it's called the ATP and the ITF.

The others outside that are rodeo clowns and sideshows to the main circus act.

munZe konZa
03-16-2012, 02:54 PM
there is no clear answer, you pay low guys too much and they have no incentive to improve and challenge and if you don't pay them enough than they have too much anxiety and stress about it to have energy to improve.

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 02:56 PM
there is no clear answer, you pay low guys too much and they have no incentive to improve and challenge and if you don't pay them enough than they have too much anxiety and stress about it to have energy to improve.

Are you serious?

Action Jackson
03-16-2012, 03:11 PM
Are you serious?

Come on JG.

Li Ching Yuen
03-16-2012, 03:29 PM
It's celebrity tennis era. People pay to see a top player even though they're closing in on pinching hair from their asses from all the exposure they get and the number of years they've been at the top. It's like watching the same movie, over and over and over again.

Low IQ-audience, and that's the crowd that multiplies itself the fastest, and where the money comes from. And the ATP knows it and continues to bank on that, as they should, as anyone would.
There's two things you can do: hope that the corporate engine gets over itself and adopts a fairer distribution of prize money or just accept the current situation. One of those is a waste of time.

Current system tells us that: tennis = Top4.

Funny, I grew up thinking it was about variety of styles and "who's the next guy to come along and cause the upset" mentality.
Ha! Guess tennis turning into a tmz-sport is the next move.
One day we'll need to stop masquerading this as a tour and just have a year round exhibition event.

Forehander
03-16-2012, 03:33 PM
then don't gamble with a tennis career if you're not that talented. Do something else.

Li Ching Yuen
03-16-2012, 03:39 PM
then don't gamble with a tennis career if you're not that talented. Do something else.

:worship:

Yep, being one of the Top 100 individuals in any discipline is just a gamble.

"Hey man, so what did you when you were younger?"

"Played pro tennis for awhile, got to the top 100 but I figured it's a waste of time and I'd better just go wash dishes at some restaurant, pays better"

Slice Winner
03-16-2012, 03:45 PM
It's an interesting conundrum because once you get to the top 4, I don't think that prize money constitutes half of what the players earn. Federer got something like 6 million dollars in prize money last year but he made 52 million overall so prize money, for him, is just a small piece of the pie. Djokovic supposedly has a 20 million dollar agreement with HEAD, probably has some equity or other stake in Sergio Tacchini. Nadal rakes in the big bucks too with all his endorsements so it's not like any of these guys need the prize money, they're playing into the latter rounds of the mandatory Masters Series for the points, rankings and bragging rights more than anything. I remember getting a strange look from Federer when I was joking with another fan about what a strange zoo it was (practice courts in a tournament) and I said something like, "Yeah, all the animals here make 70 million bucks a year."

I think one thing that would prevent the money being redistributed to the lower end of the scale is not so much the top tier (aka Fedal, Djokovic, Murray) but the second tier of guys such as the Mardy Fishes, the Berdychs, the Davydenkos, the Monacos, the Wawrinkas and the Isners. These are guys who benefit from the protection that seeding gives them, don't receive as much sponsorship money as the Top 4 and for whom prize money is 40-50% of their annual income. I think that the cash in an MS is pretty immaterial to guys like Fedal who are each worth a couple hundred million dollars already and even for the Djoker and Murray who are well approaching (or past) that fifty-million dollar mark. The protest will come from the second-tier, the supporting cast that stays unti the latter parts of the big tournaments but are not so well-known that prize money is not a consideration for them.

lol, what sort of look did he give you?

I agree that the top-skewing is dumb, because the money is needed least by the top few guys, and the bigger prize money is no bigger incentive for them.
Sure if del Pony wins the tournament, he'd rather have $1 million, but I think a better balance can be found.

What wasn't mentioned in the article - no kids are coming through the ranks at the moment, bar Tomic and Harrison. At least partly because they simply can't afford to. Needs to be a bit more money lower down. Not way more, but more.

LisaKoh
03-16-2012, 04:03 PM
lol, what sort of look did he give you?



Well it was not a happy one, it was more of an "are you kidding me" look. :lol: But maybe it's because he also overheard me tell the guy beside me that he couldn't have possibly gotten Deliciano's autograph because he'd have been blinded by his beauty. :lol::lol: Who knows. Maybe he doesn't like it that people know how much he makes to hit a fuzzy yellow ball over the net or maybe he doesn't like it when people talk about Deliciano.

munZe konZa
03-16-2012, 04:24 PM
Are you serious?

What does that mean ?
Maybe you shouldn't post unless you make at least 5 words

Slice Winner
03-16-2012, 04:34 PM
Well it was not a happy one, it was more of an "are you kidding me" look. :lol: But maybe it's because he also overheard me tell the guy beside me that he couldn't have possibly gotten Deliciano's autograph because he'd have been blinded by his beauty. :lol::lol: Who knows. Maybe he doesn't like it that people know how much he makes to hit a fuzzy yellow ball over the net or maybe he doesn't like it when people talk about Deliciano.

lol! Might just have been use of the name 'Deliciano'.
Perhaps that reminded Fed of either Andrew Castle or Judy Murray. And the resulting look is then easily justified.

abraxas21
03-16-2012, 04:34 PM
#occupyATP

Action Jackson
03-16-2012, 04:35 PM
munZe only watches Djokovic, so why would he care about the sport and the health of it.

LisaKoh
03-16-2012, 04:43 PM
lol! Might just have been use of the name 'Deliciano'.
Perhaps that reminded Fed of either Andrew Castle or Judy Murray. And the resulting look is then easily justified.

Haha, I didn't call him Deliciano, I called him Lopez. I believe my comment was something like "You didn't get that from Lopez. You can't stare at Lopez too long. It's like staring at the sun. He's too beautiful, you'll go blind." The obviously hetero guy I said this to was laughing with me and then somehow when Fed got to our section, we'd gotten to talking about how much money Federer makes and I guess he wasn't happy about it or maybe he wasn't amused by the Feliciano comment. But Federer was still pleasant overall, maybe he was just uncomfortable with the fact that somebody had pointed out how much cash he makes within his earshot (it was not intentional!).

munZe konZa
03-16-2012, 04:45 PM
munZe only watches Djokovic, so why would he care about the sport and the health of it.

you don't care about Djokovic to say the least so how do you care about tennis?
Of maybe you care about some loser that brings down the tennis?
But hey I don't want to get into anything with you.

Action Jackson
03-16-2012, 04:51 PM
What wasn't mentioned in the article - no kids are coming through the ranks at the moment, bar Tomic and Harrison. At least partly because they simply can't afford to. Needs to be a bit more money lower down. Not way more, but more.

The game is more physical now, some will go to the US on a scholarship, but unless they have powerful federations or agents managing them. It will take them longer to break through. There needs to more money for sure at lower level.

ITF give only 17% of the cash they make to the players. ATP is a bit higher, look at the IW/Miami swing. Players in the lower entry positions have to play them even though they will lose money say they lose early, taking in all the expenses.

Machiavelli
03-16-2012, 04:51 PM
People who are not familiar with the CH/Futures circuit just don't have the real info about how tough it is for the guys who are fighting to get through the rankings. If you are some super talented kid from USA or western Europe (Germany, France, Spain, UK etc..) than it is a bit easier, a lot of tournaments, possible WC, just count the numerous futures and CH events Italy or Spain have; the rest has either a solid familiar background or due to enormous talent gets the needed sponsorship.

