British performance tennis..............what now?

Otto · Social player

British performance tennis..............what now?

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks very much Otto, very interesting to hear such thoughts from the inside and worrying.

I think you speak of the early elements of what many of us both logically and instinctively feared and have voiced these fears, but often with little real knowledge. The tournament structure changes and also the funding / bonus pool changes just surely pointed to consequences, some not at all good.

"... but now the guts have been ripped out of it"

"I have never known such a large amount of over 18s give up"

Worrying, very worrying. Are the LTA interested in retaining a real core of British players beyond juniors, from which some may be comparatively late bloomers ??

All we are saying is give them a chance !

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I feel for your argument, Otto, and Indy's 'give them a chance' argument.

But, if you were to argue the devil's advocate, the LTA might say they'd been giving them a chance, with the British tournament structure, for ages. And it hasn't worked.

The lack of successful players over the past 15 year, say, is staggering.

And after all, if the 10k system was effectively just helping foreign players and no UK players were coming through on the back of it (as witnessed by the numbers) then you can't really blame them. And, personally, I think the previous British Tour prize money was close to ridiculous.

Therefore, in and of itself, I have no problem with them changing the structure.

But my problem is I don't see what the 'new' system is??????

Otto · Social player

If having a professional domestic structure is wrong then France, Germany, Spain and Italy must all be wrong. Even Australia have invested in a strong money tour and seen the benefits.

In the UK we have been half hearted with tournaments for as long as I have been involved. The real failure in British tennis is the constant focus and money spent on training structures over the years.

It comes down to whether you believe training or competing is the catalyst for development. They are both important, but one drives the other.

indiana · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
I feel for your argument, Otto, and Indy's 'give them a chance' argument.

But, if you were to argue the devil's advocate, the LTA might say they'd been giving them a chance, with the British tournament structure, for ages. And it hasn't worked.

The lack of successful players over the past 15 year, say, is staggering.

And after all, if the 10k system was effectively just helping foreign players and no UK players were coming through on the back of it (as witnessed by the numbers) then you can't really blame them. And, personally, I think the previous British Tour prize money was close to ridiculous.

Therefore, in and of itself, I have no problem with them changing the structure.

But my problem is I don't see what the 'new' system is??????

Yes, I don't at all see what the 'new' system is either beyond make it tougher, which I would think is less likely rather than more likely to breed successful players.

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 30th of May 2015 12:24:44 PM

wimdledont · Challenger level

Hi Otto,

I can tell you what I think the problem is, and what I think could be the solution; though I have no suggestions of how to get from one to t'other.

The root problem is that the ITF entry-level tournaments (10ks) have not seen an increase in prize money since 1984 - while inflation over that period is 300% - so players are competing, for 1/3 of the money, in real terms.

If you throw in the cost of international travel and accommodation, it is just about impossible for players to maker a living. At a typical 10k, only the RU and the winner are not actually losing money, if they have to pay for flights and 7 nights accommodation. 30 players out of 32 lose money.

OTOH, UK players have an easy way to make a living from tennis. Retire, and take up coaching. Then, as the LTA isn't actually advertising any coaching jobs at present, I can't link to any, but coaching roles seem to pay somewhere between 30k-35k p.a., and come with the following attractive benefits...

jobs.lta.org.uk/templates/LTA/benefits.asp

Alternatively, in private employ, I speak in some ignorance, but I believe I've seen quoted that a good coach can charge £30 per hour. So an afternoon per day, 5 days a week, and you can earn £24,000 p.a.

That's more than the annual earnings of any UK female professional player made last year from playing at ITF level (ignoring WTA and Slams).

There's your problem.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Disagree about coaching. That is a fall back once your pro career has ended.

The major factors are:

Limited and poor scheduling of tournaments in the UK, especially Women's 10k's
The heavy promotion of US college tennis scholarships, which has taken a few of our better players away.
The lack of start up funding for players transitioning from juniors to main tour.
Excessive costs of overseas travel for tennis

The BT tour needed changing as too many former players were using it as a cash cow, whereas the aim some be to provide competitive tennis, a transition for juniors into seniors and a chance to get match fitness after injury or illness.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Hi paulisi,

I think that coaching should be a fall-back once your pro career has ended; as it is in other sports, such as football, cricket, rugby, or whatever you care to mention. Play the sport for twenty years, then move into coaching, for maybe another thirty years, until retirement.

