The first pillar of the programme is Guaranteed Base Earnings, which guarantees minimum income levels for the Top 250-ranked singles players each season. In case a player's prize money earnings finishes below the guaranteed threshold, the ATP will step in to cover the shortfall. For the 2024 season, these levels are $300,000 (Top 100), $150,000 (101-175) and $75,000 (176-250). This assurance will empower players to plan their seasons with greater certainty, focus on their game and invest in their teams. This includes covering the expenses of coaches and personal physios, as well as travel.
There are also other parts to the programme, covering injury protection etc.
It's certainly a different approach, rather than just looking at raising the prize money of challengers.
It seemingly only looks at prize money and doesn't include federation funding, which is questionable. (Although I think endorsement income should probably be excluded, difficult to tie that directly into tennis and this is not supposed to be a means-test).
But all credit to them for trying a different approach.
I don't think it's an issue not including federation funding at the lower level. $75,000 is just about a salary, it's not going to cover any coaching, physio etc. More questionable for the top 100 guaranteeing $300,000. I think I would have set it at a blanket $100,000 or turned it on it's head and given the higher rate to the lower players who are less likely to have access to the bigger tournaments but it's something.
I'm not so sure.... I take your point, emmsie, that they're focusing on earnings
And I wouldn't factor in payment in kind (i.e. any attempt to quantify the money equivalent of access to federation coach etc).
But it doesn't seem unreasonable to include direct financial payments from federations. The money all goes in the same pot. It will certainly pay for physios, coaches, etc, if that's what the player needs/decides - it's one of their specific reasons - to allow players to gauge their coach requirements and funds to pay for one.
After all, they're only trying to guarantee a tennis income and direct federation funding seems part of that.
But, either way, as you say, the amounts are questionable (which is not a criticism - any new system may need tweaking) but I think it's good to try a new idea,
