Mens Tennis Forums banner

ATP to Reconsider IW pay increase proposal

3K views 31 replies 17 participants last post by  duong 
#1 ·
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478004578302340996628834.html

If you recall Ellison proposed increasing the prize money by $800,000 for both the men and the women. The ATP rejected the proposal while the WTA accepted the proposal.

The ATP board, which consists of Drewett, three player representatives who are in favor of the increase and three tournament representatives who voted against it, is due to reconsider the prize money hike as soon as this week. The Indian Wells tournament begins on March 4.
Apparently the IW organization is playing some hardball with the ATP

If the ATP doesn't approve the package, the players are going to take a pay cut—and that goes for the women, too, even though the WTA board approved the increase. Moore [CEO of IW] said the event would offer the minimum prize money required by the ATP, which means this year's winners would earn $724,000, rather than the $1 million Roger Federer and Victoria Azarenka earned for winning last year. Under the unaccepted offer, the winner would still earn $1 million, but every other round would receive an increase.
 
#3 ·
Well, that would be nice too. Maybe we can convince Ellison to buy a couple of them. :D

Still I think it would be nice for the lower level players to get more money at the master level tournaments. They have to work very hard just to make it to that level.
 
#4 ·
Maybe if they re-vote, Drewett will do right by the players as a final act in his tenure. He has bigger problems in his life, anyways.
 
#9 ·
Ray Moore thinks the problem is that the tournament directors want to maintain control and are afraid of the players having too much power.

"It's getting closer to players finally owning up and taking the time to create an organization," said Michael Russell, the veteran pro. "I think it's a long time coming and it needs to be done."
Michael Russell is sort of the epitome of a guy who makes a living off of small tournaments and counts himself lucky to get to the main draw of IW. But it seems these guys don't have any power. The ATP depends on these lower level guys to fill out the draws, but then reuses to let them have more money when someone wants to hand it out. It's shenanigans, and probably a lot of jockeying for position from a lot the tournaments and things that we never really get to hear about.

I don't think Moore's statement is completely forthright, but I think there is a good old boy system.

Raymond Moore, the CEO of Indian Wells, said the ATP's position was simply cover for a larger issue. "This is a pawn in the political fight between the players and the tournament directors," he said. "The tournaments are saying, 'Don't give this to the players, the players are becoming too powerful, here comes Indian Wells and they're ruining the whole thing.'"
 
#10 ·
This is just a selfish notion from other tournaments. They are increase lower round prize money and i hope qualifiers as well, it will help lower ranked players in the 75-150 and Indian Wells is a 96 person draw.
 
#25 ·
This is just a selfish notion from other tournaments.
Ofcourse it is.

They objected to IW's increase because they are effectively protecting a cartel.
 
#11 · (Edited)
just give less to winners and the ones who reach late rounds (that is the ATP's minimum) and more to the ones who lose in early rounds, and the economical balance will be easier to find for other tournaments :shrug:

In previous years, Indian Wells had increased a lot the prize money for winners and the ones who reach late rounds, not for the ones who lost early. It's completely new for them to increase only the early rounds. I even remember Indian Wells director already was in clash last year with the ATP precisely because he wanted only to increase the late rounds :

From http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/story/2012-03-14/bnp-paribas-open-indian-wells-pay-disparity-on-the-atp-tour/53538094/1 :

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.
The ATP had a problem with his proposal last year for these big increases only from QF and in the end they accepted. Now he wants to increase the other rounds : it would be fair to accept for lower-ranked players, but it also means that in 2 years, the overall increase is huge ! And that's something which other tournaments can't necessarily offer. They surely wanted to stop Ellison's pressure at some point before he goes too far.

It looks similar to the situation in slams where the owner of the Australian open, which is the financially healthiest slam, gives more and more to the players, and has planned to go further and further in that direction in next years,

and the French Tennis Federation, owner of the French open, which has other constraints, now feels completely strangled financially.

I don't know how Indian Wells is so healthly financially, if it's because of its organization or because its owner is a hugely rich fan who can spread his own money (in a situation similar to what happens in football in Chelsea or Manchester City), but it seems clear that it has more money than other tournaments.

People on MTF may not understand it but tournaments are not necessarily at ease on the money-front and they are unequal. In recent years many challengers and a few ATP Tour Level tournaments have disappeared if that can bring something to your ear : of course the situation looks better in south America and Asia but I'm not sure at all that traditionalist MTFers would like traditional European Masters 1000 tournaments to be transferred to south America and Asia.


I feel players are not economically reasonable and ask too much overall to tournaments, but if they give less to winners who already get so much, and more to players losing in early rounds, the situation would be more balanced with players who have a hard living living better, and the tournaments feeling more at ease financially.
 
