What she doesn't say is top 100 guaranteed four paydays of min £29K+ in the GS plus doubles money potentially £4,500+ min. So as long as you stay in the top 100 you are laughing financially. The big pressure is staying in the top 100.

Most WTA main draws are all paid for so it gets cheaper to play the tour once you are in.

Money shouldn't be too big a factor at this level as long as you can stay at this level.

That's why Naomi B made a big deal of this as she knew her prize money would increase and her costs would decrease, thus taking the financial burdens away.

I think, paulisi, that she's saying precisely what you are - namely, that when you're barely around top-100 level, the huge pressure is to make the Slams:

"And then there is the other side of "barely Top 100" that very few actually see. There are the qualifying round losses where I actually lose money on the flights, hotel rooms, and coaching fees. I'm left wondering, "How long can I stay afloat like this?" There are the weeks where I'm defending points that will make or break my entry into the next Slam, and thus the next big paycheck."

And indeed, if you're borderline top 100 and slip a few places so that you don't make the Slams or main draws, the financial equations aren't very nice. In addition, my recollection is that you get accommodation at a tournament for as long as you're in the tournament + one night. So if you're borderline in and losing in early rounds quite a lot, you're still having to pay for quite a lot of hotel rooms etc.

True - and also, this is a young woman with a lot of options: an elite athletic background and a Stanford degree in economics (she's a few terms from finishing) will open doors. So unlike people who have given their all for their tennis career, she has plenty of other, potentially lucrative options should she decide to opt out. Inherently, that's going to mean that she's going to evaluate her experiences and possibilities differently.