I will never forget the situation when Charly Berlocq came to the Zagreb CH at the Mladost park. In his interview he mentioned that he is barely making it, he got a loan of ca. 100.000,00 $ in Argentina and since the results did not come early on he had to start paying it back; training, coach, equipment, facilities, therapists, nutritionists - that ain't for free; he is well situated now I guess, the results finally came, but what if it did not happen for him???

The Chilean player Jorge Aguilar, another one who if I am not mistaken last year or two years ago said he won't be traveling to Europe, he just can't afford it...

Even Goran back in the days when he started, said he had to sleep in the streets somewhere in France and wash himself in public restrooms because a sponsor failed to pay for his accommodation, he barely spoke the language, did not know anyone, and his parents did not have the money to support him (it was war at that time); eating 3 burgers once a day in McDonalds for an entire week...

Dodig was thinking of quitting too, no real support, and the expenses were just too high, but the fighting spirit and cojones prevailed in the end and he came through, now he has his own team...

And still, posters here fail to see the real beauty of tennis, the amazing scenes, matches and true life stories the CH circuit brings to us; of course Federer, Djokovic and co. are amazing players, but even more joy and entertainment can be found at the less prestigious, way less paid tournaments....

tangerine_dream
03-16-2012, 04:57 PM
I love how Harrison comes in running his mouth as if he isn't in the middling ground between challengers and the tour. He seriously talks like he is a top 5 player.

Shut the hell up. You don't matter and never will.
His opinion carries more weight than yours does or ever will. :)

Action Jackson
03-16-2012, 04:59 PM
People who are not familiar with the CH/Futures circuit just don't have the real info about how tough it is for the guys who are fighting to get through the rankings. If you are some super talented kid from USA or western Europe (Germany, France, Spain, UK etc..) than it is a bit easier, a lot of tournaments, possible WC, just count the numerous futures and CH events Italy or Spain have; the rest has either a solid familiar background or due to enormous talent gets the needed sponsorship.

I will never forget the situation when Charly Berlocq came to the Zagreb CH at the Mladost park. In his interview he mentioned that he is barely making it, he got a loan of ca. 100.000,00 $ in Argentina and since the results did not come early on he had to start paying it back; training, coach, equipment, facilities, therapists, nutritionists - that ain't for free; he is well situated now I guess, the results finally came, but what if it did not happen for him???

The Chilean player Jorge Aguilar, another one who if I am not mistaken last year or two years ago said he won't be traveling to Europe, he just can't afford it...

Even Goran back in the days when he started, said he had to sleep in the streets somewhere in France and wash himself in public restrooms because a sponsor failed to pay for his accommodation, he barely spoke the language, did not know anyone, and his parents did not have the money to support him (it was war at that time); eating 3 burgers once a day in McDonalds for an entire week...

Dodig was thinking of quitting too, no real support, and the expenses were just too high, but the fighting spirit and cojones prevailed in the end and he came through, now he has his own team...

And still, posters here fail to see the real beauty of tennis, the amazing scenes, matches and true life stories the CH circuit brings to us; of course Federer, Djokovic and co. are amazing players, but even more joy and entertainment can be found at the less prestigious, way less paid tournaments....

:worship:

This from Peter Luczak when he started playing.

24 hour Greyhound bus rides, as I was not a rich kid at all. There were a group of 7 of us in a basement of a house, 2 beds, 1 couch, and the rest slept on the floor. Before the tournament we would play games of cards or chess to decide who would get a bed, once you lost your singles match, and then you were on the floor. I got the nickname of “Lucky Looch” and “Diablo” because I was always winning these games and getting the bed.

One of the guys traveled with a stringer, so he was able to do all of our racquets. When it came to food, there were the 29c McDonalds burgers, I would have 5 of them in one sitting, eating 2 minute noodles and the free player lunch.

Gaudio had to borrow money from Hernan Gumy before he came on the tour, even Kent Carlsson struggled as well. Cold room 4-5, eating food at the end of the night staying in a van at times.

Johnny Groove
03-16-2012, 05:10 PM
I have a dream.

That one day, a player who wins 3-4 matches of qualifying in a row in a futures and loses in the first round gets not only half of an ATP point, but also enough money to travel to the next tournament and a hotel for a few days.

I have a dream.

Sunset of Age
03-16-2012, 05:17 PM
People who are not familiar with the CH/Futures circuit just don't have the real info about how tough it is for the guys who are fighting to get through the rankings. If you are some super talented kid from USA or western Europe (Germany, France, Spain, UK etc..) than it is a bit easier, a lot of tournaments, possible WC, just count the numerous futures and CH events Italy or Spain have; the rest has either a solid familiar background or due to enormous talent gets the needed sponsorship.

I will never forget the situation when Charly Berlocq came to the Zagreb CH at the Mladost park. In his interview he mentioned that he is barely making it, he got a loan of ca. 100.000,00 $ in Argentina and since the results did not come early on he had to start paying it back; training, coach, equipment, facilities, therapists, nutritionists - that ain't for free; he is well situated now I guess, the results finally came, but what if it did not happen for him???

The Chilean player Jorge Aguilar, another one who if I am not mistaken last year or two years ago said he won't be traveling to Europe, he just can't afford it...

Even Goran back in the days when he started, said he had to sleep in the streets somewhere in France and wash himself in public restrooms because a sponsor failed to pay for his accommodation, he barely spoke the language, did not know anyone, and his parents did not have the money to support him (it was war at that time); eating 3 burgers once a day in McDonalds for an entire week...

Dodig was thinking of quitting too, no real support, and the expenses were just too high, but the fighting spirit and cojones prevailed in the end and he came through, now he has his own team...

And still, posters here fail to see the real beauty of tennis, the amazing scenes, matches and true life stories the CH circuit brings to us; of course Federer, Djokovic and co. are amazing players, but even more joy and entertainment can be found at the less prestigious, way less paid tournaments....

Quoted for sheer factuality and insight. :yeah:

argudam
03-16-2012, 05:18 PM
What about the ATP paying for the travel, accommodation, and food expenses of players? Is that even feasible? Don't other individual sports have the same problems too? How do they deal with it?

Sorry for editing my post so many times.

Slice Winner
03-16-2012, 06:38 PM
Haha, I didn't call him Deliciano, I called him Lopez. I believe my comment was something like "You didn't get that from Lopez. You can't stare at Lopez too long. It's like staring at the sun. He's too beautiful, you'll go blind." The obviously hetero guy I said this to was laughing with me and then somehow when Fed got to our section, we'd gotten to talking about how much money Federer makes and I guess he wasn't happy about it or maybe he wasn't amused by the Feliciano comment. But Federer was still pleasant overall, maybe he was just uncomfortable with the fact that somebody had pointed out how much cash he makes within his earshot (it was not intentional!).

I'd probably feel embarrassed if I earned $60 million a year for wearing butt hugging jeans in Lindt commercials ;)

Or I'd feel like a boss. Not sure which.

Kat_YYZ
03-16-2012, 09:49 PM
Haha, I didn't call him Deliciano, I called him Lopez. I believe my comment was something like "You didn't get that from Lopez. You can't stare at Lopez too long. It's like staring at the sun. He's too beautiful, you'll go blind." The obviously hetero guy I said this to was laughing with me and then somehow when Fed got to our section, we'd gotten to talking about how much money Federer makes and I guess he wasn't happy about it or maybe he wasn't amused by the Feliciano comment. But Federer was still pleasant overall, maybe he was just uncomfortable with the fact that somebody had pointed out how much cash he makes within his earshot (it was not intentional!).

reading that comment in the context of this argument about income inequality, reading the initial argument and our debate surrounding it, it doesn't sound so bad.