The difference with UK tennis is that pro careers seem to last for about 4 years; followed by 40 years of coaching until retirement.

Oliver Golding being a recent example. I think it's a terrible shame he retired, but I can fully understand why.

The counter example being Naomi C, who was previously coaching; but has now returned to playing. In the second half of last year, during which time she was remarkably successful, and won 2 or 3 tournaments, she earned US7,768 in prize money...

britishtennis.activeboard.com/t59319073/gb-female-earnings-2014/

...which is about £5,000 - or about 1/3 of what she could have earned if working in a coaching job paying @£30k p.a.

Players' incomes, from the lowest tier events, have remained static for 30 years. In that time, the cost of everything else, including tennis coaching, has tripled.

The necessary final result of this is that, finally, there will be no players left to coach.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

wimdledont wrote:
Hi paulisi,

I think that coaching should be a fall-back once your pro career has ended; as it is in other sports, such as football, cricket, rugby, or whatever you care to mention. Play the sport for twenty years, then move into coaching, for maybe another thirty years, until retirement.

The difference with UK tennis is that pro careers seem to last for about 4 years; followed by 40 years of coaching until retirement.

I believe that the reason for this, it that in most sports, if you play to a decent level, playing is more profitable than coaching. So you play as long as you can and then resort to coaching afterwards.

Tennis is the reverse and this is the problem. Unless you are at the very top (eg Top150) coaching pays MORE than playing, particularly when you factor in the differences in expenditure. By this, I mean that coaches don't have costs running in to thousands for travel and hotel bills.

So whereas in other sports, players resort to coaching once their playing days are over, in tennis many are FORCED into coaching for financial reasons when they really want to still be playing on tour. It is for this reason that so many careers last for "about 4 years" as you put it.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

wimdledont wrote:
Hi Otto,

I can tell you what I think the problem is, and what I think could be the solution; though I have no suggestions of how to get from one to t'other.

The root problem is that the ITF entry-level tournaments (10ks) have not seen an increase in prize money since 1984 - while inflation over that period is 300% - so players are competing, for 1/3 of the money, in real terms.

If you throw in the cost of international travel and accommodation, it is just about impossible for players to maker a living. At a typical 10k, only the RU and the winner are not actually losing money, if they have to pay for flights and 7 nights accommodation. 30 players out of 32 lose money.

OTOH, UK players have an easy way to make a living from tennis. Retire, and take up coaching. Then, as the LTA isn't actually advertising any coaching jobs at present, I can't link to any, but coaching roles seem to pay somewhere between 30k-35k p.a., and come with the following attractive benefits...

jobs.lta.org.uk/templates/LTA/benefits.asp

Alternatively, in private employ, I speak in some ignorance, but I believe I've seen quoted that a good coach can charge £30 per hour. So an afternoon per day, 5 days a week, and you can earn £24,000 p.a.

That's more than the annual earnings of any UK female professional player made last year from playing at ITF level (ignoring WTA and Slams).

There's your problem.

Yes. But if you listen to the tournament director of Sharm on Naomi's blog, he makes it quite clear (and she completely agrees) that raising the prize money is going to have 100% the wrong effect.

They already have to pay 20k for a 10k tournament (on average). And get no funding (they have to pay the ITF 10%). Or sponsors of note (because of the level).

So it will force a lot of tournaments to shut. So less tournaments, higher standard of those that carry on, so far less money for the players and having to travel further so more expenses.

Naomi thinks it will be a disaster. The Sharm director says he will basically carry on (he's obviousy a wealthy man and a tennis nut and is bankrolling the whole thing) but knows a large number that won't.

So the players will be worse off.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Hi Bob,

That's pretty much exactly what I meant to say.

CD,

I think that he, Mr Mohamed Gazawy, is a most impressive man. Clearly has done wonders for both Egyptian tennis, and offers a great tournament, at non-exploitative prices, which obviate some of the need for players to be further crippled by air fares.

However, a semi-finalist at Sharm makes US$490 in prize money, minus 20% tax (US$98), leaving US$392.

The cost of full board for seven nights, in a double room, @US$65pppn is US$450.

