Prize Money

blob · All-time great

RE: Prize Money

christ · Futures qualifying

I agree that players should get more of the money than the administrators/ organisers/ managers. It strikes me as mad that the company that organises an event gets to cream off a significant part of the income, whilst the players don't benefit proportionally.

-- BUT --

Concentrating more money into the pockets of the already extremely wealthy top few players is barking mad.

... especially as the top few get even more (masses more, double, triple, who knows how much more) from sponsors who are only interested in the "well known" names.

If this were to occur, and only the wealthy get money, and they all get ridiculously large amounts, then there is no way for new people to afford to play (unless they are already wealthy - champion Trump, or Gates, or Jobs or Branson, anyone?).

Good idea for the current top players, doom to the sport.

Paying more of the income of the big events to the lower ranks? Brilliant idea. Personally I would redistribute the prize money at Slams so much more of the income goes to the lower ranked players (even those that didn't make the Slams): perhaps reduce prize money according to the sponsorship deals, to allow that money to remain in the pot to pay the little people?

Use the income to get players something nearer to a salary, and less like a lottery win would be my aim.

-- Edited by christ on Friday 19th of January 2018 01:08:40 PM

kundalini · Specialist Reporter + Intermediate Club Player

I would like to see significantly higher prize money in Slam qualifying. As to main draw, I would take some money from winners and runners-up and use it to boost R1 losers a little bit.

Michael D · All-time great

blob wrote:
seagull wrote:
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?
What do superstar boxers do between bouts? It's the players business how they choose to prepare for the events.

Training. Then, promos, exhibitions, develop alternative revenue streams, build and exploit their brand etc.
This is about maximising money, after all.
For viewers, you maybe get 10-15-20 chances to see your faves a year - each one a premium Pay-per-View event, again like boxing - 10's of millions generated per match. Each match with maximum pressure, maximum stakes - failure in any one slam more than decimates your earning potential for the year, and maybe next too.

Sounds a bit like the Hunger Games. No doubt you could make the penalties for losing a bit more severe...

Michael D · All-time great

kundalini wrote:
I would like to see significantly higher prize money in Slam qualifying. As to main draw, I would take some money from winners and runners-up and use it to boost R1 losers a little bit.

As I understand it, the argument is about the proportion of money that is being made by the organisation running the slam event that is actually going to the players. The players want that proportion increased. I understand Federer's comment about the existing deal no longer being fit for purpose meaning that the slams are generating considerably more profit than they were when the deal was made, but the total amount of prize money has not increased proportionally.

If that is the argument, then there are two things I'd like to see. One is to agree with your point that larger sums should go to qualifiers and early round losers, and two that is should be guaranteed that more money is fed into sponsoring lower tier tournaments. In that regard, I think it would be great to see a sphere of influence arrangement agreed, whereby eg the Aus Open funded 15k or 25k tournaments not just in Australia but a few other countries in Asia too that don't have massive federations, and similarly with the other slams.

The fact that we have Wimbledon in this country but the LTA cannot even fund a reasonable number of professional entry level tournaments really irks me. There is not a good excuse for it not happening so if the professional players at the top really want to take some responsibility for the development of the game they should insist that this does happen.

skibbarriz · Strong Club Player

All of pro tennis from the bottom rung and up is ripe for reform. I think there are many many players who have their ears open for someone who can come along and talk about a better way of structuring the sport.

Born2WinTennis · Club Coach

If the slams are making higher profits where is that money going just now? I.e. what would suffer by giving more to the Pros in prize money? You could presumably argue that the slams should instead divert more money to grass roots tennis rather than top 100 players at slams. Assuming that is exactly what djokovic and federer are asking for, correct me if i am wrong but I dont think they are asking for it to be spread to players 150-300 ranked are they?

indiana · Tennis legend

Born2WinTennis wrote:
If the slams are making higher profits where is that money going just now? I.e. what would suffer by giving more to the Pros in prize money? You could presumably argue that the slams should instead divert more money to grass roots tennis rather than top 100 players at slams. Assuming that is exactly what djokovic and federer are asking for, correct me if i am wrong but I dont think they are asking for it to be spread to players 150-300 ranked are they?