But he just overheard it, seemingly a completely random remark. You don't know how much of the conversation leading into it he picked up. "these animals make $60 million" -- think about how it sounds on it's own, without any context. Kind of hateful.

Filo V.
03-16-2012, 10:32 PM
There have been some great things said here, but let's get real. Most posters here don't give a shit about lower ranked players at all. So now some of you are acting concerned for them, acting as if you give a shit, but really, when this thread is knocked off the first page of general messages, most of you will go back to talk about the big four, Del Potro, and the hyped young players ONLY. So really, discussions of this issue on this forum ain't going anywhere. But real tennis fans know the problems involved, and unfortunately, ATP/ITF also know who the average tennis fan is. And the average tennis fan is like the ones we see on this forum. Most people who call themselves tennis fans are really just player fans. That is the real problem, it's cultural, and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

fmolinari2005
03-17-2012, 12:35 AM
The main problem is that, even if it is a bit unfair, what most people will think is: "oh, you are complaining that you don't get enough money to play tennis" ...because at the same time nurses, teachers, fire fighters and such are struggling to get ends meet in most countries of the world.

hipolymer
03-17-2012, 12:41 AM
Maybe they should play better.

Timariot
03-17-2012, 01:00 AM
When this subject comes up, many people are always quick to jump on the fact that most people, indeed, pay to watch just the biggest stars. However, this is bit of a fallacy in the sense that the stars would not exist without those rank & file players. If only stars have chance to make a living, then you will soon struggle to find new stars, because why would a talented athlete want to invest his or her life in a sport where the odds of actually making a living are astronomically tiny? I have absolutely no doubt that one reason for present lack of US tennis stars is that talented athletes go to more lucrative sports, which are plenty in US.

Maintaining the lower ranks of pro tennis hierarchy is absolutely essential for future & well-being of the sports, even if many casual fans, starfuckers and fair-weather fans ignore them. Do I need to remind people how things were when pro tennis was, indeed, only about few star players, and they were only ones who made money? I do, indeed, for nobody remembers those times; because nobody watched pro tennis back then.

Filo V.
03-17-2012, 01:02 AM
The main problem is that, even if it is a bit unfair, what most people will think is: "oh, you are complaining that you don't get enough money to play tennis" ...because at the same time nurses, teachers, fire fighters and such are struggling to get ends meet in most countries of the world.
A profession is a profession. The fact that it's a tennis profession is irrelevant. It's still a job, these players are playing tennis professionally. Which I think you realize as you yourself say that mentality is unfair, which, of course, it is. But, the same principles that are being discussed here are shared when it comes to people working in the education field, or nursing field. The principles of fairness and a pay rate that is reasonable to the amount that individual works is something shared in all professions.

@Sweet Cleopatra
03-17-2012, 01:13 AM
I hope they fix it, and give more money to players in first rounds.

fast_clay
03-17-2012, 01:14 AM
Challenger level prizemoney hasn't increased since the 80s relatively to the amount of money on tour. It's not important to the vast majority of gloryhunters and nuthuggers.

All the levels need to be flourishing, having a top 4 like this, only papers over the cracks. There are scheduling issues, the lack of an off season to recover from the wear and tear of the previous ones. So what they do increase the points at Challengers, but not the cash.

Mikey Russell is one of the smarter guys on tour and not someone who whines in general. He is right on the money here, but the ATP have never cared about the governance of the game or anyone who can't make them money. It's not going to change at any point soon.

It's no different than other sports the higher up the food chain, more recognition is received through sponsorship, when they speak their words are analysed to death and taken out of context to suit a certain viewpoint.

The top guys of course deserve more of the pie, no one denies that at all, but the income distribution through the levels is very poor relative to other sports.

Whole lot of nothing will change. The ITF are even worse.

the thing is is that the current crop of top players are so dominant that they could actually effect change at the drop of a hat, maybe more so than at any point in open era history... once the next transition era kicks in that chance is lost...

sure it is a winners tour and an individual sport, but golf does not disrespect it's lower order tours... asia, us, euro tours are lucrative and then you have the level below the pga tour (the challenger equivalent) which is extremely well catered for - the difference between the tennis and golf 2nd tier tours is astronomical...

it is a crime...

and people wonder why there is no new talent coming though... it just doesnt pay to take the chance to back yourself for a year on tour and hope for luck... the tour doesn't invest in it's own long term health by ignoring the lower levels... a better challenger tour ensures a better world tour... right...?

Action Jackson
03-17-2012, 01:49 AM
the thing is is that the current crop of top players are so dominant that they could actually effect change at the drop of a hat, maybe more so than at any point in open era history... once the next transition era kicks in that chance is lost...

sure it is a winners tour and an individual sport, but golf does not disrespect it's lower order tours... asia, us, euro tours are lucrative and then you have the level below the pga tour (the challenger equivalent) which is extremely well catered for - the difference between the tennis and golf 2nd tier tours is astronomical...

it is a crime...

and people wonder why there is no new talent coming though... it just doesnt pay to take the chance to back yourself for a year on tour and hope for luck... the tour doesn't invest in it's own long term health by ignoring the lower levels... a better challenger tour ensures a better world tour... right...?

That's exactly right the PGA has a much better structure when it comes to organisation and governance of the game. It's like when Kafelnikov said tennis players were underpaid, no one actually quoted the thing in context. It was relation to golfers, but golf look after their lower tier better.

Yes, doing it the hard way and succeeding is so rewarding, but there needs to be money down at Chall/Future events.

LisaKoh
03-17-2012, 05:42 AM
But he just overheard it, seemingly a completely random remark. You don't know how much of the conversation leading into it he picked up. "these animals make $60 million" -- think about how it sounds on it's own, without any context. Kind of hateful.

Nah, I doubt he would have gotten that from my inflection and the way I said it. I was just cracking jokes with somebody else. But who knows, really. I mean if his feelings were hurt I'm sure the 60 million buckaroos he gets per annum are a soothing balm to whatever he overheard on a practice court.

As for the Challenger circuit and the lower end of guys from the rest of the tour, does anybody remember that movie called The Journeymen a.k.a. the one about the worst player to ever beat Pete Sampras? Great movie and it showed just how hard it was to make it on the pro circuit. I think that's the only tennis documentary worth watching in terms of showing the real income disparity.

Let's see if the players do strike over this. It seems to be gathering some momentum, it would be pretty amazing if half the top 100 failed to show up at RG because of deliberate work stoppage.

Action Jackson
03-17-2012, 05:51 AM
Got to appreciate the work of Colsanitas in Colombia. They are a company involved with tennis in Colombia they look after everything for the Colombian guys. Babolat racquets, they have a group of coaches like Pato Clavet who is working with Giraldo all under the Colsanitas banner.

For every rich kid like Rios, Lapentti or Massu, there are the ones like Berlocq or when Hartfield was on tour 2002 the Argentine economy collapsed and he lost money.

Benny_Maths
03-17-2012, 06:26 AM
the same principles that are being discussed here are shared when it comes to people working in the education field, or nursing field

It is erroneous reasoning to apply a given set of principles to contexts which are fundamentally different. Nurses, teachers etc look for other jobs (often menial ones completely unrelated to their chosen field) when they can't get work in their field. They live in the 'real world' where you can't just waah about not being able to make a decent earning from their hobby.

