Murray's suggestion on Futures Prize Money

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

RE: Murray's suggestion on Futures Prize Money

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I was reading about the Grand Slam Development Fund., which is the money that the Grand Slam tournaments donate to help tennis in 'non-tennis' countries. Below is a link to the official description and a more blog-style page, and a specific one about some South African players which lists some interesting details - I thought the coaching courses sounded particularly useful.

http://www.itftennis.com/development/about-development/grand-slam%C2%AE-development-fund.aspx

www.tennisgrandstand.com/tag/grand-slam-development-fund/

www.tennisworldusa.org/South-African-Juniors-named-For-International-Tennis-Team-articolo17454.html

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Tuesday 3rd of June 2014 07:58:31 AM

Wakey · Junior player

BeefyDeedz wrote:
My presumption was always that if tennis was a sport with the demand and investment of football, then the futures would indeed have higher prize funds. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seemed simple enough that demand fuels supply and if we're talking about raising Futures prize pots by 5K and loads of Futures disappearing, then there isn't enough demand for the kind of raises. If the top players, or indeed, tennis federations, want to subsidise higher prize pots then be my guest but doesn't it gloss over bigger issues within the sport?

The demand in football outside the UK however isn't as high outside the top flight. With the proposed B Team idea in English football one of the things those against it keep bringing up against is the attendance figures in leagues with B Teams. Its not however that there's no demand to watch B Teams, there's no demand for non top flight football in the majority of countries outside the uk. The second tier attendances across Europe (and the world) are generally lower than 4th tier matches in a England and the reason for that IMHO is that while we see these lower tiers as worthwhile and important in these other countries they are seen as meaningless.

And I think this is where tennis has the same problem. Players outside the top50 are seen as poor and meaningless let alone outside top100 or lower. The media helps reinforce this with its lack of coverage outside the ATP/WTA but so do the governing bodies and the tournaments themselves. Maybe bringing more tournaments under the ATP/WTA banner would help a bit as terms like Challengers and Futures have a negative connotation to them and make them sound inferior to say calling them something like a ATP50 event. As someone else said here dropping the money amount from the name would also help as the figures just sound small time. More money subsidised by the other higher profile tournaments may also help free players to play more expressive and watchable tennis, its not indicative of entertaining tennis when just to cover the costs of playing the tournament requires getting through atleast the first round. It turns players into 'grinders' aiming to win just enough matches to keep going another year without any 'flair' Its no surprise that we get players like Ward who when the pressure off can play high level, entertaining tennis but week by week can't do that as he gets stuck in a rut trying to grind out a win or two every week.

But ultimately tennis needs a rebrand from top to bottom with more effort to raise the awareness and profile of the lower tournaments and the players so that the perception that lower level tennis is worthless can be broken down

EddietheEagle · County player

Coup Droit wrote:
I was reading about the Grand Slam Development Fund., which is the money that the Grand Slam tournaments donate to help tennis in 'non-tennis' countries. Below is a link to the official description and a more blog-style page, and a specific one about some South African players which lists some interesting details - I thought the coaching courses sounded particularly useful.

http://www.itftennis.com/development/about-development/grand-slam%C2%AE-development-fund.aspx

www.tennisgrandstand.com/tag/grand-slam-development-fund/
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Which is simply another, more diplomatic, way of expressing what I wrote in the post above:-
"The money in tennis is mainly controlled by four grand slam tournaments, one of which was half-owned by the LTA until it gifted their (our?) rights away. That's where the money is made and needs to come from. The trouble is at the moment they're all hell bent on building mass-market amusement parks."
Murray and colleagues ought to think about applying the pressure through their respective player organisations - the WTA and ATP - rather than donate through their own prizes. At the moment, four small groups of people have a stranglehold on the bulk of money in tennis. The situation is further complicated here in that control is now held by a private company - the All England - that need pay no heed to wider public interest or the need for transparency. The LTA up to recently had a 50% say in all of this but true to form, gave it all away in a cheap deal.

Ratty · County player

These are worthy objectives, but it's trying to make water flow uphill.

In most countries, with the solitary exception of soccer, almost all sports fans are only interested in the big events. For example, Rugby champions Saracens' average crowd last season was only 10,000 (about the same as the worst attended teams in soccer's old 2nd division), and for most sports you can't give away tickets to the bread-&-butter matches.

I speculate (again smile ) that most people go to events so that they can be part of an "experience". "I saw Dan Cox winning the Futures final in Sunderland yesterday" doesn't really have the same water-cooler appeal of "I saw Andy Murray at Wimbledon yesterday".

And yet ... the aficionados of all sports have this mantra that if only the governing body could get their act together, then their sport could share in the soccer gold-mine.

It ain't gonna happen.

