Murray's suggestion on Futures Prize Money

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

RE: Murray's suggestion on Futures Prize Money

Oakland2002 · All-time great

Very interesting, and I think I see the value in both league tennis and the ITF in developing players at a number of levels.

Supporting a decent sized cohort of juniors to play in international tournaments is a necessity, the ITF facilitates their transition to elite tour professionals and they should be playing challengers at 21/22. I don't feel it is financially viable to support more than a couple of players a year (ie each birth cohort) although there has to be some flexibility if their is a big crop of outstanding youngsters, too good for US College tennis. (Just using that as a level as opposed to desired alternative route for touring pro).

Realistically there is very little interest from the general public at challenger level let alone futures, fiscally it's all about development and not providing a living for players ranked outside the worlds top 250. The LTA have their agenda as has been defined in previous posts, part of that is elite player development, ITF etc... And this appears fit for purpose for genuine top 50 prospects. The only way to find more is to get more people playing competitive tennis from more diverse backgrounds, here local league particularly at junior level and national leagues have a role.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Yeah, CD, my argument is with the LTA much more than with you.

A couple of crossed wires: I didn't mean to suggest that the Aegon Britthing is about "forming" Naomi or Freya - but that it pays them some cash, allowing them to stay in the business.

And I think your last sentence is entirely wrong, sorry. It's the ITF participation that leads to higher rankings, not the tennis. To stretch the point to absurdity, Freya could be playing at a level where she wins domestic trophies without dropping a point in the tournament, and her ranking would not improve.

In suggesting that the LTA should be running more ITFs, then using domestic tournaments as feeders to these, I'd really hope to erode the "distinction between the 'top' players and the 'rest'". Yeah, give the local keen amateurs a shot at the pros. Extend the rungs of the ladder downwards.

But where the rungs are now really missing, for me, is best illustrated by Freya's year so far...

www.wtatennis.com/players/player/21737/title/freya-christie

2 UK ITFs - 6 points, W/L 3/2, 5 days' accommodation to find, a couple of UK train fares - $600 to pay for it

RESULT: Buy a new pair of tennis shoes.

5 Far East ITFs - 6 points, W/L 10/5, 5 weeks' accommodation to find, a couple of UK train fares, 3 flights, 2 of which intercontinental - $800 to pay for it

RESULT: Tennis career over, if she's funding it herself. Get a job which pays minimum wage, hairdressing or waitressing, perhaps, and work on paying off your tennis debts.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

"And I think your last sentence is entirely wrong, sorry. It's the ITF participation that leads to higher rankings, not the tennis. To stretch the point to absurdity, Freya could be playing at a level where she wins domestic trophies without dropping a point in the tournament, and her ranking would not improve."

But W, to stretch the point to the other end of absurdity, Freya could enter 30 ITF tournaments a year, and not win a single match, and her ranking would also not improve.

I maintain that it is the tennis that matters because entering a tournament is easy - just do it.

Being able to win a match is the hard thing because playing good tennis isn't. (That's what takes the time and investment).

Which is why you get often get tennis players in EUrope who 'surprise' everyone and come through so quickly - take the Océane Dodin, example - no one knew her, thought she was WR 600 because that's what her ranking said she was, whereas everyone in France knew it was a nonsense ranking and a few months later she's top 150 because one of the first tournaments she entered, a 25K, she came qualis and made the finals. That's about tennis, not having an ITF tournament to enter (she could have chosen any other ITF event). (Pleased that Joko beat her though

)

The US college success stories are the same. Learn the tennis, then go out and ply your craft. They're not worse tennis players simply because they're only playing domestically. But the best ones will do better, quicker, in ATP rankings when they move over to pro stuff.

The French Freya will be earning no more than UK-Freya above. It's not the ITFs that pay her way at age 17. Nor should it be.

The FFT says, directly and indirectly, 'we will set up a system so that, up to age 21-22 or so, say, you have every opportunity possible to learn an excellent craft. We (again directly and indirectly) will pay for this. Now go out and earn your living.' It's like the state providing public universities and not expecting all 16 year-olds to go out and get a job and fund themselves. The LTA should be 'teaching' and 'forming' their best players until age 20-22 or so. (And this doesn't mean just giving them cheques or laying on competitions, although both things may have a role to play).

PaulM · Tennis legend

Pretty good interview with Eric Butorac on the latest No Challenges Remaining podcast

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I agree, the curriculum for the development of an elite tennis professional is broader in France than the UK. I do think that the way sport there is funded on a municipal level is very different from that in the UK, tennis has a higher profile, the weather is better as are the municipal tennis facilities and the social lives around them. That infrastructure around which team tennis is built I think is beyond the purse of the LTA and any team tennis here at a local level is predominantly private club based.

Such an overtly competencey based curriculum revolves around constant assessment and that is winning, where you win, assuming the level of competition is appropriate is irrelevant. Ultimately the capacity to earn a living on the ATP tour is determined by ranking points which are initially secured by winning in ITF tournaments. As it is competency based by definition, the timing of when a player starts playing in the ITF and for how long is based on the ability of the individual, those that are going to make an independant living ie top 150 players will have the capacity to rapidly accumulatte points in their teens.

Like any profession there is a period of learning the trade, be it an apprentiship, higher education or a doctorate etc.. Just to out this in context. How that is funded is usually down to the individual and his or her family or the employing organisation although mechanisms exist to pay for tuition and supplement living expenses this in the form of student loans.

