[duong]

Originally Posted by Looner

I seriously can't stand Stakhovsky. He comes across as very, very self-serving and he tries all in his power to make as much as possible from his limited talent and appeal.

he's certainly not alone in this case, but what I appreciate about him (doesn't mean I like him, usually I don't like opportunistic guys ) is that he very publicly made clear why he wanted some things, it helped us to understand the situation.

I think this opportunistic/self-serving thinking is quite well spread among top-100 players, but from what I read in another article, in the Aus Open players' meeting, among the ones especially talking, there was a group of Russian guys (including Bogomolov and Youzhny, Tursunov as well if I remember, and I also remember Davydenko's reaction on the topic) and Stakhovsky was with them.

[scoobs]

I have no problem with the players looking for more money from the Grand Slams - they do get a small proportion of the total revenue compared to other sports.

However, I am totally against all that floating up to the top, to the end of the tournament. More money in tennis needs to be filtering down to the lower ranks to make it affordable for players to compete and so more of them can make a living out of it.

[Radar]

I don't think they will do it!

[Jverweij]

Originally Posted by scoobs

I have no problem with the players looking for more money from the Grand Slams - they do get a small proportion of the total revenue compared to other sports.

However, I am totally against all that floating up to the top, to the end of the tournament. More money in tennis needs to be filtering down to the lower ranks to make it affordable for players to compete and so more of them can make a living out of it.

this. THIS!

[Pratik]

Originally Posted by scoobs

I have no problem with the players looking for more money from the Grand Slams - they do get a small proportion of the total revenue compared to other sports.

However, I am totally against all that floating up to the top, to the end of the tournament. More money in tennis needs to be filtering down to the lower ranks to make it affordable for players to compete and so more of them can make a living out of it.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by scoobs

I have no problem with the players looking for more money from the Grand Slams - they do get a small proportion of the total revenue compared to other sports.

However, I am totally against all that floating up to the top, to the end of the tournament. More money in tennis needs to be filtering down to the lower ranks to make it affordable for players to compete and so more of them can make a living out of it.

Yeah but you don't want to see players receiving more money for losing. Not a lot more at least. I reckon there should a proportion of GS money that goes directly to futures and challengers. People say the French, British, Australian and US federation use the funds but what about other federations.

[scoobs]

Originally Posted by Looner

Yeah but you don't want to see players receiving more money for losing. Not a lot more at least. I reckon there should a proportion of GS money that goes directly to futures and challengers. People say the French, British, Australian and US federation use the funds but what about other federations.

I want to see players receiving enough money so that the bar is at a reasonable standard for enough players to be able to earn enough to pay their way on the tour each year.

You want a situation where there are enough players able to make a living to keep the lower ranks competitive, but to allow the talent to rise to the top on the basis of their abilities, not on the basis of their ability to get financial help to keep them going because the challengers do not pay enough for them to break even, let alone make money. It's not healthy for the sport if too many drop out because they can't afford to give themselves a decent shot at making it. If prize money distribution was geared so that, say, the top 200, 250 can break even and perhaps make a small profit after expenses from a decently full schedule, it would be better for the long term health of the sport.

Otherwise what you have is tennis continues to be a rich persons' sport - one where most of the guys who exist outside the top 100 are only able to do so because of their own private or family wealth, some sort of sponsorship, or financial assistance from the national federation. None of these are ideal.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by scoobs

I want to see players receiving enough money so that the bar is at a reasonable standard for enough players to be able to earn enough to pay their way on the tour each year.

You want a situation where there are enough players able to make a living to keep the lower ranks competitive, but to allow the talent to rise to the top on the basis of their abilities, not on the basis of their ability to get financial help to keep them going because the challengers do not pay enough for them to break even, let alone make money. It's not healthy for the sport if too many drop out because they can't afford to give themselves a decent shot at making it. If prize money distribution was geared so that, say, the top 200, 250 can break even and perhaps make a small profit after expenses from a decently full schedule, it would be better for the long term health of the sport.

Otherwise what you have is tennis continues to be a rich persons' sport - one where most of the guys who exist outside the top 100 are only able to do so because of their own private or family wealth, some sort of sponsorship, or financial assistance from the national federation. None of these are ideal.

Oh, I completely agree. I just don't want to see players receive too much money because they lose in the early rounds of the GSs. Ideally tournaments from below will receive more financial support from the ATP and some of that can come from the Slams.

As you said, increasing the level of challengers/futures will increase the overall level of the sport and the ATP will find it easier to find more stars.

[pray-for-palestine-and-israel]

HA!

some guy from twitter would know this before the mighty MTF?

MTF- where tards know the colour of a players undergarments
this attention seeking tard should be sent infinite spam

[nobama]

Originally Posted by DDRickyDD

It looks like sensationalistic journalism to me. Nothing will come of this.

I don't see many facts here just a lot of guessing on the motivation of Federer.

[nobama]

Originally Posted by IOFH

Won't happen.

"I talked to a few players and others involved in tennis, and it appears that Federer is now ready to support the less famous and rich player's fight against the Slams (he is still not in favour of all-out war, though), as he has now conquered all the Grand Slam records he wanted."

What a mug article.

Knew it was BS after reading that.

[hipolymer]

Federer's ego is too big to skip a slam, even if he has a smaller chance of winning this one.

[duong]

Originally Posted by nobama

Knew it was BS after reading that.

it's probably the kind of purely opportunistic reasonings people like Stakhovsky could have, that's why I don't think it's bullshit and I thought guys like Stakhovsky were his main source.

[GOATsol]

Nobama every time I see your sig I have to stare for like 10 mins

Anyway, I don't see a boycott happening.

[bobbynorwich]

It is good that the players are starting to get united to have a higher percentage of the take at ITF events as 20 percent is a joke. A bigger purse for players getting only through the earlier rounds would be more fair and help the financially struggling players continue on the tour.