Yes, be interested to have more idea how the money that the players want diverted to the Slam contestants is currently used. Some may talk of too much maybe going to tennis officialdom / organisers but how much might it take away from subsidising the lower rungs of the pro game and the grass roots below that? Essentially if the Slam players gain more who loses?

wimdledont · Challenger level

I would like to see the differential for winning matches cut...

Instead of...

R1 $40k; R2 $80k; R3 $160k; R4 $320k; etc...

...a 50% differential would give...

R1 $40k; R2 $60k; R3 $90k; R4 $135k; etc...

With a 100% differential it is inevitable that the vast bulk of all prize money goes to a tiny handful of often the same quasi-billionaires, who usually have massive off-court earnings from endorsements, and thus no real need for any prize money at all. Federer would still make a fortune out of playing this year's AO if he gave every cent of his prize money to charity.

The money not then paid out to the more successful players could then either be used to keep the prize pot the same, paying out much more to losers in the earlier rounds, so something more like...

R1 $80k; R2 $120; R3 180k; R4 $270k; etc...

Or, and I think better, it could give sufficient funds for the Slams to underwrite/match the funding for all ITF level tournaments; doubling the prizemoney for the grass roots of the sport, giving hundreds of extra players the opportunity to play on and pursue a pro career, and making the sport much more competitive in the long run.

At any rate, it is kinda mathematically inevitable that, while you have a 100% differential in prize money per round, you have a very dysfunctional allocation of available resources; IIRC, a couple of years back, Serena won almost as much prizemoney as the whole total given out by every ITF tournament, combined.

Mark1968 · Intermediate Club Player

I notice with horror that the prize money for the men's ATP 250's has tanked! I appreciate that the plandemic will have played a part in this, sponsors pulling out, loss of income from spectators etc.

There is bound to be somebody who knows more about this than me who might be able to advise if this is a temporary situation? Will it effect the Grand Slams where the multi millionaire winners receive an eye watering amount that they don't need.

Just a bit concerned about the future for the lower ranked players etc. Thanks.

emmsie69 · ATP level

Mark1968 wrote:
I notice with horror that the prize money for the men's ATP 250's has tanked! I appreciate that the plandemic will have played a part in this, sponsors pulling out, loss of income from spectators etc.
There is bound to be somebody who knows more about this than me who might be able to advise if this is a temporary situation? Will it effect the Grand Slams where the multi millionaire winners receive an eye watering amount that they don't need.
Just a bit concerned about the future for the lower ranked players etc. Thanks.

The French Open front loaded their prize money and reduced prize money in the later rounds.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Ben Rothenberg
@BenRothenberg
·
11h
ATP announces a big cash infusion into the prize money on its Challenger tour, increasing prize money by 60% next year.

Long overdue if the sport intends to make a career outside the top 100 sustainable.

pbs.twimg.com/media/FczGDyWWQAYsNTE

(Mods, I chose this thread because it's the most recent but there's another with the same name started by Jaffa, last posted in 2018, and another called Prize Money Allocations, with 39 posts, started by Vandy, which is on the same topic - maybe we could amalgamate them? (that's a royal 'we', by the way - I mean 'you' coz I wouldn't have a clue even if I had access

)

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Thanks CD. More detail here

www.atptour.com/en/news/atp-challenger-tour-announcement-september-2022

Cant recall what level the British grass events are, or will be ?

Madadman · Top national player

JonH comes home wrote:
Thanks CD. More detail here

www.atptour.com/en/news/atp-challenger-tour-announcement-september-2022

Cant recall what level the British grass events are, or will be ?

The grass challengers are 125 events.

PaulM · Tennis legend

ITF have approved the introduction of a women's 40k event category.

I'm not entirely sure why (15s and 25s will remain, this is an additional option). Rather runs the risk of existing 60s being downgraded more than events upgrading I think? Not sure what issue it is designed to tackle that a broader increase in prize money, tightening up rules on costs for players at events to stop them being fleeced trying to get lunch on-site, and better scheduling to avoid weeks with a heap of higher category events and other with one 25k and nothing else, couldn't have done.