Prize Money

emmsie69 · Top national player

RE: Prize Money

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Fascinating article, CD, thanks for posting. A lot to digest and take in in the Briggs piece and also the referenced study. Two immediate things struck me. The WTA £25m is surely unsustainable and if it done with a front up payment from the investors and sponsors, surely this becomes at some an unsustainable and bankrupt model. Worrying. Like Rangers funding their club on future season ticket sales, it will come down eventually.

Also, though, some of the detail in the study didnt make sense - is it true that tennis earnings of the top 100 have dropped in the past 10 years by 50% ? That doesnt ring true to me...if we look at 2023, the median earning top 100 man (if we take the 50th highest earner as a proxy for the median) is $920k and the season is 20 percent to go or thereabouts...lets say $1m at season end. That doesnt tally with $275k in 2019, so I dont believe that is correct.

2009 2019
ATP
Average of all top-100 men: $677,618
Average of U.S. men in top 100: $788,538
Top U.S. mens player: Andy Roddick, $2,187,719
Average of all top-100 men: $335,946
Average of U.S. men in top 100: $275,860
Top U.S. mens player: John Isner, $411,414
WTA
Average of all top-100 women: $533,091
Average of U.S. women in top 100: $1,484,559
Top U.S. womens player: Serena Williams, $4,266,011
Average of all top-100 women: $283,625
Average of U.S. women in top 100: $307,343
Top U.S. womens player: Sofia Kenin, $3,012,043
I think it's because it's US players in the top 100 not all players in the top 100 so it's dependent on the quality of player from the US rather than a straight comparasion with the top 100 from 2009 and 2019

Ah, of course that would make sense.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Although that said it has a line averaging all top 100 and then another showing just us top 100 players

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

emmsie69 wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
Fascinating article, CD, thanks for posting. A lot to digest and take in in the Briggs piece and also the referenced study. Two immediate things struck me. The WTA £25m is surely unsustainable and if it done with a front up payment from the investors and sponsors, surely this becomes at some an unsustainable and bankrupt model. Worrying. Like Rangers funding their club on future season ticket sales, it will come down eventually.

Also, though, some of the detail in the study didnt make sense - is it true that tennis earnings of the top 100 have dropped in the past 10 years by 50% ? That doesnt ring true to me...if we look at 2023, the median earning top 100 man (if we take the 50th highest earner as a proxy for the median) is $920k and the season is 20 percent to go or thereabouts...lets say $1m at season end. That doesnt tally with $275k in 2019, so I dont believe that is correct.

2009 2019
ATP
Average of all top-100 men: $677,618
Average of U.S. men in top 100: $788,538
Top U.S. mens player: Andy Roddick, $2,187,719
Average of all top-100 men: $335,946
Average of U.S. men in top 100: $275,860
Top U.S. mens player: John Isner, $411,414
WTA
Average of all top-100 women: $533,091
Average of U.S. women in top 100: $1,484,559
Top U.S. womens player: Serena Williams, $4,266,011
Average of all top-100 women: $283,625
Average of U.S. women in top 100: $307,343
Top U.S. womens player: Sofia Kenin, $3,012,043
I think it's because it's US players in the top 100 not all players in the top 100 so it's dependent on the quality of player from the US rather than a straight comparasion with the top 100 from 2009 and 2019

But it has two lines for each i.e.

Average of all top-100 men: $677,618
Average of U.S. men in top 100: $788,538

The second is obviously the US guys in the top hundred - and was seemingly higher when Andy Roddick was at his peak than now (perfectly reasonable)

But the first line can't be US guys in the top-100 because that's the second line

So it must be what Jon says, surely, and it's supposedly an average for ALL top-100...... which begs the question..

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Thursday 28th of September 2023 11:01:12 AM

Lambda · Challenger level

I posted this in the college thread, but then remembered this thread where it may be better placed...

Women's No 2 ranked Reece Brantmeier, with support from her head coach, has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA to seek a ruling to prohibit the NCAA from prohibiting individual sport athletes from collecting prize money.

Brantmeier had to forgo $49,000 in prize money from the US Open in 2021. She is suing for a change in the rules and not claiming damages or the money she has had to forgo.

"It's ridiculous to watch basketball and football players earning hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that is OK under the name, image and likeness (NIL) rules, and then see us work just as hard and say we can't earn money directly from our sport," Brantmeier said in an interview last week.

The lawsuit states "The NCAA should be working to support and encourage student-athletes in individual sports to compete in the highest and most prestigious competitions in their respective sports, including non-NCAA events. Yet, for far too long, through its rules and regulations on prizes and expenses, the NCAA has acted to hinder and impede student-athletes in such pursuits."

https://archive.is/uPGtyhttps://archive.is/uPGty

Madadman · Masters Series Champion

Will be interesting to see how that one goes. The argument around the NIL is that you are not earning money directly from the sport. As soon as the NIL rulings came into NCAA it was going to change the landscape. Some American football players are now staying in college longer than they would have in the past as they can earn good money through NIL sometimes more than they would on an NFL minimum contract.