#12 ·
From the article in the OP, in the new proposal which is presented as a "threat", the winner would have less, but nothing is said about early rounds. As it's presented as a threat, it looks like everybody is decreased, but if it was only the winner and late-rounds who were decreased, I think they would get to what is, imo, the final solution.

Gimelstob says he's confident that they will get to a solution, maybe that's what they are looking for.

I must say I find it quite funny and disgusting reading Moore presenting himself as the players' defender when last year they proposed exactly the inverse increasing only from quarterfinals :rolleyes:

Moore is a rare case: A sports CEO who wants athletes to have more bargaining power. "I would love to see the players have a union and we do a collective bargaining agreement, like all the other sports," he said.
As if Ellison and Indian Wells board were philanthrops :rolleyes:
 
#14 ·
If the ATP doesn't approve the package, the players are going to take a pay cut—and that goes for the women, too, even though the WTA board approved the increase. Moore [CEO of IW] said the event would offer the minimum prize money required by the ATP, which means this year's winners would earn $724,000, rather than the $1 million Roger Federer and Victoria Azarenka earned for winning last year. Under the unaccepted offer, the winner would still earn $1 million, but every other round would receive an increase.
Impressive threat! I like this tactic.

Imagine explaining this situation to someone who doesn't follow tennis: "the tournament is threatening a pay cut unless the tour accepts a pay rise". It's quite a funny situation :lol:

From the article in the OP, in the new proposal which is presented as a "threat", the winner would have less, but nothing is said about early rounds. As it's presented as a threat, it looks like everybody is decreased
I interpreted it as saying that every round would get the minimum prize money so yes, early rounds would be cut as well.
 
#17 ·
yes, to summarize :

- for last year they had proposed only to increase the rounds from the QFs : the ATP refused at first then accepted ;

- for this year they proposed the opposite : increase the early rounds : the ATP has refused twice so far.

Now they say that they "threaten" to apply the ATP's minimum, but the article only speaks of the cheque for winners, doesn't speak of the cheque for early rounds : we are a few people to have interpreted the "threat" as concerning every round though.

My personal opinion is that the main problem is that the fact that Indian Wells, thanks to its billionaire owner Ellison, largely increases the prize money every year, raises problems for other tournaments who can't do the same,

even though I also read that the ATP said that they had refused his proposal because he didn't want to increase doubles the same, then the share between singles and doubles would not be the same as in the rest of the tour.

Also, as I read that they are looking for a compromise, I think that an obvious solution would be to decrease the cheque for winners and increase it for early rounds. It would be better for lower ranked players and it would be financially viable for tournaments which are not as rich as Indian Wells. That's my opinion and it might be what means the fact that the article doesn't speak of reducing the prize for early roundds, only for winners. That said, it's only my opinion, I don't know if it's on the table at the moment and the compromise might be different :shrug:
 
#19 ·
#22 ·
Indian Wells finally has its windfall.

On Wednesday, the ATP Tour cleared the way for the BNP Paribas Open to award an across-the-board prize money increase that had been hanging in the balance since late last year.

The ATP announced the decision on its website: "The approval of the prize money distribution leads to more than $860,000 of additional prize money on offer across the men's singles and doubles events for 2013. By virtue of the approval, every player in the men's singles and doubles events will earn above the minimum prize money levels per round established for the tournament."

With the increase, the total prize money for the BNP Paribas Open should be $6 million.

The decision settles an issue that has been simmering since last fall, when Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of Oracle Corp. and owner of the Indian Wells, Calif., event, offered to boost the purse by $800,000 for this year's tournament, which begins March 4.

But in November the ATP board — made up of three player representatives and three tournament representatives — reached a 3-3 deadlock. ATP executive chairman and president Brad Drewett could have cast the deciding vote but abstained.

According to the ATP, the increase would have violated its prize money distribution formula.

The move infuriated past and present players. It also exposed the convoluted management structure and conflicts of interest that have long vexed the sport.

"To me, this underlines what is completely wrong with the system," former pro and ESPN commentator Brad Gilbert said Wednesday.

"I'm not going to call it broken," American Ryan Harrison said last week of the ATP. "There is room for improvement."

The prize money issue has reignited debate about the deep divisions within the sport.

The ATP, co-controlled by the players and the tournaments, does not want to set prize money precedents that veer from its model — and could irk other tournaments that would feel diminished in Indian Wells' wake.

At the same time, turning down Ellison, who has poured money into Indian Wells since acquiring it in 2010, fueled player discontent and rapidly became a PR fiasco.

The ATP also announced that it is continuing to review a new Tour-wide rule which will apply to tournaments wishing to deviate from ATP prize money breakdown rules in the future.

"The unique set of circumstances generated by the Indian Wells case has prompted us to seek to provide a permanent rule that will account for similar cases arising at ATP World Tour events in the future, Drewett, who is suffering from motor neurone disease and will step down when a replacement is found, said in a statement. "For the long-term benefit of both our players and tournaments, it's important to establish a rule that can provide suitable parameters for similar requests to be processed in years ahead. We are always looking for ways to increase prize money for our players and continue to review a number of options in this area."

