LTA Funding and Participation

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: LTA Funding and Participation

PaulM · Tennis legend

So Team Tennis is being demolished as well under the new regime by the looks of it, prize money cut from £100,000 to £22,500 - no consultation at all with any clubs.

Prize money for British Tours being reduced too.

indiana · Tennis legend

Next ...

Danger the core of GB tennis could be reduced towards the actual / potential elite, these of pretty good independant means and those who just absolutely love to play tennis, however difficult it is / is made.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

www.lta.org.uk/players-parents/Performance-players/Player-funding/Bonus-Scheme/

The new bonus scheme.

Stops at 19 for 10k and 15k
Stops at 25 for 25k, 50k and Challenger
No doubles.
Nothing for Q matches in challengers etc.
The 5K Futures cap seems to have disappeared though (not that it will make much difference as it all stops at age 19)

and the fury of the clubs who weren't consulted, as per PaulM above:

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/11302886/LTA-cut-to-national-league-prize-funding-sparks-fury.html

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, no need for a futures limit. I don't exactly see that the coming year's 18 and 19 yos are in great danger of bankrupting the LTA. No doubt, some a little bit older might have earned and benefitted rather more, but if they're going to be the next Andy Murray they shouldn't really be faffing around in futures after age 19.

And on the men's side, most of these likely to do anything in challengers will soon be at least 25 so not likely to have to pay out much in challenger bonuses either. Anyway, gawd if they still need any assistance by their mid 20s, they're never going to make it. Tennis is a young person's sport.

[/sarcasm]

Sorry, I have given up for now on more constructive comment.

Spectator · All-time great

I find it difficult to believe that cutting the prize money for team tennis by £80,000 was the only option available to them for funding wider recreational participation.

In an earlier post in a different thread, I said that two of the three pillars of non-ITF, non-direct-support LTA funding had been decimated (British Tour and bonuses)... but didn't yet know about the team tennis. Surely a wiser course of action would be to build up the possibilities for young professionals around the country, and to tie that in with club tennis ... to inspire and enthuse?

steven · Tennis legend

I can see an argument for doing away with doubles bonuses, especially at Futures level, and for age-capping Futures bonuses, though I think 19 is far too low, especially for the men (I'm with Tara on this one!) but age-capping Challenger singles bonuses at 25 and doing away with Challenger qualies bonuses (which did something to mitigate the risk of trying to move up) when we are desperate for more regular Challenger players (remember, James Ward is 27) seems like a terribly backward step.

It also concerns me re. the age limits that no account seems to be taken at all of injuries or illness that may keep players out (or playing well below their true level) for up to a year or more.

I'm all for a 'no free rides' approach but I wish they would forget 'get tough' with no real thought put into it and try a bit of 'get clever' instead.

Sim · County player

The way I see it the LTA have decided they want to concentrate on players who they think have a real prospect of being top 200 and really want to look after those who could be top 100.

The funding for the women does make some sense. Consider Katy Dunne - they are saying now concentrate on 25k+ which is mostly where she has been playing in the second half of this year anyway. Then there are 5 or 6 female players in the 16-19 age group who the LTA are happy to give bonuses for 10/15k futures to see where they are by the time they hit 20 years old. The players who will lose out are those lower down who won't be playing many 25k's+ by the age of 20. The LTA's attitude appears to be "we don't think you will make the top 200 so we won't fund you.....but if you manage to prove us wrong and have some backing from elsewhere then maybe we will see you later( but make sure you get there before you are 25).

As has been pointed out this doesn't work for the men who typically take atleast 2 years longer to reach the same ranking level. There are 3 British men under 20 in the top 750 and they are all 19. There are 8 British women including 7 16-18 year olds. Under the new regime Liam Broady would not have got any bonuses for all the futures he played in the first half of this year, but look where he is now....( I am using Liam as an example - not sure if he actually does get money from the LTA but thats another story....)

