Week 43 - Challenger ($50,000) - Melbourne, Australia (Hard)

paulisi · Tennis legend

Week 43 - Challenger ($50,000) - Melbourne, Australia (Hard)

Salmon · Tennis legend

Week 43 - $50,000 challenger, Melbourne (hard)

TMH · Futures qualifying

Given James' recent form I can't say I'm too optimistic about this R1 match - that's a tough draw.

Very winnable match for Klein though.

Spectator · All-time great

I wouldn't have said that either match-up was a great one.

On the other front, presumably, although you don't have to pay tax in Australia, UK players will still have to pay tax on their earnings in Britain. I would assume that most major tennis nations have mutual tax treaties, which mean that if you are a UK player and pay tax on earnings in - say - France, you then don't get taxed on that income in the UK (below a certain level). So there may not be any particular gain or loss on paying in-country. Though equally there might be - the detail is always key. Have long felt that working out tennis players' tax arrangements must be the stuff of a tax lawyer's dreams ... and everyone else's nightmares.

steven · Tennis legend

RE: Week 43 - Challenger ($50,000) - Melbourne, Australia (Hard)

Salmon · Tennis legend

Did Venus play for Australia at any point of time?? I do remember that he played for the USA in his salad days.

steven · Tennis legend

You're right - he never played for Australia. I knew he had switched nationality but I thought it was from AUS not USA - I was probably thrown by the fact that he played a number of Brits a few years ago in Australia.

Spectator · All-time great

Another Davis Cup-motivated switch, I think.

indiana · Tennis legend

Really ? I didn't know that Davis Cup was such a motivation, certainly to switch countries.

I can understand the real pride in winning for what is undoubtably your true country ( eg. the Spanish and Serbs ), but otherwise...

wolf · Tennis legend

Bogomolov? Levine? Delic? Huey?

Ratty · County player

Spectator wrote:
On the other front, presumably, although you don't have to pay tax in Australia, UK players will still have to pay tax on their earnings in Britain. I would assume that most major tennis nations have mutual tax treaties, which mean that if you are a UK player and pay tax on earnings in - say - France, you then don't get taxed on that income in the UK (below a certain level). So there may not be any particular gain or loss on paying in-country. Though equally there might be - the detail is always key. Have long felt that working out tennis players' tax arrangements must be the stuff of a tax lawyer's dreams ... and everyone else's nightmares.

A UK-resident player pays UK income tax on their worldwide earnings, after deduction of business expenses. Tax treaties between non-tax-haven countries usually give the jurisdiction in which the money is earned the primary taxing rights. The country in which the player lives will usually tax it as well, but will give a credit for the foreign tax paid.

Well, that's the theory anyway. It's hideously complicated, and not cost-effective for most tennis players to pay an accountant to sort it all out. (A lawyer would be no good - even they admit they're useless with figures.)

Ooh, I enjoyed that! smile

indiana · Tennis legend

OK, no idea about all these motivations, but fair enough if really Davis Cup motivated. I am still surprised.

LouieG · County player

Come on Ward

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

Come on Klein

Salmon · Tennis legend

I think it's just as relevant that by plying their trade for NZ, Venus and Sitak are presumably getting a greater amount of funding than what they got earlier. Plus they get wild cards at the Auckland event, so that helps to play the bills. NZ has about five people who do well at Futures level, so playing for them is a much better idea financially than being the 30th best American player at the age of 25.