EddietheEagle · County player

The topic was one of funnelling more money down to the lower reaches of the game to help aspiring professionals, not about the creation of soccer-style gold mines. The issue concerns a fairer distribution of what's already in the game. Compared with say cycling or squash, tennis is actually quite a rich sport.

indiana · Tennis legend

Personally, in most sports, little beats the 'experience' of being there, and nothing to do with water cooler appeal, but personal experience for myself at the time and my memories.

Of course, sometimes even if readily able to attend I would choose to watch on TV, eg. the final round of British Open golf - to get the full ongoing picture.

I have been a sports nut from a very early age and watched loads on TV, but later on I have really valued the experiences of going to many live sporting events and travelling to follow St Mirren, which is more an experience than an event ! - although I agree that football ( hmm, soccer ) is rather different.

I am sure I am very far from alone, so maybe it's partly your all pervading cynical eye playing a part in your thoughts, though no doubt it aoplies to some. I suspect most though are there simply because they want to be.

How successful it is possible to be in garnering more interest and support for tennis, who knows, but if you don't appear to actively try to garner more support, then it isn't going to happen.

paulisi · Tennis legend

It's the same in all sports. Those at the bottom get little, those higher up get more.

Take football for instance - there seems to be more and more local non-league teams folding or dropping to amateur status, because of financial pressures

A lot of golfers will not turn pro due to the initial set up costs of doing so, unless they are high profile and get sufficient sponsorship - Gary Wolstenholme was a prime example

Nothing will change in the UK until there is a major change in how society perceives the potential

The US is slightly different as college sport is highly appreciated and watched and sponsorship opportunities come because the college sportman get more of a profile

indiana · Tennis legend

Do you just wait for society to somehow come round, and wait, and ...

Or do you try to at least drum up a modicum of interest in say the Edinburgh futures.

Couple of dozen folk for most of a day watching QFs and SFs. Entertaining and watchable tennis from a good standard of players making their way up the world rankings.

I saw or heard nothing locally that the event even existed. Hopefully there was at least some mention in the local evening paper.

Where is the effort to engage folk, encourage them along, maybe like it and want to come again, maybe in time make some events attractive enough that it is realistic to charge some admittance ? Get not just more fans, but possibly more youngsters without tennis roots interested in playing ?

The LTA and in this case Tennis Scotland could do so much more. It's not as if we have loads of pro events in Scotland. Perhaps, build a day / week around it with other activities and indeed maybe non tennis related.

Try !

paulisi · Tennis legend

I thoroughly agree Indiana - however i've seen this fall over many times due to the way people misunderstand standards and perceived images

A very good example is women's football - in that most regular supporters of top flight clubs will not go and watch women's football as they think they will get laughed at by their mates and the standard will be very poor. Same with local non league football and presumably tennis. i.e if i've not heard of them then they are not very good.

The press would be an ideal place to start promoting, but it will be very hard to push without a big name.

I'm sure if Heather Watson would have played at Nottingham this week, it would have put another 200-300 on the gate (Flintoff has put 5000 on the gate tomorrow for the cricket)

Josh · Challenger level

I'm not so sure, Flintoff's return has been all over the news and I don't think I've seen or heard a single (national) press report from Nottingham.

People probably didn't even know Heather was due to play.

indiana · Tennis legend

I rather agree Josh. A few more if Heather played ? Probably. 100s ? - I'd say extremely fanciful, and only remotely likely if a big public deal was made of Heather playing.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Re funding in general rather than specific prize money but:

does anyone know anything about 'Point to Prove'?

"PTP is an innovative and exciting Tennis Management Agency created to seek out sources of financial sponsorship for young professional tennis players."

They seem to have Lucy, Neil Pauffley, Ash Hewitt, Amy Bowtell and Richard Gabb on their books - the twitter account only activated a few hours ago, seemingly, so they must be new ?

Anyway, if they can help our lower players find some extra sponsorship then all power to them !!!!

Website is up and running - interesting Bio's. Looks like it is a creation of Lucy Brown and her family.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Thanks, Paulisi - interesting.

I think PTP should realise though that if, in June 2014, they put up bios which say that, for instance, Ash's goal is to try and make the Wimbledon qualifiers this year when, in fact, only two weeks ago, he didn't even sign in for the play-offs but went to the US instead, then it doesn't inspire a great deal of faith - their info should at least be up-to-date at the moment they post it.

It doesn't look professional.

(I also don't think that stating that their players must all have an excellent junior ranking/history in order to be selected is a good selling point but this is more subjective and other people will see that differently).

I wish them luck though.

Ratty · County player

I have to agree with you that the website is amateurish.

Also, it's pretty clear from the history of previous efforts by low-ranked players to obtain meaningful amounts of sponsorship that they are doomed to failure. I'm just not getting what benefit sponsoring an unknown tennis player can bring to a business.

(Yes, of course I know that once-in-a-blue-moon a combination of (i) a successful businessman and (ii) a tennis fanatic will come along and buck the trend! But although A1 may get a tax deduction for sponsoring Marcus Willis - although if I was their tax inspector I think I'd try to disallow it - I doubt whether their sales have increased.)