[Sham Kay]

Originally Posted by hipolymer

err, why does ATP even have a say in how much money a tournament can give out? Seems a little dictatorial, no?

It seems dictatorial because the ATP control mens Tennis with several iron fists.

The ATP were probably expecting to scrap Indian Wells at some point in the future and this would severely derail that attempt.

[coolfish1103]

Maybe it means IW might get a downgrade in the future

[dencod16]

Originally Posted by August

ATP=Association of Tennis Promotors

And they are also dealing with the Williams Tennis Association. How sad for the event, really.

[star]

IW isn't connected with IMG and IMG has an interest in making sure IW doesn't gain prominence.

IW has already put hawkeye on all the courts and that alone is something the other tournaments should (but won't) emulate. The powers that run tennis want to make sure the profits go in their pockets and are for the benefit of the players or the public.

[Lee]

From tennis.com

Lamest excuse


In a statement e-mailed to TENNIS.com, spokesperson Kate Gordon said:

“We welcome tournaments increasing prize money, however, in this case, a tournament is proposing a distribution that is not in line with the ATP rules that players and tournaments themselves have agreed, and which every other tournament on Tour follows. The ATP distribution model is designed in part to protect the middle ranked players’ share of prize money, and more evenly distribute prize money throughout every round in a tournament. We would be happy to approve a prize money increase, if it complies with ATP rules on distribution.”

[Henry Chinaski]

if it doesn't comply with the rules then why was there even a vote?

[MaxPower]

prize money is outdated. Better that those 800k go straight into the pockets. tax free!

[August]

I guess next step is to replace IW in Masters Series with Dubai.

[Jomp1]

No I agree with ATP here. If they gonna do it, follow the $ ladder in place. More money to the losers in R1 = more tanks and players showing up just for the cash even if not fully healthy. Few mid ranked guys say no to a $15K check for an one hour loss. If it's below $10k they might think twice about going.

[August]

Originally Posted by Jomp1

No I agree with ATP here. If they gonna do it, follow the $ ladder in place. More money to the losers in R1 = more tanks and players showing up just for the cash even if not fully healthy. Few mid ranked guys say no to a $15K check for an one hour loss. If it's below $10k they might think twice about going.

I agree with you that R1 losses shouldn't give any more money. But R2 & R3 exits are the ones whose prize money should be increased, those players have won one match or two. And title, F, and SF proze moneys are ridiculous, most TMS/GS SFists wouldn't need that much prize money.

[duong]

Clearly the reason is what Henry Chinaski said : other tournaments are afraid of the precedent, esp. with lower ranked players motivated and organized to demand more as they have been now.

[Tag]

indian wells should be demoted to challenger status

disgusting courts

disgusting coverage

disgusting corruption

disgusting competition

[duong]

what surprises me most in that case is that if I remember correctly, Ellison, tournament's owner, had had the exact opposite strategy in the past : he wanted only to increase the prize money for the final rounds, because as a good American, he said that you shouldn't give money to losers or something like that.

Am I wrong about that memory and why did they choose a completely opposite strategy this time ?

for instance here for the 2012 tournament : http://www.menstennisforums.com/show...52&postcount=1

When billionaire owner Larry Ellison offered to sweeten the pot for this year's BNP Paribas Open— boosting the singles winner's check to a cool $1 million — it appeared to be prize-money manna from heaven.

But Ellison dangled his dough with strings attached.
The take-it-or-leave-it deal stipulated that his extra $700,000 would go to the final three rounds, from the quarterfinals on (a much smaller portion would go to doubles).

The winner's check would thus jump 64% from $611,000 to $1 million from the previous year. By contrast, first-round losers would pick up $7,709 instead of $7,115, a $594 bump equivalent to 8%.
That put the ATP World Tour in a squeeze. Take Ellison's money, and earlier rounds would be shut out. Turn it down, and deny income to players.
In the end, the tour accepted Ellison's offer. The decision rankled some in the game.

[156mphserve]

Give them the money under the table, call it a gift, or maybe an appearance fee

[Pratik]

Originally Posted by Lee

From tennis.com

Lamest excuse


In a statement e-mailed to TENNIS.com, spokesperson Kate Gordon said:

“We welcome tournaments increasing prize money, however, in this case, a tournament is proposing a distribution that is not in line with the ATP rules that players and tournaments themselves have agreed, and which every other tournament on Tour follows. The ATP distribution model is designed in part to protect the middle ranked players’ share of prize money, and more evenly distribute prize money throughout every round in a tournament. We would be happy to approve a prize money increase, if it complies with ATP rules on distribution.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/stor...y-issue-110812

The problem seems to have arisen over the actual prize money structure, round by round, as set in the ATP rules and regulations. In an effort to be fair, there are limits set on how much each round should receive out of the total pot.

Apparently, the extra money has not been distributed in accordance with those rules on the basis of what Indian Wells CEO Ray Moore has passed through to the ATP. First-round losers stand to have a big increase, but there will be no extra money for second- and third-round losers. Increases will pick up at the quarterfinal stage.

That, apparently, was the sticking point, but it seems strange that something could not have been worked out behind closed doors.