Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Dmitry Tursunov after his loss to Istomin:
"If you watched the match you could see I was running on one leg. I had two options—give it a try or withdraw. But for prize money like this I would have played without legs at all".

Meanwhile on the women's side, Petra Martic played Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon through injury, won a total of ONE GAME in three matches and bagged almost $100,000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,734 Posts
This is some serious pathetic stuff.

But hey, I can't really judge them, 99% of people would do the same.
100k $ for winning 1 game in 3 Grand Slams matches? Give me that now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
This just shows how ridiculous the prize money system is.. probably things won't change in the future either, sad to see this :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
Yes, this is ridiculous, but as this is a relatively new policy (increasing 1R prize money), it is unlikely to be changed soon.

Why not just agree to meet reasonable travel and accomodation costs? It is stupid to pay people a lot of money just for turning up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67,452 Posts
at least they tried and didnt retire as estrella or a few players in french open, retiring after 4, 5 or 6 games taking the money
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Led to what? What's the OP moaning about? Their rankings allow them to play the first round. They play the match and earn the money. When they lose, they don't obtain enough points. Naturally they won't have the chance next year again. So what's the problem really?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,325 Posts
Led to what? What's the OP moaning about? Their rankings allow them to play the first round. They play the match and earn the money. When they lose, they don't obtain enough points. Naturally they won't have the chance next year again. So what's the problem really?
That the money should go to Challengers and Futures prize money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,886 Posts
Why is ridiculous? You must be one of the best players of the world in order to play first round, so they deserve the money.

Carreño-Busta try to earn some money in challengers -> Pathetic

Another player play a small tournament -> Vulture

They play first round of GS after work their ass off in the rankings -> Ridiculous money.

WTF? Jealousy too much?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,423 Posts
Well he played for money so what, why should he pass this chance and let someone else to make money if his ranking is good enough to be in Main draw. It´s not fine, but it´s also not so bad, his ranking was good he is good player he deserves to try to play in grand slam.

Aboout money issue - i think they don´t need to increase it more, i don´t think probles are with slams - they are alone 4 tournaments doing what they want with prize money - they are rich tournaments, yes people pointing out that slams only pay i don´tknow 10-12% of their earnings to players, but it´s ok. R1, R2 prize oney is o.k Winner - runner up aslo got huge money - and besides top players which wins slams care more about points to rankings + title not money from slam, they can earn the same from apperance feees + prize money on some small event what they get for final in slam for example.

The problem is money on ATP tour - some guy ranked outside top 100 getting his cheque for R1 beatdown in slam is happy for money, beucase next 2 months he has money for travelling and if we go up the rnaking is ok. guy in top 50 is happy for R3 money and so on

but problem is ATP tour tournaments - 250s and challengers - ITF problem , top guys don´t have problems with money, not even top 50 basically, but those guys outside top 100 playing R1 in slam in what 1 slam from 5 are happy for R1 money but if they failed to qualify for slam and have to go to challengers where they loose early they don´t earn much and are maybe in debts who knows.

So really no need for increasing prize money in slams it´s o.k
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
How do you win only one game smh

tbh I'm jelly
In Martic case she lost 06 06 in Melbourne, retired 0-5 down in Paris and lost 06 16 yesterday.

It's ridiculous they are paid $30K just for entering a Grand Slam tournament. Awful for competition. Make it 5K for 1R loss and give more money to qualifiers, i.e. the ones who actually win matches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,423 Posts
In Martic case she lost 06 06 in Melbourne, retired 0-5 down in Paris and lost 06 16 yesterday.

It's ridiculous they are paid $30K just for entering a Grand Slam tournament. Awful for competition. Make it 5K for 1R loss and give more money to qualifiers, i.e. the ones who actually win matches.
Just checking qualies it´s not so bad either

Q3 loss 13.500, Q2 6750 and Q1 loss 3375 - don´t forget it´s british pounds so if we go to USD it looks even better - let´say some clay mug from challengers who is outside top 150 goes to Wimby just to get beatdown in Q1 and got 3375 pounds doesn´t even need to stay in London can go with train to Spain or France or somewhere close to next clay challenger of future not so bad i think

Now the question is how much they get netto - what is tax % and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,477 Posts
In Martic case she lost 06 06 in Melbourne, retired 0-5 down in Paris and lost 06 16 yesterday.

It's ridiculous they are paid $30K just for entering a Grand Slam tournament. Awful for competition. Make it 5K for 1R loss and give more money to qualifiers, i.e. the ones who actually win matches.
it's quite pathetic to be unable to think for 2 minutes, mind boggling really :rolleyes:

Is there a way for you to look back on the idiocy you wrote and understand why it is dumb?

Do you also realize that except for these 4 events, players in the outskirts of top 100 pay to play?

Are you able to comprehend that this is the main way to take some of the way too much money winners of GSs make and re-distribute them to players who pay to play and not as it should - get paid to play?

Try to use your brains people, i'm offended that there is no IQ control on this forum. This is ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
it's quite pathetic to be unable to think for 2 minutes, mind boggling really :rolleyes:

Is there a way for you to look back on the idiocy you wrote and understand why it is dumb?