Maybe they should play better.

The same idea goes for any real job. If you're not good enough, you don't get a job and don't get an income. If people are going to say that tennis is like any real job then they should understand this simple idea. Honestly, get some perspective.

hipolymer
03-17-2012, 06:43 AM
The same idea goes for any real job. If you're not good enough, you don't get a job and don't get an income. If people are going to say that tennis is like any real job then they should understand this simple idea. Honestly, get some perspective.

One thing I'll mention though is that tennis players DO get the short end of the stick compared to other sports and athletes.

Timariot
03-17-2012, 08:25 AM
That's exactly right the PGA has a much better structure when it comes to organisation and governance of the game. It's like when Kafelnikov said tennis players were underpaid, no one actually quoted the thing in context. It was relation to golfers, but golf look after their lower tier better.


Wow, probably the first time I've seen someone understand what Kafelnikov said there. Zhenya! :worship: Yeah, media misquoted him bigtime, and he was absolutely right.

Start da Game
03-17-2012, 08:31 AM
everyone knows ITF are a greedy bunch of money obsessed fools.....if they really had an ounce of shame, monte carlo would never been declared non-mandatory and rome would never have been moved to last in the clay series and latin america would have had one masters 1000 at least.....

it's just the law of nature that only strongest will survive.....at the moment ITF pamper top players and base their strength over them.....so the top 500 players need to take charge and threaten to boycott all events for one full season......that is the only solution......

bayvalle
03-17-2012, 10:32 AM
Agree. However, everything in this world must be a matter of choice.

It's really serious, but you know, life is naturally not fair. It's quite sad for tennis to know that last year, some Colombian (?) journeyman was struggling to find money just for his travel to Roland Garros to play the qualification rounds.

fast_clay
03-17-2012, 11:34 AM
everyone knows ITF are a greedy bunch of money obsessed fools.....if they really had an ounce of shame, monte carlo would never been declared non-mandatory and rome would never have been moved to last in the clay series and latin america would have had one masters 1000 at least.....

it's just the law of nature that only strongest will survive.....at the moment ITF pamper top players and base their strength over them.....so the top 500 players need to take charge and threaten to boycott all events for one full season......that is the only solution......

i somewhat agree with the sentiment... though, a respected forum authority such as yourself should understand that the ITF has no control over ATP events... a rather large oversight here... i for one am surprised...

guichard
03-17-2012, 12:51 PM
the thing is is that the current crop of top players are so dominant that they could actually effect change at the drop of a hat, maybe more so than at any point in open era history... once the next transition era kicks in that chance is lost...

sure it is a winners tour and an individual sport, but golf does not disrespect it's lower order tours... asia, us, euro tours are lucrative and then you have the level below the pga tour (the challenger equivalent) which is extremely well catered for - the difference between the tennis and golf 2nd tier tours is astronomical...

it is a crime...

and people wonder why there is no new talent coming though... it just doesnt pay to take the chance to back yourself for a year on tour and hope for luck... the tour doesn't invest in it's own long term health by ignoring the lower levels... a better challenger tour ensures a better world tour... right...?
True but way more money in golf too that's the bigger reason.

boughtmypoints
03-17-2012, 02:24 PM
Action Jackson,

I'm late to this thread. As usual, I agree with the points you've elucidated. One additional one missed by everyone is that "hot" young players like Ryan Harrison who have yet to prove themselves have already received huge financial and career backing from agents like IMG. They also effectively have their prize money multiplied by their sponsors.

For Ryan Harrison to spout off like a "made" player is understandable, because he is one at this early point in his career, now set for a honeymoon period of 3 years or so until he makes it or falls by the wayside.

To hear from "mighty mouse" Michael Russell is instructive.

Larry Ellison carries a lot of baggage and he just adds to the load with this despicable action. He should know better, he's been going to Indian Wells for 20+ years. And shame on the players for their 2 bit whore behavior.

Never say never but the top players action here show how difficult it will be to organize a strike. If the journeymen strike but the top players don't, it will be who cares as far as TV is concerned. And would lower ranked players honor the picket line(s)? Well, you could go as low 500 in the world and the quality of pre quarter final rounds would hardly suffer. This is testament to the quality of the guys ranked even that low. And further reason to endeavor to provide a living for the player ranked 500 in the world. Rugby does, cricket does, baseball does, gridiron football does and soccer now makes its #500 a millionaire.

We know that the USA does not like tennis as a team sport. They want a hyped up gladiatorial contest, preferably between 2 native born Americans, with the zany foreigners providing the undercard. Even though a player ranked 100 is world class, the Americans do not want to see an early round upset. Why? Because the Larry Ellisons only appear on the final weekend and/or want to make sure it's the Top 4 they are going to see in the semi's and final.

Look at doubles prize money distribution, too, while you're at it.

Start da Game
03-17-2012, 04:47 PM
i somewhat agree with the sentiment... though, a respected forum authority such as yourself should understand that the ITF has no control over ATP events... a rather large oversight here... i for one am surprised...

true that itf has no control over atp events but they can certainly influence atp towards making better decisions.....after all they are the big bros who run the show at the all important slams and davis cup.....if they themselves turn the slams into a battle of just 4 players, atp would obviously take the same route.....atp and itf are money obsessed clowns anyway.....

SetSampras
03-17-2012, 04:58 PM
Well If the 5-10000 spots in the world weren't so fucking pitiful at tennis and would have done SOMETHING over the past 4 years, maybe income inequality wouldn't look so bad. The top 4 winning everything, the rest just assume the position and continue to be violated. They have no one to blame but themselves. They have had YEARS to catch up and take some big prize money, yet they never do.

Fed is OLD, Nadal is getting old and banged up, Murray on and off again, Djoker the most consistent, yet no one else does anything.. The opportunities are there.

Back in the golden years of tennis, you had multiple threats to the thrones.. Now you have 4 and a bunch of nobodies. The reason these guys don't have the big fan bases because they NEVER do shit on tour. They never get any big wins and mix up that top 4 in the world. They never prove their names should be mentioned in there. Tough to get behind, spineless players that just roll over and die and don't even ATTEMPT to shake the top spots up

fast_clay
03-17-2012, 05:45 PM
True but way more money in golf too that's the bigger reason.

Yes in many respects the sport of tennis hurt itself by consolidating the tour in 1990, whereas as the various golfing tours do not suffer these constraints - and in the end the four majors are still the most respected, as is the way they weight each tour event due to player strength in order to produce a respected world ranking.

Each golfing tour is allowed to flourish on it's own accord as points are allotted on the back of the strength of the field they are able to attract. Result: more tournaments + the bankrolling of hundreds upon hundreds of golfers from year to year. Tennis? You need to be lucky to spend a couple of years in the Top 100 in order to first break even then think about putting something away.

The window of opportunity is also larger. How long is mcilRoy gonna be able to draw a nice cheque...? - then there is the lucrative seniors tour.

But this smaller window for tennis careers should be reason for the atp to look to preserve the depth and attractiveness of joining the tour - no one expects socialism, that only ever promoted laziness and the type of epic mediocrity typically found in male British tennis players.

But there should be a more egalitarian approach to the way the sport is governed by the players themselves. It's not Just the tiger factor that drove golf's widespread prizemoney increase, the increase happened before that - there are Just more tournaments for sponsors to invest in. More tournaments being shoved in peoples faces 24/7. Just more exposure.

