2013 Team AEGON announcement

philwrig · Hall of fame

RE: 2013 Team AEGON announcement

paulisi · Tennis legend

Very interesting read and i'm surprised the cuts seem so big.

So what I've read into it is:
there will be very few players getting full funding(Dan Evans, Laura, Joko, Hev, Tara + talent assessed(?))
larger numbers will be reliant on the bonus scheme and development fund for cash and access to coaching(the 20% payback seems far enough)
Little funding for juniors aged 17 & 18, thus they will be forced to play on ITF tour if they are interested in turning pro or having a go.

I'm sure there is plenty of wasted money in the previous system - especially with fully funded players who have struggled to progress.

Will be interesting to see what they plan to do with ITF tournaments in the UK - increase in lower tier events, more challengers for the men.

PS I notice that quite a few foreign ITF and challengers are sponsored to subsidise them, it doesn't happen in the UK.

I'm generally happy with changes and nice to see the LTA explaining the changes, I wonder what the players think.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Well, if Laura and Dan and Heather are all part of the development fund and paying back 20% of their earnings, the LTA will do nicely.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Well, if Laura and Dan and Heather are all part of the development fund and paying back 20% of their earnings, the LTA will do nicely.

A bit more about the development fund - doubles specialist don't qualify

http://www.lta.org.uk/NewWebsite/LTA/Documents/Players%20and%20Parents/Performance%20Players/LTA%20Performance%20Player%20Funding%20Selection%20Policy%20FINAL%2031102013.pdf

The most significant change to the funding of senior professional players from 2014 is the implementation of a system whereby players are required to payback 20% of their prize money earned in any year. All players who accept LTA performance support through a Pro-Development Funding Agreement will be required to accept this payback mechanism.

The reason why this pay back system has been introduced are two-fold. Firstly, the players receive a substantial amount of support from the LTA. It is recognised that in order for the players to gain an understanding of the significance of this support that changes had to be made. Asking for a small amount of pay back from the prize-money they go on to win during that year is the most relevant way of doing this. Other grand slam nations such as Tennis Australia are currently successfully operating a similar system. Secondly, this system also allows the LTA to continue to fund the players whilst being mindful of reduced budget available. [back to top]

6. How will the payback mechanism work?

The payback will be taken from players' gross prize money earnings as published on the ATP and WTA websites at the 30 June and the 31 December. Players must have earned a minimum of $1,500 in prize money to begin making any payback, and the amounts will be converted from Dollars to Stirling using the rate on the date above. The LTA will invoice the player electronically for the funds and will expect prompt reimbursement. Players will never repay more than the value of the support that they are given by the LTA in any year. [back to top]

- See more at: http://www.lta.org.uk/players-parents/Performance-players/Player-funding/Funding-Strategy-/FAQs/#sthash.mu88aeVL.dpuf

So for Instance if Marcus Willis gets selected - his earnings are around $15k in prize money and would be expected to contribute $3k to the LTA for all funding. Not sure whether these players would still qualify for the tournament bonus scheme.( I suspect not)

baxi2 · Lower Club Player

Andy Murray will be thankful that players will pay back no more than the level they are funded. The LTA have always helped fund his team so out of the 5.4 million dollars he's made this year he would be paying a meagre 1.08 million dollars !!!!

I doubt he'd continue to take the LTA assistance if this was the case. Would be interesting to find out the exact level of funding he gets,from memory they paid the salary of either either Matt Little or Andy Ireland or both ? Can anyone confirm ?

When Brad Gilbert was being paid 750k per annum maybe Andy would have objected to the 20% payback then ?

paulisi · Tennis legend

Andy doesn't qualify on age grounds. He will get funding as part of the Davis Cup team.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Lots of good things but the removal of funding eligibility from 24 is a disgrace given the average age of top players on WTA and ATP. Penalises college and late developers once again (unless they are Fed Cup/Davis Cup squad members who are selected for the entire year in January!! I hope they can add people in if they need to, more so for Davis Cup as that is played throughout the year)

I'm also confused as to why the Matrix criteria is significantly harder for the women than the men across all levels. I see no justification for that

-- Edited by PaulM on Friday 8th of November 2013 02:48:34 PM

PaulM · Tennis legend

There are many more men's tournaments though, sometimes twice as many a week, making it easier to pick up points in places like Burundi and artificially inflate your ranking. Plus it's far, far easier to get a ATP ranking in the first place. in a world of equal prize money at slams and equal access it just sits wrong with me. Mens tennis being deeper globally means the standard right down the rankings and into the UK domestic scene is higher, so it shouldn't be any more difficult for the best unranked men and women in the UK to reach the top 500 of their respective tours, plus of course prize money on the men's side is higher on the ITF circuit. It's only "tougher" for the guys if comparatively they are not as good on the world stage as their female equivalents, and if they are good enough they should be top 500 after no more than 2-3 years playing full time. Sarah says it should be 18months but that seems a bit tight to me.

The funding regime used to not award funding to players who earnt more than a certain amount. They still got all the perks, just no cash. Not clear if that's still the case.

-- Edited by PaulM on Friday 8th of November 2013 08:13:29 PM

PaulM · Tennis legend

Salmon wrote:
I think we need to settle this debate by getting Nadal and Serena to play world numbers 496-505 in ATP and WTA, respetively, and then counting the points that they win.

