Tennis stars like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic only care about cash, not fans
New Zealand media FTW. Said what everyone really thinks nad just didn't hold back. Worth reading the whole thing to get the full outrage. Clearly thinks Auckland should be top of the priority list for the Big 3. 
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/tennis/65231157/Some friends drove over 600km from the Wairarapa to Auckland to watch the tennis at the Heineken Open. Why bother when they could have walked 600m down their road to the shearing sheds and got fleeced without all the expense and hassle.
But don't blame the organisers for putting on a third rate tournament, blame Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.
The greed of the sport's top players means that mugs like us are having our pockets pinched. These men need never work again in their lives, so rich has tennis made them. But instead of playing in countries where the fans adore them, the big three cash in wherever and whenever they can.
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic pander to plutocrats and charge huge appearance fees. The "trickle down effect" means that tournaments like the Heineken Open now have to pay appearance money for racketeers that many of us have never heard of. It's close to extortion.
Karl Budge, the director of the Heineken Open, said, "Player prize money has gone up incredibly over the last five years. Two years ago I didn't have to pay three of the players who were in the top 30. Now, if I want anyone in the top 30, I've got to pay them.
"At the pointy end it's significantly increased and because of that the next tier of players have been bumped up as well. Tournaments in Asia . . . are government funded or have private investors and we can't compete with those guys and we can't try."
Driving into Auckland airport on Monday, I was confronted by a huge poster of Djokovic. It informed me: "Opportunity has no limits. Your game, your way." The kid infected with ebola in Africa may disagree about opportunity having no limits but, hey, we should trust Novak because apparently he is an ANZ ambassador.
I wasn't aware that ANZ even had an embassy. Why should I invest in a bank that is prepared to pay a tennis player a fortune to say, "Your game, your way." Has Djokovic ever played a match in New Zealand?
When I get home in the evening I settle down to watch the actual product rather than the promo. Roger - there is no need for surnames when you are commentating on a superstar - is giving a man from Taipei, who used to chase chooks as a kid, the run around. At the break between games we go to an ad break and, oh no, there is Djokovic again.
This time he is solemnly pronouncing, "I always say that you're your own artist behind the masterpiece of your life." I take a toilet break and an injury time-out. I always say "you're your own con artist, Novak".
The Serb probably needs the extra cash because he doesn't make the sort of moolah that Roger and Rafa rake in over the year. Federer, after a poor 2013, became the top earner again last year with $72m. A huge chunk of that comes from endorsing products like Mercedes, Moet & Chandon and Credit Suisse, income that could exempt him from charging the sort of appearance fees that gouge the fan.
In 2014 the Fed spent a small portion of his annual income in building a new $13m villa in Wollerau, a Swiss tax haven where a couple of Formula One drivers also have residence. In sport and life the Fed likes to hit shots round the net post.
Towards the end of last year Federer travelled to India to play in the new IPTL tennis event which is more Bolloxwood than Bollywood. Federer said: "It won't be my first time in India, but it will be my first time to play tennis, and that moment you walk onto the court or into the stadium - that's why I play tennis.
"I'm going to India for that feeling - playing tennis, showing what I can do, bringing over my personality, sharing the fun and all that with the people, and how are the people going to react."
The sanctimonious Federer isn't sharing anything. He originally had no interest in the IPTL. Federer went to India because Nadal pulled out through injury and Federer was then offered a sum estimated at $3.5m for a couple of days work.
One fan paid out a month's salary to see Federer play. Another fan, who paid $567 for her ticket, a fortune for an Indian worker, said, "I feel cheated with what I have got. I have travelled the world to see Roger play and with the money I spent here, I at least expected a seat on the court level. But as it turns out, I have been told to sit on the yellow coloured seats which are not even cleaned properly and far away from the court."
At the end of Federer's first round match at the Australian Open a fawning interviewer asked about his kids and if he had bought coach Stefan Edberg a birthday present - no, by the way, the privilege of knocking up with 'King Roger' was enough of a present apparently. But there was not one question about why the top three of tennis are rorting all their fans from Delhi to Auckland.
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are often presented as great ambassadors of the sport, but it is time to call "fault" on them. The big three have the power. But instead of bringing tennis to the people, they have made it a game for "oiligarchs".
Roger, Rafa and Novak would play anywhere for money. No wonder each man is sponsored by a bank.
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
What was value or new information in this article? WE all know who are 3 biggest tennis stars even without this article also we knew before that they earn millions for appearance fees at small events, exhibitions and have sponsorship contracts with multinational companies. The same can be said about any footballers, NBA players and so on, top athletes earn way to much this days, but it´s problem with society, we all want to see sportstars in commercials, in final matches, important matches and so on. Where is demand for something there is money easy Maths
They should be forced to play three tournaments for free in order to be permitted to play a grand slam. Bunch of millionaire scum.
Disgusting. Murray obviously not mentioned here as he cares for his fans over anything else.
But in all seriousness, that article is just dumb.
But in all seriousness, that article is just dumb.
That article is so stupid that it defies belief. The author seemingly holds two completely contradictory views.
1. The big three shouldn't make so much money
2. Any tournament without the big three is crap.
1. The big three shouldn't make so much money
2. Any tournament without the big three is crap.
It is not dumb at all. The atp and wta are repeatedly bending over for Arab and Chinese money and eventually tennis as a sport would get hurt
First there is 9 masters 1000 and 4 GSs plus for the top 8 there is the WTF. This is obviously what top players play. I am sure that without the 500 rule they wouldnt even play the two 500s.