All tennis has is a shitty little sub circuit where you win a tournament and make enough money to fund your next week, and a main tour where some of the Top echelon of players actually want to reduce the number of tournaments in thereby severely curtailing the earning potential of there lower ranked peers.

And the two year ranking system to make the 1% even more exclusive...? Suck on my fat hairy one is the most polite response i can muster.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 01:46 AM
Wow, probably the first time I've seen someone understand what Kafelnikov said there. Zhenya! :worship: Yeah, media misquoted him bigtime, and he was absolutely right.

Thanks, but it's really not difficult to get the quote in context. Kafelnikov he was never a media pet so of course they take things out of context sadly.

fast_clay
03-19-2012, 01:54 AM
Thanks, but it's really not difficult to get the quote in context. Kafelnikov he was never a media pet so of course they take things out of context sadly.

agassi didn't help matters by saying at a presser 'i think he should take some money and go buy some perspective'... he flamed kafelnikov bad for that...

turns out later that it was in agassi's best interests to serve the atp in such a fashion... he was the corporate rent boy after admitting the he had his drink 'spiked'...

tennishero
03-19-2012, 01:55 AM
1st round losers should get 0. they should also be made to wear a hat with a big L.

fast_clay
03-19-2012, 01:57 AM
1st round losers should get 0. they should also be made to wear a hat with a big L.

i find it very hard to argue against that

Smoke944
03-19-2012, 01:57 AM
Got to appreciate the work of Colsanitas in Colombia. They are a company involved with tennis in Colombia they look after everything for the Colombian guys. Babolat racquets, they have a group of coaches like Pato Clavet who is working with Giraldo all under the Colsanitas banner.

For every rich kid like Rios, Lapentti or Massu, there are the ones like Berlocq or when Hartfield was on tour 2002 the Argentine economy collapsed and he lost money.

Yeah, Colsanitas has done a great job supporting Colombian tennis. Also, I have to give a mention to one of the other coaches, Marcos Gorriz. Nice guy.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 01:58 AM
agassi didn't help matters by saying at a presser 'i think he should take some money and go buy some perspective'... he flamed kafelnikov bad for that...

turns out later that it was in agassi's best interests to serve the atp in such a fashion... he was the corporate rent boy after admitting the he had his drink 'spiked...

Very true, but Agassi has always been a hypocrite. Not like he ever had to worry about anything when he played. Naturally as the ATP spokesman the vested interests plus he and Kafelnikov had heat helped.

LisaKoh
03-19-2012, 02:00 AM
Yes in many respects the sport of tennis hurt itself by consolidating the tour in 1990, whereas as the various golfing tours do not suffer these constraints - and in the end the four majors are still the most respected, as is the way they weight each tour event due to player strength in order to produce a respected world ranking.

Each golfing tour is allowed to flourish on it's own accord as points are allotted on the back of the strength of the field they are able to attract. Result: more tournaments + the bankrolling of hundreds upon hundreds of golfers from year to year. Tennis? You need to be lucky to spend a couple of years in the Top 100 in order to first break even then think about putting something away.

The window of opportunity is also larger. How long is mcilRoy gonna be able to draw a nice cheque...? - then there is the lucrative seniors tour.

But this smaller window for tennis careers should be reason for the atp to look to preserve the depth and attractiveness of joining the tour - no one expects socialism, that only ever promoted laziness and the type of epic mediocrity typically found in male British tennis players.

But there should be a more egalitarian approach to the way the sport is governed by the players themselves. It's not Just the tiger factor that drove golf's widespread prizemoney increase, the increase happened before that - there are Just more tournaments for sponsors to invest in. More tournaments being shoved in peoples faces 24/7. Just more exposure.

All tennis has is a shitty little sub circuit where you win a tournament and make enough money to fund your next week, and a main tour where some of the Top echelon of players actually want to reduce the number of tournaments in thereby severely curtailing the earning potential of there lower ranked peers.

And the two year ranking system to make the 1% even more exclusive...? Suck on my fat hairy one is the most polite response i can muster.

Well hopefully Challengers will start to get more attention and prestige. There was a good crowd at the one in Dallas because Dirk turned up to support Tommy Haas. If they start marketing the Challenger circuit as a place to see young talent flourish (maybe focus on the tourneys where Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, etc. made breakthroughs) and eventually progress to the senior circuit, there's potential for growth there. Lots of creative ways to sell and package tennis, hopefully the corporate big wigs realize this.

Action Jackson
03-19-2012, 02:12 AM
Well hopefully Challengers will start to get more attention and prestige. There was a good crowd at the one in Dallas because Dirk turned up to support Tommy Haas. If they start marketing the Challenger circuit as a place to see young talent flourish (maybe focus on the tourneys where Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, etc. made breakthroughs) and eventually progress to the senior circuit, there's potential for growth there. Lots of creative ways to sell and package tennis, hopefully the corporate big wigs realize this.

Murray got wildcards to most events hardly play challengers. The others did but they don't care about that level, so they aren't going to market it.

tests
03-19-2012, 02:25 AM
I've said for a long time that it's stupid that the top guys make so much but the guys around 80-100 in the world makes peanuts in comparsion. On the other hand it shares some similairity with golf, boxing and other indiviual sports where the top often are waaaaaaaaay above the rest in income. Can't really compare to football(soccer), icehockey, basketball, baseball and such team sports that has an entirely different business situation

But I think for the average fan remember that when you watch some top50 player and see that he's made a million over his career don't think of him as a millionaire. Remember all the expenses over the years and also just think about how much you can make yourself with honest work over 10 years. Tennis pro doesn't mean you are automatically set for life, unless you are at the very top

makes me appreciate those lower ranked guys more. They are fighters and their life aren't as glamourous as one might think. Only so-so income and all that travel and hard training

True.

Federer and nadal though (maybe djokovic soon) are unique cases in the sense that they make more money via endorsements than prize money. What a great situation to be in!

rediss77
03-19-2012, 05:53 PM
The prize money should be bigger, but then again, saying that the prizes are low for those not in top 5-10 ? I mean cmon, if you are in top 100, you get direct access to grand slam tournaments, if you loose in 1st round you get 20k usd, you will say travel, coach etc ? First it's your decision in what hotel you live, if you are nr 90 in the world, then maybe Hilton is not the place for you at that moment, save some money, about coach- its not a mandatory thing, if you have coach, then you want to get higher than nr90, if you will get higher, you will earn more, its a risky investment because of injury things. The only real big thing what is wrong with tennis is WTA prize money, so many low quality matches lately, with all that grunting, but that is different organisation, so it has nothing to do with ATP.
And about other sports, compare the number of people playing football, you can be a good football player, but because of bad relationship with coach, you sit on a bench for 1-2 seasons, while in tennis even thru prize money is funny for futures, but you have the chance to break in top 300, if you are really good player, so its only up to player.Proffesional sport is not possible without investing money in yourself, and will never be.

Raiden
03-19-2012, 07:04 PM
I actually am sure tennis is more egalitarian than most other sports. You see that when you glean the top 100 or so of other sports which is a much narrower pool than tennis. There are some disciplines where less than half a dozen countries haul all the prizes year after year for decades. Tennis on the other hand has expanded it's reach.

