Prize Money

brendan · Strong Club Player

RE: Prize money allocations

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

I've put this in Naomi's own thread in the women's section, but as it's directly relevant to the evolution of this thread, I'll also note here that Naomi Cavaday's latest podcast deals with her opinion of this whole issue: audioboom.com/boos/4343906-the-equal-pay-debate-men-vs-women

christ · Futures qualifying

A propose nothing at all, this story from the BBC news site illustrated the issue:

Manchester City Women moved to the top of the Women's Soccer League 1 table as they beat an Arsenal Ladies team ...

Attendance: 1,914

I guess that women will struggle for equal compensation in that sport, no matter how attractive the play is, or how hard the ladies are trying.

paulisi · Tennis legend

Football is a relatively free market, clubs can only pay out what they get in revenue(unless they are heavily subsidised) - tickets are £6. You are taking in £12K every fortnight, plus a minor TV contract

Compared to the men - £50 x 40,000 every 2 weeks and a lucrative TV contract - £2m every fortnight

Tennis is not a free market, so is not comparable(The governing bodies subsidise tournaments and prize money). Football is a developing sport on the women's side. Tennis has long traditions on the women's side.

christ · Futures qualifying

paulisi wrote:
Football is a relatively free market, clubs can only pay out what they get in revenue(unless they are heavily subsidised) - tickets are £6. You are taking in £12K every fortnight, plus a minor TV contract

Compared to the men - £50 x 40,000 every 2 weeks and a lucrative TV contract - £2m every fortnight

Tennis is not a free market, so is not comparable(The governing bodies subsidise tournaments and prize money). Football is a developing sport on the women's side. Tennis has long traditions on the women's side.

I'm sorry I don't quite follow: surely the tennis governing bodies are subject to the same financial constraints as football clubs, i.e. they can only pay out what they get in revenue (although they can obviously cross-subsidise, subsidising tournaments and prize money out of earnings that aren't necessarily directly related); Manchester City and Arsenal are the same clubs for women as for men, owned and run by the same people, so it appears that they have the same ability to cross-subsidise as the tennis bodies do.

If I read you correctly you appear to be making the case that for football the earnings of women should be set only by the income they generate but not for tennis, on the grounds that women's tennis has longer traditions: how do "long traditions" translate into money?

paulisi · Tennis legend

Long traditions means the sport has been established and has built a supporter base. It also means standards are more consistent as the participation becomes more of a norm via schooling and amateur level.
I refer to women's football, which 10 years ago was rare and not generally seen as normal in the school curriculum or in amateur sport.

christ · Futures qualifying

paulisi wrote:
Long traditions means the sport has been established and has built a supporter base. It also means standards are more consistent as the participation becomes more of a norm via schooling and amateur level.
I refer to women's football, which 10 years ago was rare and not generally seen as normal in the school curriculum or in amateur sport.

In the UK, possibly (although I'm not convinced), but in the US of A, "soccer" is probably the biggest female school sport, and has been for decades. Tennis is, and as far as I know always has been, for the elite, not the masses. Like rowing, only drier.

-- with all this tradition, it would appear odd that equal prize money is a relatively new thing, and only really applies to Grand Slams.

paulisi · Tennis legend

The top US female soccer player earned $3m last year, similar to a standard male premiership footballer

Oakland2002 · All-time great

I wouldn't be worrying to much about parity of football players salaries, perhaps parity of elite players but too many mediocre male footballers get ridiculous wages arguing that mediocre ladies players should get the same perpetuates the idiocy.

We should however be seeking to coax footballers daughters into playing tennis indeed the high performance training centres should run red and orange ball tournaments for their kids. How about Man Utd/man city/Liverpool and Everton under 8's and under 10's challenge at Bolton HPC for sports relief! At least the parents can afford the coaching.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

With Ali Collins as their flag carrier !

(NB although footballers' sons would be welcome too

)

Actually, in France we used to do detection/open door/'get to know tennis days' at the kids' football clubs - as you say, it made perfect sense - how to tap into a captive pool of sporty youngsters. It was mainly boys so we needed a different tactic for the girls (never found quite such an obvious fit) - but the football one was great for the lads. And the clubs were very welcoming (as tennis is the second sport, most of the coaches, managers etc. played a decent bit of tennis, so they were happy to make ties with the tennis clubs and federation).

Jaffa · Challenger level

Prize Money

indiana · Tennis legend

Have they any thoughts on prize money at lower levels, particularly much lower levels ?

Edit : Though I guess they are arguing that the Slams can afford to pay more whereas arguably the low level tournament could only pay much more by redistribution. And whether as I say these are in their thoughts anyway ... ?

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 18th of January 2018 11:53:26 PM

blob · All-time great

Plot profitability against whether the non-tennis-world-at-large generally cares about the event, and the only events worh keeping would be the Slams.
So, as devils advocate: do that.
Just have four events a year.
Have unpaid regional/continental qualifying that starts two months before each Slam, with 512 place draws if necessary, over 6 weeks (spitballing, exact details to be tweaked) - if you really want to be a player, really want a shot at the massive prize funds, you can try to get through to the bug event.
Previous Champions and those ranked from the new ranking system based on the now 4 events a year get 64 of the Slam spots, the other 64 places (spitballing, exact details to be tweaked) are up for grabs.
Each Slam gets 3 months of the year to be the exclusive focus; players aren't fatigued, massive interest, massive payouts.
You want to try and be a tennis player? You have to fund yourself for the shot at the big time - You only get any money if you win a matches at Slams. No prize money for R128 losers in Slams, no money for winning through the qualifying, only when you actually wini ranked matches do you get paid, and only Slam main draw matches are paid.
8 weeks of intense action a year, with everything at stake. All the players fit and raring to go. Every , match the utmost consequence - livelihoods made and broken.
All the top players that actually do have success get massively wealthy. Scrap Davis/Fed cup, and tennis is no longer in the Olympics - all that detracts from the crucible of the Slams.
We're in the age of the 'disruptor', smash the whole thing up and see what you can make from the pieces.

JonH · All-time great

I would go with a system more like F1. an elite corps of maybe 16 to 32 players (lets say 20 to make it easy) get to play a series of events (lets say 20 events to make it easy) and through these events they gain points and LOTS of money. Each of 20 players would be organised into teams of 2 so they are both team mates and opponents (they could play doubles together in the same events) and each team would be a corporate identity in some way.

Players get into the elite 20 in part because they would impress at the lower level and self funded circuits that would be run nationally or regionally by the ITF, LTA etc and a fair few of them would be from rich or corporately sponsored backgrounds and would pay/but their way into the sport to make a name for themselves.

Of course such a thing couldnt work in the real world...

seagull · Hall of fame

So in Blob's scenario someone like Kyle maybe gets through a couple of rounds at each slam.
That means he only plays 12 matches all year?

What does he do the rest of the time?