At the SAP Open in San Jose, Calif., last week, several players expressed dismay over the dispute.

"I think people from other sports reading it are like, 'Wow, that's kinda weird,' " said No. 16 John Isner, the top-ranked American man.

Earlier this month, BNP Paribas Open CEO Raymond Moore told The Desert Sun that he was frustrated by politics blocking the vote. If not passed, he said the tournament would revert to 2011 prize money allocations of about $4.5 million, a sizable cut for players.

The total purse would have been about $5.3 million this year if the board had failed to approve the increase.

"I hope they'll approve it, but I'm not optimistic," Moore said. "There's an inherent conflict of interest with the tournament directors. It's the tournament directors who are blocking it. Why would they want to block it? They want to put the muzzle or the bridle on Indian Wells or the BNP Paribas Open, so we don't outdistance the tournaments around the world. I can't think of another reason to block it."

The BNP Paribas Open also increased prize money last year, then described as a one-time situation. The money, however, was distributed only from the quarterfinals on.

In the months since, the distribution of prize money, mostly for the lower rounds, has been a rallying point for male players. In response, big tournaments such as the U.S. Open and Australian Open have directed a larger percentage of money at earlier rounds in announcing their purses.

Gilbert said Wednesday the Indian Wells situation was a "joke" and "travesty."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...tp-prize-money-increase-indian-wells/1933541/
 
#23 ·
This is a really interesting discussion of the ins and outs of the situation between two people with a bit different views.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/02/rally-big-doings-desert/46436/#.USVmZ6V2s20


In 2013 the prize money increase was from the quarterfinals on. But this year it goes to the lower rounds. I think that's one of the things that made the players so mad. Last year when the latter rounds got more money, the increase was approved. But when a similar increase was to go to the earlier rounds, the deal was quashed.

Now the tournament wants to increase again by a similar amount, but concentrate on giving more to players who lose in the first three rounds. I’m not sure whether the organizers are reading the political winds; early-round prize money has been the big issue in the Grand Slam negotiations. It would restore the balance, but there’s a larger issue here, which is about who gets to decide how much a tournament can pay.
 
#32 ·
In 2013 the prize money increase was from the quarterfinals on. But this year it goes to the lower rounds. I think that's one of the things that made the players so mad. Last year when the latter rounds got more money, the increase was approved. But when a similar increase was to go to the earlier rounds, the deal was quashed.
yes, but from the tournaments' point of view, it was not only about increasing the early rounds, it was also about Indian Wells increasing a second year, everytime they present it as an "unique shot" but clearly it's not true.

Besides, from the tournaments' point of view as well (and clearly the European tournaments except Madrid from the articles, that is the ones which have less money, Moore said that Miami's IMG quite supported his offer because they have the money), the problem was that it confirmed the players in the opinion that there was some money saved somewhere which they could reach (the same as they think for slams, with the Australian open playing the role of Indian Wells, and Roland-Garros the role of poorer European tournaments) ... the problem being that not all tournaments have such money saved, Indian Wells is a special case because of Ellison.

I've never believed the argument about the share between doubles and singles : it was obviously not the point.

Seriously, I thought that with Moore's threat, the ATP had no choice but to accept because it would have been too much of a fuss from the players during Indian Wells if the prize money had been back at its minimum.

But I don't buy one minute the idea some seem to believe that Ellison is a philanthrope : he just wants his tournament to be talked about and become a major referrence. Last year he wanted to increase the late rounds because he loves Federer and Nadal, this year he took advantage of the prize money controversy in the tour to develop his position further. The tournaments tried to resist even more than they had last year, but they had no choice but to accept in the end considering the way it was presented and the context among players.

Anyway, if the players are clever enough to stay reasonable towards tournaments who have less money, it's a great news :)
 
#28 ·
Just somethings in relation to this:

But in November the ATP board — made up of three player representatives and three tournament representatives — reached a 3-3 deadlock. ATP executive chairman and president Brad Drewett could have cast the deciding vote but abstained.

Wonder who voted no to this, lol.
 
#29 ·
awkward when the WTA accepts it, sort of makes the ATP look foolish for not. and what would their incentive be? don't want to put too much spotlight on Indian Wells, do they feel it's unfair to other tournaments? stupid either way

more prize money in all rounds if anything helps lower ranked players and certainly gives more incentive for players to want to do better at a particular tournament

ATP can just be controlling dictators at times with ill logic
 
#30 ·
star, this is your thread, you should add ":Increase Approved" to the thread title. Seems that Mountaindewslave, Dencod and Yolita didn't read the posts above their own (Yolita posted "If the ATP reverses the decision...")
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top