The financial problem for low ranked players is not entirely the fault of ATP prize money distribution. Significant portion of the blame should go to the various tennis federations: it is THEIR responsibility to make sure that local talented juniors get as much as reasonably possible the support they need and not have to worry too much about costs above and beyond what is normal for all elite athletic activities. Let the ATP concentrate on being a viable international league and let the NATIONAL/REGIONAL institutions concentrate on doing their job at their end. The money issue will only be ameliorated by increasing the support from sports federations (or in case of the US-style scholarship system: the athletic departments of schools). That means changing priorities and reforming laws aka deregulation (for example abolishing the radical-Feminist laws in the US that forced schools from the 80s-90s onwards to slash budgets and shut tennis programs and and put all the money in football and so forth).

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 02:21 AM
And about other sports, compare the number of people playing football, you can be a good football player, but because of bad relationship with coach, you sit on a bench for 1-2 seasons, while in tennis even thru prize money is funny for futures, but you have the chance to break in top 300, if you are really good player, so its only up to player.Proffesional sport is not possible without investing money in yourself, and will never be.

As a good footballer even sitting on the bench for ages, still getting paid a continual salary. Don't have to worry about travel arrangements, changing flights and the other expenses that the club look after.

ibreak4coffee
03-20-2012, 03:22 AM
ATP tour players have to pay for travel and other costs - this isn't the case in team sports. Plus the tour is around the world, increasing costs. For this reason alone prize money needs to be higher in the lower tiers.

rediss77
03-20-2012, 02:26 PM
As a good footballer even sitting on the bench for ages, still getting paid a continual salary. Don't have to worry about travel arrangements, changing flights and the other expenses that the club look after.

Do you know the wages in not so big football leagues ? Normal player gets paid 2-3k in a month, it only covers normal living, its the same for low ranked tennis players, still if you are in europe for example, you look for tournaments which are more close to your country, you don't have to go to Argentina to play future matches, and you look for cheap tickets and hotels, if you are not rich, no need to pay for expensive things, but don't say that top 100 players even don't earn good money, it's individual sport, and you get money for even loosing in 1st round, and not a small one if you are playing ATP tournaments, or you want to say, that for 7-10k usd you can pay for tickets and hotel, again the coach, and the deal you have with him is each players individual case.

swebright
03-20-2012, 02:36 PM
1 vs. 99%

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 03:58 PM
Do you know the wages in not so big football leagues ? Normal player gets paid 2-3k in a month, it only covers normal living, its the same for low ranked tennis players, still if you are in europe for example, you look for tournaments which are more close to your country, you don't have to go to Argentina to play future matches, and you look for cheap tickets and hotels, if you are not rich, no need to pay for expensive things, but don't say that top 100 players even don't earn good money, it's individual sport, and you get money for even loosing in 1st round, and not a small one if you are playing ATP tournaments, or you want to say, that for 7-10k usd you can pay for tickets and hotel, again the coach, and the deal you have with him is each players individual case.

Considering I come from a place where it's a semi professional league I am aware of their wages aren't high. But the clubs look after the expenses that individual tennis players have to factor in, then there are the different tax rates which they are subjected it.

It's not about the top 100, it's the lower Challenger and Futures level. The 30K challengers doesn't mean the winner gets 30k for winning the tournament. Considering the costs add up during the year, there are reasons the guys in the lower level of top 100 play a mix of ATP, Challengers and league tennis.

Challenger and Futures prizemoney hasn't increased since the 80s and costs have been rising, it's a no brainer there are problems for those without a sponsor or a rich federation.

rediss77
03-20-2012, 04:19 PM
Considering I come from a place where it's a semi professional league I am aware of their wages aren't high. But the clubs look after the expenses that individual tennis players have to factor in, then there are the different tax rates which they are subjected it.

It's not about the top 100, it's the lower Challenger and Futures level. The 30K challengers doesn't mean the winner gets 30k for winning the tournament. Considering the costs add up during the year, there are reasons the guys in the lower level of top 100 play a mix of ATP, Challengers and league tennis.

Challenger and Futures prizemoney hasn't increased since the 80s and costs have been rising, it's a no brainer there are problems for those without a sponsor or a rich federation.

Lower ranked top 100 players are playing challenegers only to keep their ranking in top 100, since they are not good enough to stay there with only big tournament points,league tennis- even some big players plays those, but if the money is bigger why not to play it instead of some small challengers, its not something that makes your game worse ? Still you don't play them each week,and people cmon futures and challenegers are the chance for players to get in to this magic top 100, in so many big sports so many different factors decides your career, while in tennis, if you have money for training, and if you have some talent, you can really crack the top 100 thru futures and challengers.

Action Jackson
03-20-2012, 04:30 PM
Lower ranked top 100 players are playing challenegers only to keep their ranking in top 100, since they are not good enough to stay there with only big tournament points,league tennis- even some big players plays those, but if the money is bigger why not to play it instead of some small challengers, its not something that makes your game worse ? Still you don't play them each week,and people cmon futures and challenegers are the chance for players to get in to this magic top 100, in so many big sports so many different factors decides your career, while in tennis, if you have money for training, and if you have some talent, you can really crack the top 100 thru futures and challengers.

No, they play a mix of events. If they can make direct at an ATP event then they will play it. It's a lot easier when there are 3 ATP events in the week, sometimes it's a practical decision whether go to play qualies or a challenger.

League tennis got to be a good enough player to get the big contract.

Depends on the time of the season, form of the player. If they're struggling at ATP level, then drop down and play challengers to get match practice and form. That's what it's about doing well enough so they don't have to drop down to challengers. You do know, once they drop their ranking to a level where they can't enter direct into ATP.

Got to be outside 200 to play Futures, no one is making money playing only Futures unless they are rich kids having some fun. Since you don't understand that costs have increased big time since the 80s and prizemoney hasn't it, that this is problematic.

If it was that easy then everyone who ever played the game would make top 100. It's not easy at all to make it, stay there and make a living out of it. Look at the stories already in this thread, not every player is like Gulbis financially.

Raiden
03-20-2012, 04:34 PM
ATP tour players have to pay for travel and other costs - this isn't the case in team sports. Faulty logic.

Tennis is not the only individual sport.

Others have logistics cost as well.

Besides, it can't be that prize money entirely sustains all tiers of a professional sports structure.

Lower tier/league of even team sports is practiced by semi-pros/amateurs.

LisaKoh
03-20-2012, 04:40 PM
You know what they should do?

The players should get rid of that stupid Year End "bonus pool" and instead, use that money to create a fund or subsidy in the ATP where the tour itself will subsidize what the sponsors won't cover. (i.e. lodging, food, 40% of travel)

Players in the highest income brackets should get an "ATP Tax" on their prize money and then the tour can use that to subsidize expenses for players in the top 100-150. Players who are ranked in the top 100-150 but below a certain income level get an allowance for travel, necessities, etc.

It's a silly suggestion because it will never come to fruition but I hope that Federer/Nadal do something nuts one day and decides to give a big chunk of their prize money to subsidize the less fortunate players.

I think each Slam won guarantees them at least quadruple the prize money in exposure, sponsor deals and performance incentives, so they should just forsake a portion of the prize money to fund player development.

Timariot
03-20-2012, 05:50 PM
The prize money should be bigger, but then again, saying that the prizes are low for those not in top 5-10 ? I mean cmon, if you are in top 100, you get direct access to grand slam tournaments, if you loose in 1st round you get 20k usd, you will say travel, coach etc ? First it's your decision in what hotel you live, if you are nr 90 in the world, then maybe Hilton is not the place for you at that moment, save some money, about coach- its not a mandatory thing, if you have coach, then you want to get higher than nr90, if you will get higher, you will earn more, its a risky investment because of injury things.