Now if they play an ATP 250 they get 250 points for a win, 150 points for a final and 90 points for the SF. If they play an ATP 500 they get 500 for a win, 300 for a final, 180 for a SF and 90 for the QF. If a player reach a the SF he is almost in the same poition if he would have won the ATP 250.
Now they need to play 2 500 and that is already 15 (16 with MC masters) tournaments. Plus the Davis Cup it is 17 tournaments, more than enough for a top player. So the top players almost never play 250s excluding the week before AO and the grass season (until 2014) where they want the best competition for preparing the upcoming GS event, thus only 1-2 event will play a role here.
I cannot see anything else to blame than the ATP rankings system, good for the television broadcast bad for small tournaments. It just not worthy for playing, little points big risk for embarassment (if you lose as a top8 player) small prize money compared to an ATP 500. Would be interesting to see the changes in the top15-20 if we discount the ATP 250s, my guess is 2-3 players change their position.
Now if they play an ATP 250 they get 250 points for a win, 150 points for a final and 90 points for the SF. If they play an ATP 500 they get 500 for a win, 300 for a final, 180 for a SF and 90 for the QF. If a player reach a the SF he is almost in the same poition if he would have won the ATP 250.
Now they need to play 2 500 and that is already 15 (16 with MC masters) tournaments. Plus the Davis Cup it is 17 tournaments, more than enough for a top player. So the top players almost never play 250s excluding the week before AO and the grass season (until 2014) where they want the best competition for preparing the upcoming GS event, thus only 1-2 event will play a role here.
I cannot see anything else to blame than the ATP rankings system, good for the television broadcast bad for small tournaments. It just not worthy for playing, little points big risk for embarassment (if you lose as a top8 player) small prize money compared to an ATP 500. Would be interesting to see the changes in the top15-20 if we discount the ATP 250s, my guess is 2-3 players change their position.
I don't see the contradiction there at all, to be honest. The demand that justifies these salaries largely comes from the fact that the wealthy, who rather enjoy tennis, are happy to pay whatever is required. As usual, the common man is screwed.That article is so stupid that it defies belief. The author seemingly holds two completely contradictory views.
1. The big three shouldn't make so much money
2. Any tournament without the big three is crap.
I love this. I don't necessarily agree with what these reporters are saying, but good for them! They aren't just giving cozy little filler stories about what great humanitarians and incredible sportsmen the top players are. They're writing harsh, biting articles about things they see as problems, which is what sports journalism should be.
I guess this guy isn't a fan of capitalism.
Cool Story Bro.
Tell it again.
Tell it again.
it is called 'love for the game'.
So what? You think people care about fans if there is no cash involved? Get real. I am sure they care about having more fans or getting cheered but cash talks
Interesting perspective.
What I will say is I would have thought that players like Federer/Nadal for example, in the twilights of their careers, with probably only 2-3 years left on tour (Nadals only 28-29 but will definately decline faster than Fedex), who have already made more than enough money to never have to work again and support their entire families, and will continue to earn as such well after they hang up the raquets, would spend those last 2 years maybe doing a 250 tournament or two in a country they either havent been to or havent played at since they won a slam, to give thousands of fans a chance to see them who otherwise never would. But no dice of course.
Nadal for example this year went out early in Doha and turned his nose up at Auckland. Fed still continues to chase the money.
The fact that Ferrer was able to play Auckland so many years and still be in the top 4-5 ranked players kind of negates the argument of the ranking system, two 250 tournies wouldn't hurt.
What I will say is I would have thought that players like Federer/Nadal for example, in the twilights of their careers, with probably only 2-3 years left on tour (Nadals only 28-29 but will definately decline faster than Fedex), who have already made more than enough money to never have to work again and support their entire families, and will continue to earn as such well after they hang up the raquets, would spend those last 2 years maybe doing a 250 tournament or two in a country they either havent been to or havent played at since they won a slam, to give thousands of fans a chance to see them who otherwise never would. But no dice of course.
Nadal for example this year went out early in Doha and turned his nose up at Auckland. Fed still continues to chase the money.
The fact that Ferrer was able to play Auckland so many years and still be in the top 4-5 ranked players kind of negates the argument of the ranking system, two 250 tournies wouldn't hurt.
I think they should all come and play at the Irish Open, the second oldest tennis tournament in the world.Interesting perspective.
What I will say is I would have thought that players like Federer/Nadal for example, in the twilights of their careers, with probably only 2-3 years left on tour (Nadals only 28-29 but will definately decline faster than Fedex), who have already made more than enough money to never have to work again and support their entire families, and will continue to earn as such well after they hang up the raquets, would spend those last 2 years maybe doing a 250 tournament or two in a country they either havent been to or havent played at since they won a slam, to give thousands of fans a chance to see them who otherwise never would. But no dice of course.
Nadal for example this year went out early in Doha and turned his nose up at Auckland. Fed still continues to chase the money.
The fact that Ferrer was able to play Auckland so many years and be in the top 5 players kind of negates the argument of the ranking system.
this dude sounds pressed as fuck at the guys not playing in his country 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Mens Tennis Forums
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