Tennis is expensive and the risk versus likely reward differential very high. This does favour the affluent although modifying or finding a career in your mid twenties is probably the norm, how many people with Geography degrees are geographers (although some do teach it). Playing on the ITF is tough but there is plenty to learn not only about tennis but life in general that will set the individual up for a career, the popularity and revenue of the sport is such that it will only really sustain 300 singles players worldwide as elite touring professionals so perhaps 30 a year per birth cohort that's both sexes from all counties worldwide. It's a tough ask for any organisation, the rate limiting step is probably not how many ITFs you run but lon how many elite athletes you can bring into the sport. How you do that is as simple as squaring a circle,

PaulM · Tennis legend

ITF announce prize money increases.

Men:

$15k to become $25k and $10k to $15k in 2017.

Women:

$15k will go in 2016 and those tournaments need to offer $25k.

From 2017, $10k will need to offer $15k and categories will increase up to $100k becoming $125k

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

PaulM wrote:
ITF announce prize money increases.

Men:

$15k to become $25k and $10k to $15k in 2017.

Women:

$15k will go in 2016 and those tournaments need to offer $25k.

From 2017, $10k will need to offer $15k and categories will increase up to $100k becoming $125k

So in the mens, there will be NO increase until 2017 ?

wimdledont · Challenger level

The ITF's write-up is here...

www.itftennis.com/news/205070.aspx

While welcome, especially the introduction of low level+H category, its worth noting that, since they introduced 10ks in 1984, global inflation is around 300%. So a 10k purse in 1984 money would be worth 30k today.

Also that in 1984, a 10k winner earned about 1% of the Wimbledon champion's prize money; about £900 compared to £90,000 . Today, it's still £900, compared to £1.8M. That 0.05%.

Very disappointing if they intend to continue labelling them by total prize money. This means no future adjustment for inflation; and the same problem becomes certain to crop up again in future.

PaulM · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
PaulM wrote:
ITF announce prize money increases.

Men:

$15k to become $25k and $10k to $15k in 2017.

Women:

$15k will go in 2016 and those tournaments need to offer $25k.

From 2017, $10k will need to offer $15k and categories will increase up to $100k becoming $125k
So in the mens, there will be NO increase until 2017 ?

No, $15 to become $25k next year

Oakland2002 · All-time great

This strikes me as a reasonable approach, the rational for the ITF is in its name ie. "Futures tour" if you are still struggling to progress beyond that level after 3-4 years of trying then perhaps European league tennis or doubles is a reasonable way forward if you still want to play competitive professional tennis. A better funded ITF would just prolong the agony and create a pseudo tour that nobody watches. My interest is in watching and supporting young players progress. Older players do add a richness to the futures tour learning experience but I don't feel there is need of additional fiscal support to maintain this.

To be faiir to young players at all times the agenda should be making the athletes the best they can be while being honest as to how they will earn a living. Waking up early and smelling the coffee may quash a few dreams but if they want a career in tennis there is only one for for the top 300 singles players worldwide on the ATP tour if both sexes are combined.

I agree there should be a performance related bonuses and any move away from this principle is a negative one. The first year on the ITF and for teenagers it should be generous perhaps supplementing prize money to bring it back to 1984 levels (accounting for general inflation not that of elite sports players winnings). For players over 22, tournament wins only.

For graduates who do well in the U.S. college system although I personally think this is a low yield route for elite tennis players and the focus should be on developing elite coaches but if they rank in the NCAA top 50 singles at any point after their freshman year, it should be the same as an equivalent age group player if competing in ITF while at college ( upto 10k) and bonuses for one year for QF wins and better.

The reality and logistics of trying to administer such wishful thinking I am sure are well beyond the experience of posters such as myself but I think it is important to create an environment where dedication and success brings rewards, Kyle is already beginning to make a big dent in the investment made in him this year with winnings of close to \$66K in the first 4 months of this year and perhaps some more slam appearances to come on merit as opposed to wildcards. If the system of supporting future stars is working they should almost be ready to severe links by the time they are 22.

Creating a mechanism by which we can pluck elite tennis stars from trees given the funding available and ITF winnings is unrealistic and not what the ITF is designed for, all systems will have holes in them, the major one for UK tennis remains equity of access which is what we should really be debating if the agenda is to improve the number of elite athletes playing tennis. Focusing on how we fund what we have got is all well and good but let's face it, it is still what we have got.

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Thursday 7th of May 2015 04:42:02 PM

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Thursday 7th of May 2015 04:42:32 PM

-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 8th of May 2015 04:00:44 AM

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Couple of interesting facts (well, to me anyway) from the ITF report backing up their proposed changes.

The overall prize pot for ITF events had risen significantly from 2001, but the average earnings per player had not. This was due to the money being spread across a greater number of tournaments and a greater number of players participating. The majority of the extra tournaments were in Europe.

The average time taken from earning 1st ranking point to entering the top 100 in 2001 was 3.7yr for men and 3.4yr for women. In 2013 it was 4.8yr for men and 4.1yr for women.

The latter fact suggests how long the LTA should offer some kind of support, whether that first point comes as a 16yo, 18yo or after college, so long as there is demonstrable and steady upward progress.