Emily Webley-Smith and Others

Spectator · All-time great

RE: Emily Webley-Smith and Others

Spectator · All-time great

Thank you, Kaseldop.

I tried to post a link to an article that this discussion was making me think of. The article is by Harry Eyres, who writes for the FT at weekends. He's writing about amateurs (google Eyres FT amateur and you'll get there) but his point about a pyramid of engagement seems both relevant to the general discussion we have about public participation in sport (amateurs do matter!) and also makes me wonder whether the tendency of professional tennis to steer everything towards top-100 or so players and assume that nothing else really matters is one reason why tennis doesn't have as much traction as some other sports. If you make it just about the superstars; if you cut out the local matches that people can go see near their home; if it becomes just something on TV except for a fortunate few, it loses that sense of being something real people do, and do professionally or semi-professionally. Maybe making the ITFs a little more of a living-wage proposition, or having some sort of club tennis system here, too, would make sense.

-- Edited by Spectator on Tuesday 9th of July 2013 03:30:41 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Peter too wrote:
Some years ago research on pay and expenses concluded that a British women needed to be in the top 120 to make a living from prize money alone. With inflation I assume the break point would now be closer to top 100. That would suggest that for most years in the last 20, no British woman was earning a living from prize money alone.

Presumably this was before the LTA top-up scheme was introduced ?

I know that it doesn't work miracles or get round the problem of how to fund/support young - or older - players coming up (and could obviously be rescinded tomorrow so can't be counted on in the same way as prize money) but it will have made a big difference to the general calculation.

korriban · Challenger level

Coup Droit wrote:
Peter too wrote:
Some years ago research on pay and expenses concluded that a British women needed to be in the top 120 to make a living from prize money alone. With inflation I assume the break point would now be closer to top 100. That would suggest that for most years in the last 20, no British woman was earning a living from prize money alone.
Presumably this was before the LTA top-up scheme was introduced ?

I know that it doesn't work miracles or get round the problem of how to fund/support young - or older - players coming up (and could obviously be rescinded tomorrow so can't be counted on in the same way as prize money) but it will have made a big difference to the general calculation.

Very true. But thinking about players from all round the world, most them probably don't have this level of funding support (Jerzy J is a good example), This really brings home the need for a step-up in Futures prizemoney, to reduce losses over an increasingly long transition period.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes, but Jerzy may well be considered an example of the opposite argument - i.e. a guy who received zero funding who (therefore?) fought his way out of the Futures and into big money tennis ASAP.

I do think that the Futures should have increased the prize money in line with inflation but i agree with Steven;s point that it is not the aim of the ITF futures to enable players to live as Futures player professionals. Steven quoted top 300 being their aim.
It would be hard to say that top level tennis suffers because players ranked 500 cannot afford to live for more than a few of years at that ranking.

And I think that the 'transition period' (which has definitely got longer) may well get shorter again, not with top players becoming younger again but with players starting later. The 'College' argument (or such like) may become increasingly popular.

Just worth pointing out too, that most top 300/200 players also play league tennis which pays pretty well and, certainly in France, Spain, Italy, it is the norm for players to live at home and receive a high level of family support (even from families of modest means).
It's the same for all grown children, tennis or not. i.e. French students are often at uni (or equivalent) for 4 - 5 years. Fees can be practically zero or can be really high (depending on public or private). There are no grants for living expenses. As such, families take loans, or pay, or kids go to local unis and live at home. So supporting tennis playing kids is no different. It's what parents have to do. And with club support, local sponsors and some FFT kicked in, it works pretty well, even for the lower ones.

korriban · Challenger level

I completely agree that players should not be able to carve out a profitable career in Futures only (I think I made this point in an earlier post), and I do think that a break even "tipping point" at about 250-300 sounds about right. Where I think we all agree is that the currenlt levels of prizemoney in Futures are completely out of date. Perhaps there is an argument for keeping the $10k events, but raising the bar from $15k to $20k and $30k events which should be enough to attract higher ranked players and make them much more competitive. The current situation means that, depending on time of year and geographic location, some $10k events are more competitive than $15k+H events......compare the Florida clay court events in January to this week's Italian futures. Either way, 20 years worth of inflation needs to be clawed back!!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yep, it should most certainly have been put up with inflation !

Does anyone know if there's been a specific, stated reason why it hasn't been ?

Spectator · All-time great

OK, kind statisticians and economists ... if we were to go back to the point when 10Ks became 10Ks and then adjust for inflation, what would a 10K now be? Would be interesting to know.

kaseldop · Social player

On one inflation calculating site it has £10,000 in 1993 as worth £14,242 as today's worth. So I suppose a 45-50% increase would be reasonable.

philwrig · Hall of fame

kaseldop wrote:
On one inflation calculating site it has £10,000 in 1993 as worth £14,242 as today's worth. So I suppose a 45-50% increase would be reasonable.

That must be calculated using a very low inflation rate around say 2%, when during those 20 years rates probably would have varied and possibly been nearer 4 or even 5 at times, implying a higher value than 14k.

kaseldop · Social player

Hi, yes I thought it maybe a little low. So another site calculates from 1993 to the present the inflation rates are at 72.55%.

Which if I understand it right means that 10k now equals 17,255.

Peter too · Tennis legend

I live in Southern England and have no ITF or WTA event within 50 miles of where I live. There are two $10K venues about 60 miles away, one has now started to run a $25K as well as a $10K event. It doesn't do much to encourage me to go and watch live tennis, though I have been to both venues. It means that I watch most tennis on TV and my computer screen.

Commentators keep asking why we don't have as many people entering the sport as other countries and the answer must be "because we do very little to encourage them". We need more clubs that youngsters can afford to join, more venues where youngster can go to watch their local stars play and enough prize money at the lower levels to encourage youngsters to give it a go. At present it looks like a sport where you are unlikely to have a future unless you start out with the physique of a Serena Williams.

Sim · County player

Why are the futures tournaments named after the prize money?

ATP events are named after the points the winner gets. If Futures followed this policy so had F24 for example then would be easier to adjust the prize money and not use it as an excuse to leave it the same for years

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Well, this might be one reason why the ITF doesn't have the funds to increase the prize pot . . .

www.itftennis.com/about/news/video/video-2013-itf-agm-gala-dinner.aspx

www.itftennis.com/about/news/articles/versailles-venue-wows-centenary-agm.aspx

Shhh · Challenger level

So where does the prize fund for a futures event come from? In GB there is usually just a smattering of spectators (often free entry) so where does the money come from? Is it the ITF, the countries gov body, the venue.........a mixture of these???

Why do some countries often stage 20+ for the year (Jamaica in the past, Turkey this year) can they make money from holding them............if so how? I haven't a clue how this works.