Murray's suggestion on Futures Prize Money

wimdledont · Challenger level

RE: Murray's suggestion on Futures Prize Money

philwrig · Hall of fame

wimdledont wrote:
Wimbledon CEO, Philip Brook, quoted in the original piece on this thread, seems to have forgotten all this, and is doing the opposite - yet more money from them for the global elite...

www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/28/wimbledon-prize-money-increase-27m

Ahh the same old Mr Brook I got mixed up with earlier this year.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Chatting to Marcus about prize money etc yesterday. In his final in Mostoles yesterday, he was basically playing for 300 euros - the difference between the winners (700) and finalists (400) prize money. Yet for his French League match today, he was receiving 1200 euros, just for playing. Is it any wonder that many players plan their schedule around such things rather than purely targeting ranking points.

Clearly Marcus is very grateful for the support he gets from Gary and he is very aware that most other players in his position aren't so lucky as to have such a sponsor. But he also mentioned that by his calculation, the scrapping of the LTA Performance Bonus has cost him 3500 pounds so far this year and this is affecting his tournament choices.

We spoke about the rise in Futures prize money due to kick in next year. He said "I'll believe it when I see it." I tend to agree with him.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

it's a good point, Bob.

Just to add, there was an interview recently with a French player - can't find it now, think it was Rodrigues - currently ranked about WR 650, got to a high of about WR 210 - (but might have been another one, of about the same profile)

He's 29 and said that, in order to live, he played League tennis in France, Germany and Italy. Every year. Couldn't survive without. He knew it wasn't perfect for his ATP pro plans and tournaments but had no choice.

I thought it showed good commitment, and what people have to do when they get no funding.

But also, as you say, the strange imbalance between European league tennis money pots (no TV rights, very local, mixed level) and ITF - supposedly the feeder to the very top world level.

Marcus plays for Capdenac, a small town in the Aveyron (about 5,000 people?). They're in Division 3, so about 140th in the country. And still pay him 1200 euros ! (plus some travel, I'd imagine).

It's very strange . . .

Born2WinTennis · Club Coach

1200 per match, wow that is serious money! With sponsorship at the level required to cover those type of match fees it wouldn't be inconceivable that you could put a European Team league together. A premier division with the best club or regional teams from UK, France, Italy, Germany...

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Born2WinTennis wrote:
1200 per match, wow that is serious money! With sponsorship at the level required to cover those type of match fees it wouldn't be inconceivable that you could put a European Team league together. A premier division with the best club or regional teams from UK, France, Italy, Germany...

Strange thing is, the same thought of a European League also occurred to me. But when I thought about it, the national league is already affecting players involvements in ITF/ATP tournaments and increasing the time commitment by moving on to a European League would only further disrupt peoples schedules. Whilst the ATP and ITF have their faults, I still see it as the pinnacle that everyone with ambition should be striving for. Offering alternatives with decent money would detract from that.

What also occurred to me after reading Gary's comments re players playing French League and leaving him (and the other teams) short of players, would it not be possible to reschedule the British League for another time of the year so that the dates didn't clash ? From CDs comments, the French League is only May + 1st week in June. That leaves plenty of weekends at other times of the year for British league matches.

On the one hand, I could understand people saying that the British League schedule shouldn't be dictated by what goes on in France, but on the other hand, if it can't compete on financial terms and is losing the involvement of players, it should do whatever it can to ensure that those best players are available when the matches are being played. Otherwise, sponsors such as Gary are going to get disillusioned very rapidly and will likely be lost to the sport.

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Those that compete in the Aegon league tend to be at the lower level of pro players. The window chosen for the league falls into a fairly quiet time in the calendar for this type of player. Once summer is here, there are far more futures on all over Europe and that is when it is easier for those players to be accepted and move through the draws picking up points. They would be unlikely to want to play Aegon league in preference.

philwrig · Hall of fame

I have a sneaky feeling that the LTA will reassess the bonus scheme decision and also the number of tournaments held in this country at the end of the year.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

philwrig wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that the LTA will reassess the bonus scheme decision and also the number of tournaments held in this country at the end of the year.

I guess they will want to know exactly what the ITF is doing re increased prize money before making any decisions of that nature.

philwrig · Hall of fame

Bob in Spain wrote:
philwrig wrote:
I have a sneaky feeling that the LTA will reassess the bonus scheme decision and also the number of tournaments held in this country at the end of the year.
I guess they will want to know exactly what the ITF is doing re increased prize money before making any decisions of that nature.

I also think they may realise what a shocker of a decision it was in the first place. I was speaking to the groundsman at Newcastle last week and he did hint the tournament could be back on the schedule next year.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Personally, I can't much see the point of British Tour/European Tour events. I think that the LTA would do better to see the lack of domestic competition as one less area they have to support, so they could afford to spend more cash, resources and man(person)power on staging loads more ITF tournaments.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Wimdledont - I agree that there's no point in trying to emulate the European league events just for the sake of it - for whatever reasons, maybe we just don't seem to have the infrastructure or number of players or club culture or whatever . . .

But there's no point just putting on more ITFs when we only have about 15-20 players of the right level.

More tournaments will not miraculously make more players.

Yes, a few will get a few extra points, but that won't make them any better as such. All that will happen is that either (a) a foreign contingent will come and camp here to pick up easy points or (b) the 15-20 UK players will share the points amongst themselves, go up the rankings artificially and get thrashed when they play elsewhere.

The point of league tennis has nothing to do with making top pro players. The FFT are completely disinterested in that as far as league tennis is concerned.