So only the RU and the winner are actually "professional" tennis players, in the sense that they are earning their living, that week. The Jolie Ville Golf Resort is making a handsome profit from all the remainder. A considerable portion of the budget is currently coming from the pockets of the players - 30 out of 32 of whom are out of pocket, to varying degrees.

And I think that the proposed 50% prize money increase will not affect Mr Gazawy that badly. Prize money, as he says, is only half of his costs. So the cost of a tournament only rises from US$20k to US$25k (25%) - while his clients/customers (the players) end up with 50% more money to invest in their careers. He can expect bigger fields for qualifying, after the increase.

I haven't actually checked, but I think that Katie Swan, for example, will have failed to win enough money, not only to make a living, but even to pay her own share of the hotel bill, based on her sharing a double room, over her 3 weeks in Sharm. Should she retire?

But all of the above is kinda repeating things I have noted on other threads, or in comments on Naomi's blog.

Katie will probably not have been sharing a double room, you'd hope, unless whichever LTA coach travelled with her was female. A coach who, pro-rata @£30k p.a., earned a salary of approximately US$3,000 for this 3 week period, plus all expenses for this trip, plus a range of competitive benefits, as per the link above in this thread. Much more than the winner of the tournament would take home, and clearly then, the envy of 32 of the 32 players.

-- Edited by wimdledont on Thursday 28th of May 2015 11:58:26 PM

paulisi · Tennis legend

However, if you are good enough, you pick up points quickly and move up to the next levels where the prize money is more suitable.

If you are not competitive(not made SF) at 10K for 9-12 months then you should not have ambitions to play the tour long term except in exceptional circumstances(injury prone/transitioning from junior to senior)

wimdledont · Challenger level

So spend a year of your life playing ITF 10ks - do better than you (paulisi) suggest, and make SFs every week - W/L record 3/1 - collect 4 ranking points each week - somehow find the extra US$60 you need each week to pay your bed and board, to Mr Gazawy, or his friends. Rise to around 450 in the WTA rankings, with your 16x4=64 ranking points; and that makes you ranked around WR450.

Is WR450 good enough to get you a direct entry to a tournament where the prize money is more suitable? No.

Is WR450 good enough to get you a whole new career, if only you will stop trying to play tennis, and you hold a UK passport, can pass a CRB check, and where, instead of operating at a loss, you are suddenly earning £30k p.a.? Yes, if only you will...

Retire!

Loads of money then, if you start coaching. An earlier thread under this sub-heading established that the UK ITF women have so far seen £8,650 to split between 30 of them so far this year in Tournament Bonus Scheme payouts, whereas there is a further £1,991,350 to split between coaches and facilities, on the most charitable possible interpretation of the budget. Plenty of room for more coaches, and ever more excellent facilities for them to enjoy.

(And given that there are now virtually no ITF tournaments in this country, coaches can now be fairly much guaranteed free rein of the facilities, as players need to be in another country to pursue a playing career. There is statistically very little chance that the peace of the 19 HPCs could ever be shattered by the appearance of 38 players - because there aren't 38 players.)

This, of course, constitutes excellent "investment" in the future of British Tennis - we now have the best coaching and the best facilities in the world. If only we could get rid of the £8,650 "wasted" on helping people continue to play the sport, it would doubtless get better still?

P.S. Still on "problem" here. Further thoughts on "possible solution" to follow. Still no road map from one to t'other...

Otto · Social player

So to recap, there seem to be a few issues here.

1 - Do the British players that are clearly never going to be top 200 (or top 1000 for that matter) especially the ones with poor attitudes, deserve to win prize money?

2 - Would the creation of the strongest, richest and most professional domestic structure in Europe make any difference to the amount of top 100 players we produce.

3 - What is the solution to the cost of playing international ITF 10k events for British players, and is there a possible advantage in the prize money being so low?

Discuss........

(Careful there are 2 trick questions here).

paulisi · Tennis legend

If you are ambitious and believe you can make it, you will find ways to fund your career. Whether that be European team tennis, private sponsorship, part time coaching etc
10ks are not designed to fund a professional career, they are there as a first stepping stone into the professional world.

So- are GB players less ambitious or do we just have a cycle of average players coming through(especially boys)?