Wimbledon 2013 and 2014 - women's WCs & pre-draw discussion

PaulM · Tennis legend

RE: Wimbledon 2013 - women's WCs & pre-draw discussion

Ratty · County player

27,000 reasons smile

Peter too · Tennis legend

It's been estimated that no British women could make a living outside the top 120 from winnings alone. Wimbledon WCs were one way to help British players finance their tours abroad.

Wimbledon is also a business that has to attract customers, most British customers would get more enjoyment out of watching a British player battling against the odds than a foreign player they have never heard of but ranked a few places higher.

Wimbledon wild cards are one way to encourage the rapid development of young Laura Robsons and Heather Watsons.

-- Edited by Peter too on Sunday 18th of May 2014 08:19:02 AM

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

I had a look at Estrella in the men's career earning at the age of 33. It's around 200-250k. So he will earn more than 10per cent HHS career earnings for playing one match which is incredible really. I'm not a fan of Wimbledon in general but in this respect they have it right.

Also I guarantee you that when Wimbledon comes round you will have plenty of 2week tennis fans tweeting etc at how overpaid the losers are when they dont actually realise that this 27grand will be swallowed up in hotel flight kit training etc costs.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I think there's two slightly different arguments. i.e. (1) is the 27k for losing in the first round too high? and (b) how should wild cards be attributed?

They're getting confused because obviously wildcards get the bonus of the 27k (and it's a huge amount for most of them, and most people) but they're not the same question. As said before, Cuevas is using his PR just to get his first round cheque - can't blame him but if the first round amount was less he would probably use it for something more likely.

Roland garros is paying Euro 24 k for first round losers this year (up 14% on last year). The winner gets 10% more than last year.

But they've put most of their cash into rounds two, three and four who get 20%, 20% and 25% more than last year.

They claim this is deliberate to help the 'lower' players.

I think these rises are huge, for all players, and this follows on from 20%+ rises across practically all the rounds last year.

I understand that if you're receiving a lot more from TV rights etc you should pass it on. But it's still huge.

As to how to give wildcards, the LTA (from what I remember) brought in the 250 rule to counter the accusations of bias in awarding wildcards. I see the point but I feel that if your problem is being accused of bias then that is a separate problem and should be addressed from the ground up, not by putting some rule in for one part.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Sunday 18th of May 2014 10:01:17 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

Remember that the LTA have always made very good young players an exception to the WR 250 target, so taking that in full they can give such as Katy, Katie and Eleanor MD WCs if they feel they are at least up there as worthy recipients with selected WR 250 players.

I do understand CD's point that perhaps you shouldn't really need a rule. But people do look at things differently and if you are going to have some objectivity ( and personally I think better to have ) then top 250 plus very good young I think is actually pretty reasonable.

Ratty · County player

I don't have any problem with the principle of first round losers getting £27,000. That's market forces in action.

What I have a problem with is that the world ranked 105-112 potentially have their £27,000 taken away from them and given to someone whose only claim to it is that they are British.

That sucks. It might also be considered racial discrimination, and may be contrary to EU law.

KK · Club Coach

It might not be fair, but it is market forces in action giving the wild cards to the British. I am not alone in being more likely to go to Wimbledon and more likely to watch it on television if there are British players in action.

indiana · Tennis legend

I doubt that anyone denies that those home WCs give more interest. It certainly will for me too.

But it is absolutely unfair for this to occur in the 4 Slams, the pinnacle of the sport, with everything attached, money, ranking points, prestige, etc.

In long by gone amateur days, maybe, but not now.

Market forces should not dictate that !

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Ratty wrote:
I don't have any problem with the principle of first round losers getting £27,000. That's market forces in action.

What I have a problem with is that the world ranked 105-112 potentially have their £27,000 taken away from them and given to someone whose only claim to it is that they are British.

That sucks. It might also be considered racial discrimination, and may be contrary to EU law.

But they can still earn a good wedge in qualifying. Last year I'm sure it was 3k for turning up for qualifying I'm sure it will be more this year. A third round qualifying loss will probably still earn a good wedge more than any challenger prize money.

indiana · Tennis legend

Be interesting if a player ever challenged these WCs under race discrimination, restraint of trade or something else !

Very possibly some loophole ( and more probably no player would dare ), but if you were starting from scratch it would seem perverse.

Tennis's major tournaments for the 100 or so best ranked players, some who earn their place through qualification and some err of the other better Brits ( and Australians / French / Americans where applicable ).

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Jaggy1876 wrote:
Ratty wrote:
I don't have any problem with the principle of first round losers getting £27,000. That's market forces in action.

What I have a problem with is that the world ranked 105-112 potentially have their £27,000 taken away from them and given to someone whose only claim to it is that they are British.

That sucks. It might also be considered racial discrimination, and may be contrary to EU law.
But they can still earn a good wedge in qualifying. Last year I'm sure it was 3k for turning up for qualifying I'm sure it will be more this year. A third round qualifying loss will probably still earn a good wedge more than any challenger prize money.

Jaggy that is not the point! Those ranked 105-112 have earned their ranking somewhere along the line so why should they have to settle for qualifying prize money? How would you like it if you were in their position having slogged your guts out week after week? Let the Brits who would normally get wc's go through qualifying instead and earn a good wedge as you call it.

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

indiana wrote:
I doubt that anyone denies that those home WCs give more interest. It certainly will for me too.

But it is absolutely unfair for this to occur in the 4 Slams, the pinnacle of the sport, with everything attached, money, ranking points, prestige, etc.

In long by gone amateur days, maybe, but not now.

Market forces should not dictate that !

Spot on Indy - couldn't have put it better! This is top level professional sport we are talking about not your annual primary school sports day give everyone a prize event.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

I am sure someone can shoot this idea down as I haven't thought it through in any depth, but how about keep the WCs but insist that they have to win a round in order to qualify for any prize money. If they get knocked out in the 1st round, they get nowt.

Don't they do something similar re ranking points ? Players who get in on ranking get 10 points even if they lose but WCs don't get any for a 1st round loss.

If they just want to give £27,000 to some worthy Brits, maybe they should just fund them properly in the first place.

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Sunday 18th of May 2014 07:03:45 PM

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

Peter too wrote:
It's been estimated that no British women could make a living outside the top 120 from winnings alone. Wimbledon WCs were one way to help British players finance their tours abroad.

Wimbledon is also a business that has to attract customers, most British customers would get more enjoyment out of watching a British player battling against the odds than a foreign player they have never heard of but ranked a few places higher.

Wimbledon wild cards are one way to encourage the rapid development of young Laura Robsons and Heather Watsons.

-- Edited by Peter too on Sunday 18th of May 2014 08:19:02 AM

I don't want to appear harsh by why should they receive wild cards because they are struggling with finances or for not being good enough at their job or haven't produced good enough performances over the course of the year. They have chosen this way of life and presumably aren't being forced to do it so they should have to put with the downsides hard though it may be and there will be plenty of other players from all over the world that have to finance their travel abroad.