The point is to provide competition for all layers of players, as their federation duty, to their paying members (i.e. you and me - or our French equivalents).

Although only the national top 300 teams (x 2 for each sex) or so get mentioned here, league tennis goes right down to the unranked or 10.2. guys who can barely get the ball over the net. There about 4,000-5,000 teams, with 6-8 players per team, say. They are members too. By doing this you broaden the base, get more players, more interest, more sponsorship etc. etc. etc. And so now you have a whole tennis industry and culture, not just 15-20 decentish players.

The LTA have to lay on competition for all, that's what makes a national sport, and not a leisure pastime for the masses and a touch of competition for the elite. How they do it, or when (as Bob says) is up to them to choose.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Hi CD,

Yes, the French system sounds much healthier; and actually I've expressed myself badly above. What I'd like to see the LTA do, as I was saying on an earlier thread, is lay on a load of ITFs, in a series of regional seasons; and then have local tournaments in advance, with an incentive for the winners of local competitions to get either QWCs or MDWCs to the ITFs. To take the tabula rasa and design a whole system of domestic competition that feeds seamlessly into the world of professional tennis... package the whole thing as a "Road to Wimbledon"... so if you're in Round 2 of your local park competition, you can clearly understand that you're just 34 rounds short of making the Wimbledon final.

I agree that if there were a lot more ITFs, you would get a foreign contingent camped over here, looking for easy points; at least initially. But our players would go up the rankings, slowly but surely, without having to bankrupt themselves with foreign travel and accommodation costs.

And, those that did well enough to take to the ITF tour could do so with the advantage of higher rankings. For instance, after the recent ITF 25k women's Barnstaple, 4 of our not-that-great-yet women got an extra 18 doubles ranking points apiece for making the semis. If they now travel abroad in the next 12 months, probably to try 10k qualies, they're much more likely to also get accepted to play doubles too.

In time, I think you'd attract, and retain, enough UK talent to make the pickings a little leaner for the foreign contingent. Certainly, French ITFs don't provide easy pickings - but if you look at the WTA list, selecting "France"...

www.wtatennis.com/singles-rankings

...only 4 in the top 100 (but then France doesn't have many WTA events), but dozens and dozens and dozens to fill up the acceptance list on any ITF from 10k thru 100k+H. France hosts dozens of ITFs. Italy, ditto. USA has both loads of ITFs, and loads of WTAs, and has both 13 women in the top 100, and scores of ITF competitors all the way down. There are certainly several of the top 100 US women who imho would not be ranked that high if they were any other nationality - who have 'gone up the rankings artificially, and get thrashed when they play elsewhere'. Well done, the USTA! That's their job.

I agree that any future plans must wait until after the ITF proposals, promised for March 2015 IIRC, have actually seen the light of day.

-- Edited by wimdledont on Tuesday 5th of May 2015 08:01:39 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

You're arguing on a use of funds. Which makes sense.

But my point would be, wimbly, that French league tennis doesn't cost the FFT a penny.

All they do is provide cups for winner and host a few drinks receptions to present them. And pay for an admin person or two to monitor results (as part of their bigger job).

And clubs pay an entry fee so, given the huge number of teams entered, it covers itself handsomely.

So it's not a question of not doing team tennis so you've got more funds for more ITF etc.

League tennis is free. Even profitable for the FFT. So why wouldn't you run it? Or something like?

And I don't think the federation's job is to get a few people up the rankings.

Those people are not their stakeholders.

The normal player is their main stakeholder and so they should, first and foremost, provide a service to them.

Forming elite players is a sub-section of their job. Because the main stakeholders want them to and will benefit.

wimdledont · Challenger level

For me, it is an important sub-section; and what I'm suggesting above is that if the LTA were providing plenty of entry-level ITF events, this also could provide incentives for those at domestic levels of competition. I believe I saw a budget sheet somewhere that said that the LTA thinks it is spending about £10M on "elite player development" - out of a total budget of about £70M annually. Certainly some of the Wimbledon profits is specifically passed to the LTA to develop UK pro talent. Money from Sport England to increase participation should be reserved for ordinary players, or stakeholders.

I strongly suspect though, that of the above £10M, only around 1% ever finds its way anywhere near the pockets of any professional player, of whatever nationality. The rest being spent on largely empty facilities - 19 HPCs, without 38 players to play a match in each? - or to coaches - i.e. ex-professional players, who could only afford to play the ITF tour for 4 years, and have to find 40 years employment until retirement.

The situation in football, say, where a player is playing for 20 years, from 16 to 35, then maybe coaching from 35 to 65, is where tennis should be aiming. To get to that, UK players would need a lot more domestic tournaments; and for me it would be better if these were meaningful in international terms - ITFs. And if there are domestic tournaments, they are ITF feeders. If these ITF feeders are team competitions, like the Euroleague, okay. If they're profitable, great.

But currently, the Aegon thingy, in which I take little interest, admittedly, just seems to me like a road to nowhere. Naomi Broady turns up sometimes, and wins if she does. Freya Christie, if she's not around. But where does it get them? They get cash, but no credit.

If Freya were French, I'd imagine she would be several hundred WTA rankings higher, and much more able to continue to fund her tennis career, just by playing domestic ITFs. Rather less hypothetically, if K.... S... were American, but lets not go there, until the inevitable has actually happened. "Good sportsmanship award", my foot. Surprised the USTA didn't throw in a "cutest smile" award too. "Most likely to accept a green card", more like. The LTA has very, very little to offer her. Remove the opportunities for everybody else, and you remove the opportunities for everybody.