Maybe a better solution would be to have say a 4 year funding window for futures and then a 5 year funding for 25k+/challengers for each player regardless of your age. The player can decide when they want to start applying for funding. This would also help those with injuries/career breaks as they will not be using up their time for funding, but still allow the LTA not to fund those playing futures for 10 years.

indiana · Tennis legend

Sim, Liam is a really excellent example ( and he does now take the LTA shillings ).

As would be a guy even a year or two older, just naturally breaking through later ( quite apart from such as college and injury considerations ) and over a less sudden period.

Clearly the same age considerations are not appropriate for men and women tennis players, more particularly at younger ages so by applying such an age limit they have put themselves in a bit of a tangle ( given also different age limits would also cause argument ). It surely makes sense to incentivise past 19 for futures success.

But then when you get fixated on such as age limits for bonuses and matrix age related funding ranking targets you do have anomalies with players just not 'fitting'. Best to avoid these where possible and reward similarly by results over a wider age range. And most of the world is aware that players can and do break through at older ages and reach quite high levels.

Spectator · All-time great

Good points, Sim. I was thinking more on the men's side - though this will hit women who decide to go to university ... which means de facto that you are having to make a decision about whether you'll go pro or not at 17 or so. Not much space for a Nicole Gibbs (or Beatrice Capra or Jamie Loeb, to name a few prominent recent juniors who have chosen the university route). In fairness, I can understand a cap on how long the LTA funds people playing at a given level ... but I like your idea of a funding "block" that could be applied at a time of your choice, with leeway for injury breaks.

I still think, though, that the weakness in the whole thing is the unwillingness to give players a way of supporting themselves, if they choose to do so. True, some of the Tour/Team funding winds up going to the older players who are winding down careers rather than starting them up ... but surely even their presence is a good thing in terms of what they can offer younger players by way of experience?

sherbert · Lower Club Player

I might be wrong here - but hadn't they may as well have just got rid of the bonus scheme with the changes that have been made? How many u19s are making quarters or better of futures? And how many u25s are making quarters of a challenger week in, week out?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

sherbert wrote:
I might be wrong here - but hadn't they may as well have just got rid of the bonus scheme with the changes that have been made? How many u19s are making quarters or better of futures? And how many u25s are making quarters of a challenger week in, week out?

I was thinking the same thing.

After all, much as we all seem to like the bonus scheme, and it makes sense, I can understand that Downey/Brett think that the proof of the pudding is that it (the bonus scheme and indeed everything else done in the last 10 years) doesn't work and so it's time for change.

And they might be right i.e. the effects of the new changes might be right (hindsight is a wonderful thing). (And seemingly ITF funding is going up so some of the argument for the bonus scheme is taken away).

But the message it sends out in the meantime is all wrong, and negative, and contrary to the stats and everything.

It would have been cleaner to abolish it all together and implement a different help strategy (albeit maybe a small one, as that is obviously their belief), rather than limit the existing one to such a small number of people that it becomes a joke. It's insulting.

As a separate point, the lack of communication with the clubs is dreadful, and the open letters of complaint seem fully justified. What are the head guys thinking of? As to Sean Thornley's point that nobody asks the players, well that is why Anne K and Jamie Baker and Katie O'Brian are on the Development Committee - to give a voice to players' concerns (although maybe they feel different allegiances now . . .)

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

The new TBS is a joke, as has been said. Not because of what it is, but because I don't see an ideology behind it, just somebody saying 'nerf the current TBS'. To what end? If you're looking to phase it out, just do so and usher its replacement. You're risking an 'early retirement' exodus either way, so just implement what you actually wish to implement.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/11305718/You-have-to-be-loaded-to-play-tennis-in-Britain-or-Andy-Murray.html

PaulM · Tennis legend

I am grateful to Simon Briggs for confirming to me on Twitter that the LTA doesn't believe in funding players who actually win matches every week. Thats not the sort of person we should be rewarding apparently.

Assuming the ITF circuit changes go through I would have left the scheme as it is and if they don't like it announce in the summer its being pulled completely for 2016 on the basis that prize money is going up and there will be a far bigger hospitality element (thus helping with one of the biggest cost factors at that level).