Do you also realize that except for these 4 events, players in the outskirts of top 100 pay to play?

Are you able to comprehend that this is the main way to take some of the way too much money winners of GSs make and re-distribute them to players who pay to play and not as it should - get paid to play?

Try to use your brains people, i'm offended that there is no IQ control on this forum. This is ridiculous.
Players outside of Top-100 are robbed of chance to earn more at slams because of the likes of Martic and Tursunov.
They should be paid for winning matches and not for stepping onto the court. This is not boxing.
 

·
MONSOON season.
Joined
·
81,404 Posts
Tursunov still was competitive and won a set. Estrella is worse. Retired in the last tournament he played, then retired at 5-1 down to Vesely. Although I might be mistaken, this looks like he was aware that he hadn't recovered sufficiently but only showed up to cash the prize money.

But, honestly, I don't think there's a better solution. The main response I can think of would be to lower first-round prize money, but this hurts far too many players. Players like Estrella (and Martic too, soon) have to work hard to get direct entry to Slams, so I am OK with them getting some easy cash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
That the money should go to Challengers and Futures prize money.
This money belongs to AELTC and LTA.

"Ninety per cent of the financial surplus that the Club generates from running The Championships is used to develop tennis in Great Britain; between 1998–2008 the surplus ranged from £25–33 million per year "

So they give away enough already.To demand even more sounds unreasonable.And Wimbledon has to be competetive comparing to other slams.It means to increase prize money every year.They also have expensive renovation program,plans to build roof over C 1, all this need lot of money.

If some players choose to play injured, sure it is not good for the game, but it is their choice.Others ( like Del Potro or Almagro ) preferred to stay home and not to steal healthy players spot in draw.

It is not Wimbledon`s fault that some players want 1st round paycheck so badly.Players should have more respect to the game and spectators who payed lot of money for tickets.It is like opera singer who has bad cold. If he cant properly sing, he stays at home and other singer takes his place on stage.

Maybe solution to this problem would be to create injured players help system.For example : if player has valid injury and doctors note about it, and his ranking allows him to enter MD of slam, but he cant perform properly - to pay him 80 % of 1st round pay check.This way he doesnt have temptation to show up only for few games to collect prize money .How many such players exist anyway ? Less than 10, I think, on every slam. It is not such a big financial burden for slam organizers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,423 Posts
This money belongs to AELTC and LTA.

"Ninety per cent of the financial surplus that the Club generates from running The Championships is used to develop tennis in Great Britain; between 1998–2008 the surplus ranged from £25–33 million per year "

So they give away enough already.To demand even more sounds unreasonable.And Wimbledon has to be competetive comparing to other slams.It means to increase prize money every year.They also have expensive renovation program,plans to build roof over C 1, all this need lot of money.

If some players choose to play injured, sure it is not good for the game, but it is their choice.Others ( like Del Potro or Almagro ) preferred to stay home and not to steal healthy players spot in draw.

It is not Wimbledon`s fault that some players want 1st round paycheck so badly.Players should have more respect to the game and spectators who payed lot of money for tickets.It is like opera singer who has bad cold. If he cant properly sing, he stays at home and other singer takes his place on stage.

Maybe solution to this problem would be to create injured players help system.For example : if player has valid injury and doctors note about it, and his ranking allows him to enter MD of slam, but he cant perform properly - to pay him 80 % of 1st round pay check.This way he doesnt have temptation to show up only for few games to collect prize money .How many such players exist anyway ? Less than 10, I think, on every slam. It is not such a big financial burden for slam organizers.
If i remember Isner talked about something similar that let´ say 70% of prize money goes to injured player and LL plays for remaining but plays for points to ranking and so on chance to R2 - either way they can even offer full money to LL and something 50-70% to that injured guy who Withdraw - this would be great option

I think it was John really - in that case good that he was elected now for 2 years to ATP players council he is definitely not stupid guy

Yeah it was John just found this

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-13/news/sns-rt-tennis-openisner-20140113_1_prize-money-main-draw-hopman-cup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,672 Posts
Yeah, apparently guys themselves know too that there is a problem with this issue. I think if such a injured players help system would exist,they dont even need to replace them with LL at last moment.Most of times injury happened even before quali tournament and player knows he is not 100 % when slam starts.. In that case injured player withdraws in time, takes money from help foundation and gives his spot to healthy alternate.Or yes, if injury happened during quali tournament, they can use LL to fill the empty MD spots.

But unfortunately, I dont think they agree to do that.To pay money to someone who is not even playing - the idea is so weird and new to conservative tennis officials. Tennis is very individualistic and "elite" sports.It started as entertainment for wealthy people, who didnt have any financial problems.And attitude is still pretty much same: if you are in trouble, with injuries or financially, it is your own problem !

In team sports, help for injured players it is very natural part of their business : if Kobe is injured, owners of Lakers still pay him a salary, they also pay for treatment, surgery etc .
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top