But seriously, there are far more male tennis players with pro-aspirations than there are female players with the same, so it's safe to assume that there's much greater depth in the men's game. There are countless societies where, given the economic freedom, men can pursue whatever profession they want, but women cannot even think of playing a sport at an amateur level, so let us not assume that it takes equal ability to get to the top 500. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's easy to get into the top 500 in the women's game... and indeed, most of us can only dream of being even the 10000th best at whatever we do in this 7 billion strong world.

but the matrix isn't just based on ranking for the juniors. The tournament win requirements for the younger players are a bit strange and I think much harder for the girls. I dont think winning a 25k and a futures are equivalent

-- Edited by PaulM on Friday 8th of November 2013 09:10:47 PM

PaulM · Tennis legend

So what you are saying is British men who are weaker on a global scale as demonstrated by their world ranking than their female counterparts should get more money?

I appreciate I've not explained myself well. I know what I'm trying to say but struggling to put it into words! But I think we agree, the 500 male is of a higher relative standard to the female. But what im trying to get at is that (and again we agree here) the 1000 male is of a higher relative standard to the 1000 female, so the 'gap' between 500 and 1000 is equally difficult for both sexes to bridge. The man is playing a higher comparative level of tennis, but he has to do it against comparatively better opponents. So it leaves both in the same position.

If the top two unranked Brits end up 700 on the men's and 400 on the womens, I wouldn't say that was because the men's tour is harder, but because the women was comparatively a better player to start with. Does that make any sense? Probably not lol. I'm confusing myself now...

Getting the ranking in the first place os a massive hurdle. Once you have it many more opportunities open for you. the much larger futures circuit enables good scheduling to move up quickly, and players can get well inside the top 100 without playing on the ATP Tour at all. The womens calendar makes that far more difficult and rarer.

-- Edited by PaulM on Friday 8th of November 2013 09:52:30 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

Just been listening to the chat on BBC2 at the WTF, talking about the LTA player funding cuts.

Typical Henman to immediately say it's actually a good thing and look how such as many Argentinians and Serbs come through with little help. Basically he has again said that British players get mollycoddled and it's all about attitude.

It took Andrew Castle to develop a more useful discussion, saying it's all really about proper targetting and some players really need assistance and can benefit from it.

I often don't particularly like Castle's commentary and he can be a bit wayward with his "facts", but it is far from the first time I have heard him in my opinion being pretty lucid and on the ball about the life of lower ranked players and those trying to break through, and politely diverging from fellow pundits. But then he had a different career from Mr Henman.

steven · Tennis legend

Apparently the LTA have announced today (possibly it was hidden in yesterday's announcements too) that they will no longer fund doubles specialists, so that's a move in the right direction - given that players often become doubles specialists for (understandable) economic reasons, it has always seemed crazy to skew that decision even further.

However, they seem to have cut singles funding drastically too - the main criterion for getting funding now seems to be ... not actually needing it. Saying that, having read all the new stuff about funding on the LTA website yesterday (good of them to publish all the explanation, but it's about as clear as mud), I'm still not entirely clear what is going on and if anything has changed for the better to offset the cuts elsewhere. Also, having admitted that players are coming through a lot later these days but not really having done anything about it, they now seem to have changed their minds and decided players aren't coming through much later after all confuse Well, at least that's a good excuse to continue to forget about them ...

Obviously the change to bonuses that should encourage more players to have a go at Challenger qualifying is good, but that was announced a little while ago.

Still, I'm sure the LTA will be happy to have got a certain journalist onside at last. The only people he seems to despise more than the LTA are lower-ranked Brits outside a select few favs.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, I tend to agree about the age 24 thing. Sue Barker came out with the old bumph "well if you haven't really made it by 24..etc" Some folk need hit over the head with some facts and stats. The existing matrices already began to be far too against older players from I think just about 22 on.

I don't recall all the details about the men v women matrix targets. But I certainly think there is very much greater depth in the men's game so certainly an arguement that women players destined for the top / near the top should be significantly higher ranked to be worthy of funding as opposed to the men.

PaulM · Tennis legend

I would argue that over the past 8 years there has been significantly more depth in the women's game at relevant levels.

In the long run, noone gives a toss about how good our junior boys are when most of them fail to get anywhere near the Top 500 on the tour, which (if you believe Sarah Borwell, which I do) shouldn't be considered a big achievement (and neither should a reasonably junior ranking) because if you are truly a decent player it isn't actually all that difficult to get there.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Although I'm a MAJOR believer in older players coming through, I think there is possibly something to be said for cutting off direct funding at 25 if it's done as part of a package.

i.e. I think that the NTC facilities should be available to a wide range of players, throughout their careers. Not sure how you'd define it (anyone with a ranking?) but I think that there should be a centre of excellence with sports psychs, fitness coaches, nutrionists etc. etc. which is available for use by all (when the profs are free which, in my guess, is quite a lot).
There should also be group training blocks/technique blocks/fitness blocks etc. arranged where a wide range of players are invited, for free. It's good for the younger ones to train with the older ones. Equally, group sessions on nutrition, mental techniques whatever . . .
This should also be done at the other high performance centres throughout the country.

This group work is cost effective and you get a lot of bang for your buck. It's what quite a few countries do. It also breeds a good team spirit.

But I don't think that the LTA should pay for an individual coach for someone who is 26 and I think that the travel allowance is debatable too - if the bonus top-up scheme is generous, this should take care of that in itself. Someone who is 25 and WR300 has a good chance of making the top 100 but they'll be earning enough with winnings and the bonus scheme to just about make it possible anyway.

I don;t really see why women and men should be different. And I do agree that individual funds should be targeted towards singles, although the group facilities and package should also apply to doubles players.