I think it would do good for you to study prize money outside Grand Slams. This link (http://tennis.webz.cz/res/1994/1994.html) for example shows ATP prize money as it stood in 1994. Standard prize money size for small tournaments was $288k (although there were few smaller ones), currently it is $398k. So that's 38% increase, much slower than the inflation - and there were lot more those small tournaments than today!

It's even worse on Challenger level, where there has been very little increase at all. Couple of years ago they increased minimum prize money from $25 to 30k, woo hoo. So a player who is at roughly #80-250, makes signifantly less money today than he did in 1994. Those who get DA to Slams are bit better off as GS prize money has risen signifantly, but not enough to make up cuts everywhere else.

And on top of that, there are assclowns like ITF's Ricci Bitti, who claims that low level players have it too easy.:rolleyes:

Action Jackson
04-13-2012, 10:58 AM
Good that RG managed to increase the prizemoney from qualies to 3rd round. Now it's up to the other Slams to do the same and there is still enough cash for these events.

Though it's going to take longer for the Challengers to finally be upgraded financially.

paseo
04-21-2012, 03:48 PM
Another move likely to emerge next week when the All England makes its preview presentation of the 2012 Championships is an improvement in the prize money for early losers in the singles, reversing the trend of recent years when their proportion of prize money has shrunk compared to the stars.

In 2011 first-round losers made £11,500, a rise of just 2.2 per cent from the previous year amid what was an average increase of 8.5 per cent from 2010.

Following protests from the Association of Tennis Professionals that too small a slice of Grand Slam profits is going on prize money — the word ‘strike’ has even been used on occasions — a healthy rise for the rank-and-file can be expected to help alleviate those concerns.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2131216/Wimbledon-ditch-plans-new-player-pod.html#ixzz1sgrhzmUx


Wimbledon is on board it seems.

Johnny Groove
04-21-2012, 04:22 PM
Though it's going to take longer for the Challengers to finally be upgraded financially.

And futures.

Can't wait for the day that players decide whether or not to play tournaments based on how they feel they will do as opposed to how much money they will lose.

Topspindoctor
04-22-2012, 01:52 AM
ATP/ITF are a joke wrt how they treat lower ranked players.

All about the money, as always :o

Of course it is. Nobody cares about journeymen. As far as I am concerned only top 20 matters in the grand scheme. People can talk about challengers and 250 tournaments, but in reality people want to see best of the best, not mugs or fixers. Top 20 players are there for a reason: they play best and most entertaining tennis.

Action Jackson
04-22-2012, 04:02 AM
Of course it is. Nobody cares about journeymen. As far as I am concerned only top 20 matters in the grand scheme. People can talk about challengers and 250 tournaments, but in reality people want to see best of the best, not mugs or fixers. Top 20 players are there for a reason: they play best and most entertaining tennis.

But you are a gloryhunter and not a tennis fan, once Nadal goes you will disappear. All the levels are important as transition points through the game, you do know Federer, Nadal, Ferrer, Djokovic and most other top players played Futures and Challengers or did you think they just walked into their positions at the top of the ranking.

Entertainment there are no ranking points for entertaining tennis.

Fujee
04-22-2012, 11:07 AM
:lol: topspintroller in full swing after his ban

Looner
04-22-2012, 11:33 AM
Of course it is. Nobody cares about journeymen. As far as I am concerned only top 20 matters in the grand scheme. People can talk about challengers and 250 tournaments, but in reality people want to see best of the best, not mugs or fixers. Top 20 players are there for a reason: they play best and most entertaining tennis.

Well, as far as I'm concerned only the best (and most sensible) posters' posts should be allowed to be seen and therefore I have no interest in mug posters like you so you might as well not feature :o.

As for the tennis, you cannot have stars without a proper promotion route. You need smaller events for young guns to gain experience.

Action Jackson
04-24-2012, 11:45 AM
And futures.

Can't wait for the day that players decide whether or not to play tournaments based on how they feel they will do as opposed to how much money they will lose.

Good luck with that. RG and Wimbledon have come to the party with increases but still poor relatively.

hotdog
04-24-2012, 11:48 AM
So first round losers get a 26% increase....I have never heard something so ridiculous in my life.

Action Jackson
05-14-2012, 06:37 AM
Comments from Amer Delic

Money-- Over the few weeks during/after Australian Open there have been many rumors of the possible strike by the players. Just to clarify it, they were not just rumors. As much as I love (and I mean LOVE) the Aussie Open, it was super close to not happening at all. One of the main reasons was of course the money. Grand Slams earn insane amounts of money and share 12.5% of that. For an example, player that is ranked 50 in the World and yes, that would be the whole wide World, will get paid just under $20,000 for losing in the first round of a Grand Slam tournament. It takes my parents about 6 months to earn that amount, so believe me, I absolutely appreciate every dime of everything I have earned. That is a lot of money where I come from.

However, lets deduct 30% tax from that and now you are already down to around $14,000. That is still a good check for just showing up at a tournament. However, you don't just teleport your way to Melbourne from Tampa, FL. That right there will cost you about $3,000 minimum for a round trip ticket sitting in the coach class for 16hrs from LAX alone. (By the way, that always feels great for a 6'5" guy with a surgically repaired knee. Practicing the next day when you land feels even better). Easy math gets us down to 11 grand before I even show up at the courts. In a perfect world, I would take a coach and a trainer with me to a tournament, but since I travel on a budget, lets say I only bring a coach. Thats another 3 grand for a ticket, $1,500 per week (minimum 3 weeks) so that brings me down to $3,500. Three weeks (two warm up tournaments plus one week at Melbourne) at a hotel rate $100 per night ($2,100) with food at per diem rates ($60/per person = $120 per day x 21 days = $2,520) leaves me in the minus about $1,120. Years ago I was told that I should incorporate myself because of all the tax purposes. I should change my status to "non-profit' organization.

Let me get something clear. No one is asking for charity handouts here. I am simply saying that tournaments cannot go on without other players not named Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray. NFL games are not played with just Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. Soccer games are not played just with Messi, Ronaldo and Dzeko. Golf tournaments are not played just with Tiger Woods, Rory McIlroy and Mickelson. Otherwise they would be called exhibition or practice rounds. You get the point.

The Grass is greener- Lets be honest. At the end of the day I am playing a sport for a living, so things are really not all that bad. Tennis has opened many doors and introduced me to many people. I don't want to portray this ungrateful and uber-negative personal perspective. My goal is to make all current/future players and fans aware of the situation. Reality is, sooner or later i will hang up the sticks and move on from the tour. However, before I ride off into the sunset (or get a "real job") I wanted to make people aware that not all of us tennis players fly on private jets, with entourages while getting massages and eating gluten free meals. Those that do have certainly earned it and have every right to enjoy it. But for every Roger or Rafa, there are 50 other world class players fighting just as hard only to cover expenses every week. Most guys will continue grinding with the hope that one day they will enjoy the perks at the top. I am one of those guys. I do it for the love of the game.

Ironically enough, in this sport love means nothing.

tripwires
05-14-2012, 06:55 AM
Wow that's sad. Where was that taken from?

Kat_YYZ
05-14-2012, 07:02 AM
Comments from Amer Delic

... I wanted to make people aware that not all of us tennis players fly on private jets, with entourages while getting massages and eating gluten free meals. ....

:eek:
oh no he didn't :lol:

Action Jackson
05-14-2012, 07:21 AM
Wow that's sad. Where was that taken from?

It's not really sad, just a reality of the tennis tour that most people don't see or want to see.

It was from his blog, only stuff posted here was relevant to this thread.

feuselino
05-14-2012, 08:21 AM
Good read, I am always interested in readin about the financial adventures of lower ranked players (Action Jackson posted some interesting articles and links a while back). Although I must say the calculations seem to be a bit on the high end (I never ate for 60 Dollars in my entire life I think...) - it doesn't change the overall picture and situation of course...

coluta
05-14-2012, 10:03 AM
However, lets deduct 30% tax from that and now you are already down to around $14,000.

I am glad somebody mentioned taxes. They significantly lower the earnings.

Action Jackson
05-14-2012, 10:12 AM
I am glad somebody mentioned taxes. They significantly lower the earnings.

Luckily the tax is taken out already when they get their prizemoney.

bjurra
05-14-2012, 10:14 AM
I guess the main problem with not paying players ranked 80-250 enough prize money is that you risk losing out on talent. Not all players are willing to struggle financially and not all benefit from strong national federations or generous sponsors.

Especially with the current trend of players having their break through later and later in their career, you need to make sure they don't give up on tennis too soon.

Action Jackson
05-14-2012, 10:30 AM
League tennis is very important as a way for players to help them financially with the Bundesliga being the most lucrative. That's why they need to increase the prizemoney level at the lower events as bjurra said it's taking longer to breakthrough which makes sense since the game is more physical.

bjurra
05-14-2012, 10:51 AM
Another issue is the proportion between profits and prize money in Slams and ATP events. I don't know the exact numbers but from what I remember, a surprisingly small amount goes to the players.

coluta
05-14-2012, 11:05 AM
Luckily the tax is taken out already when they get their prizemoney.

Are you sure?
Take for example AO this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Open#Prize_money_and_trophies

A loss in R1 gives you $20,000. Does this mean you can actually spend $20,000 on whatever you want? I highly doubt it. And Amer Delic says just the opposite. He has only $14,000 to spend.

Action Jackson
05-14-2012, 11:08 AM
Another issue is the proportion between profits and prize money in Slams and ATP events. I don't know the exact numbers but from what I remember, a surprisingly small amount goes to the players.

ATP it's around 25 percent and the Slams it's less than 10 percent to players.

bjurra
05-14-2012, 12:39 PM
ATP it's around 25 percent and the Slams it's less than 10 percent to players.

I cant believe the Slams get away with that. I would go on strike.

But I guess the LTA needs to fund Bogdanovich's full time coach somehow...

Action Jackson
05-14-2012, 12:42 PM
I cant believe the Slams get away with that. I would go on strike.

But I guess the LTA needs to fund Bogdanovich's full time coach somehow...

I linked you an article about it. It used to be worse when Corretja was playing only 7% went to the players.

coluta
05-14-2012, 02:19 PM
This was posted on another thread here, but I find it relevant to the discussion:

http://www.atpmix.se/2012/05/13/the-world%C2%B4s-fastest-serve-by-frederik-nielsen/#.T6_dfcvtZxU.twitter

Nole Rules
06-12-2012, 11:58 AM
http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/tipsarevic-column-pay-in-tennis-is-ridiculously-low/

Exclusive Janko Tipsarevic column: The world No 8 on why he thinks average earnings on the tour are “ridiculously low” and why the sport “needs a radical change”.

"For me, the biggest problem in the sport at the moment is the average salary of a tennis player. You have guys at the very top who are making a lot of money, that’s true. And I am not talking about me – I am in the top 10 now and making a lot more money than ever before. But for the guys who are top 200 the average salary, for this level, is way too low. You sacrifice so much to play tennis as a career, all the travelling, so many weeks a year. The money is just ridiculously low if you compare it to other individual sports".

"I am not talking about football; you can’t compare it to that. But golf is the best example. Golf and tennis, for me, are both from the same family of sports. So in golf, look at how many players made more than $1 million in prize money last year (94) compared to tennis (15). I feel that’s ridiculous. It is about the average salaries. If you are a player ranked about 100, if you stay about 80 or 90, I would say that you would not lose money, but you would not make any money either. Being in the top 100 in anything, in life, is a pretty good thing, I would think. And that’s not including the cost of a physio, it’s just those players and a coach. They have to pay all their expenses, pretty much, and then taxes".

"The grand slams have increased the prize money for the first rounds, but I think we need a radical change. Doing it step by step, nothing’s going to really change. On the other hand, I don’t think we need a revolution either. But – and let’s just say it, the NBA players are fighting because their salaries are 51 percent of the overall revenue and we have between 11 and 13 percent (at the grand slams). I don’t want people to think we are being greedy – when they see that a winner of a grand slam wins more than £1 million they think all tennis players earn a lot of money, but for the rest of the players it’s not easy. And it’s a short career. We’re not asking for more money, as such – just a bigger percentage, a fairer percentage".


"Getting 15,000 euros or whatever it is for losing in the first round, that seems good but then you have to take off taxes, paying for coaches, travelling, maybe getting to a tournament a couple of weeks before, paying for accommodation and so on".

TigerTim
06-12-2012, 12:00 PM
he's right

NadalSharapova
06-12-2012, 12:01 PM
what you get paid is what you deserve

Wing Man Frank
06-12-2012, 12:01 PM
He's correct. There's a really top heavy structure in tennis.

Biggest problem it causes is corruption. Why go a whole week fighting to win a title when you could fix a game and make a lot more money?

TennisOnWood
06-12-2012, 12:02 PM
Try bicyclism instead.. its not hard and money is great

dencod16
06-12-2012, 12:10 PM
I think that they should distribute the prize money increase if it's a 10% increase in total prize money there should be 10% increase in every round and not 6% in other rounds and 15% for the winner.

Alex999
06-12-2012, 12:39 PM
Tipsy is right. I mean, OK, you have top 3 guys who are worth combined, like what $300 millions, or who knows (and they get even more more money from sponsors than even that fat prize money from tournaments they win, then don't even care about it any more), because everyone wants to watch Nole, Roger and Nadal ... whatever. The thing is, and I said this so many time, life doesn't revolve around Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. you still have so many good players who are doing their best to succeed.

this guy above me (Nadal Sharapova, great nick btw, lol), said 'what you get paid is what you deserve' ... whatever man, that is so retarded. you have top thousands players in the world ... they have to pay for plain tickets, pay for a hotel room and you can hardly make it even if you are ranked top 100 or so ... most of tennis players ranked bellow 100 are struggling. these guys are trying to make their living ...

not cool at all. These guys are great athletes. They can't play tennis for 40 years and earn their pensions.

how do you promote tennis?

and don't even start with golf and tennis. I hate it.

Action Jackson
06-12-2012, 12:49 PM
this guy above me (Nadal Sharapova, great nick btw, lol), said 'what you get paid is what you deserve' ... whatever man, that is so retarded. you have top thousands players in the world ... they have to pay for plain tickets, pay for a hotel room and you can hardly make it even if you are ranked top 100 or so ... most of tennis players ranked bellow 100 are struggling.


NadalSharapova is a troll just like topspindoctor, only gloryhunters. So you can tell which people in this thread have an idea what's going on.

ATP don't care about most of their members.