Harman article today - how much money Novak could lose if he doesn't play Paris

Okay, I've scribbled relevant piece of article on pad and typed it up here for y'all! Please respond otherwise I will because it has taken me a very long time - I am either much too good to you all, or very very sad and need to get a life (answers on a postcard please!). It would be nice if Neil Harman could find himself a job at another newspaper and then we could all cut and paste, or link his articles - how about it Mr H?

Novak Djokovic will arrive at the final Masters 1000 tournament of this year today with the threat of losing $1.6 million (about £997,000) in bonuses if he fails to compete hanging over him.

Even someone who has transcended men's tennis in 2011 cannot avoid falling foul of the ATP Tour rules should he end up having played in only six of the eight mandated tournaments.

It could be that Djokovic, who has won 5 of the 6 masters he has contested - he retired during the final of the sixth, in Cincinnati against Andy Murray - will compete in the BNP Paribas Masters, at which point the case against him is closed. Or it could be that a doctor's certificate stating the world's No 1's serving shoulder is not 100 per cent negates a fine and a possible suspension, but the Serbian forfeits his chunk of the tour's bonus pool.

Even though he has won $10,679,413 in prize money this year alone, his potential bonus is not to be sniffed at.

The ATP Board met last night to decide whether, if Djokovic pulls out, it could reduce the heavy financial imposition; Djokovic has been the face of the men's game in 2011, winning 3 grand-slam tournaments - Wimbledon, the US Open and the Australian Open - as well as lifting the Master's trophies in Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome and Montreal.

The tournament is already reeling from the loss of Rafael Nadal, the Spaniard, who chose to sidestep to prepare for the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in London which start on November 20th are are followed five days later by the Davis Cup final between Spain and Argentina. Juan Martin del Potro, another grand-slam champion, also declined to take part at the last minute.

Nadal, the world No 2, escapted a financial penalty because he has played more than 600 matches on the ATP Tour and therefore receives an exemption from one of the mandated events. Djokovic is exactly 100 matches short of that cut-off line.


I wonder whether although Nadal will receive no financial penalty for pulling out at the last minute, will his share of the bonus pool be affected in any way, especially as he has already skipped Shanghai, or have I missed something? I can't understand how, in the event of a doctor's certificate prescribing rest for Djokovic's shoulder, he would escape a finacial penalty for missing the tournament, but be hit by losing out on the bonus pool. That would seem to be a very draconian and unfair decision if it was upheld.

Thoughts?

If he is to lose £997,000, I can't see why they would need to penalise him further 'financially' given he may not be 'medically' clear to compete.

If they are worried about the star attractions not playing at these events, instead of financially hitting, why not suspend them from the next 'Masters' event so that they lose ranking points rather than money?

I just think governing bodies sometimes need to look past 'financial' penalties. If Djokovic has earned nearly £10M in prize money alone, I can't see him losing sleep over a financial hit. I think however him and others would be concerned if their appearances at future events were under-threat for non-participation.

Nadal did not skip Shanghai, he lost to Florian Mayer in R16.

The article suggests that the "will he, won't he" situation is about money vs. injury. A perfect metaphor for the modern game as discussed in the "injury" thread.

Of course £1m is a large amount of money by anyone's standards which adds to Djoko's dilemma. He doesn't want to lose £1m, he doesn't want to turn up and tank a match for £1m, and he doesn't want to exacerbate an injury in an area of the body that can cause long-term problems.

Assuming he's not horribly in debt and desperate, I think he's got to take the long term view, appreciate that the £1m is not the main issue here and take his doctor's advice. If that advice is that he risks making an injury worse by putting any effort into a match, he scratches, simple (but difficult) as that.

Thanks for the responses guys. I'd forgotten about Florian Mayer in Shanghai barry - of course, now it makes sense.

I agree that he should look beyond a very nice financial bonus and take the long term view. Legend - I think if a doctor pronounces him injured, he won't have a financial penalty imposed for missing the tournament itself, but he will stand to lose his share of the bonus pool - it's splitting hairs somewhat, I agree.

The fact that the top players earn such a good bonus to top up their winnings at the end of the year, does seem to rather encourage Nole at this point to show up in Paris and just tank the first match. I am not trying to second guess what he will do, but just pointing out that this system would seem to invite a player doing something like that.

barrystar wrote:he doesn't want to turn up and tank a match for £1m

I actually think he doesn't have a problem with that..
If the options are as you say, he'll tank, no doubt

gallery play wrote:

barrystar wrote:he doesn't want to turn up and tank a match for £1m

I actually think he doesn't have a problem with that..
If the options are as you say, he'll tank, no doubt

We'll wait and see - you may be right, but my take on Djoko is that he would really not like that at all.

gallery play wrote:

barrystar wrote:he doesn't want to turn up and tank a match for £1m

I actually think he doesn't have a problem with that..
If the options are as you say, he'll tank, no doubt

Yes I agree. And there is nothing wrong in tanking under those conds. First he clearly tanked already in Cincy 2007 and secondly PLaying, even if losing in 1st round will make every happier (the crowd and TD included) than not turning up at all.

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:

barrystar wrote:he doesn't want to turn up and tank a match for £1m

I actually think he doesn't have a problem with that..
If the options are as you say, he'll tank, no doubt

Yes I agree. And there is nothing wrong in tanking under those conds. First he clearly tanked already in Cincy 2007 and secondly PLaying, even if losing in 1st round will make every happier (the crowd and TD included) than not turning up at all.

I think Djoko is not the same guy he was in 2007 - I think he's grown up a lot and got more respect for his position in the game than he did then (unless you agree with the Eurosport article about him).

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:

gallery play wrote:

barrystar wrote:he doesn't want to turn up and tank a match for £1m

I actually think he doesn't have a problem with that..
If the options are as you say, he'll tank, no doubt

Yes I agree. And there is nothing wrong in tanking under those conds. First he clearly tanked already in Cincy 2007 and secondly PLaying, even if losing in 1st round will make every happier (the crowd and TD included) than not turning up at all.

I think Djoko is not the same guy he was in 2007 - I think he's grown up a lot and got more respect for his position in the game than he did then (unless you agree with the Eurosport article about him).

He is not the same and I agree that one grows up but I think no-one wants to lose $1m on technicality, not even multi millionaires. He'd rather use that money to make a nice Xmas present to his coach or family than throw it away to preserve some integrity. They have all tanked matches, Federer included. I don;t see this as bad as some. It's just the system and the physicality of the game that makes tanking a blurr, thin invisible line neither the crowd nor the player himself can't quite see. If he doesn;t play he can also be criticised for not trying and being scared of losing.

I think he has grown up too and that he is keen to be a respected No 1.
I don't think he would necessarily have retired against Andy in Cincinnati if the US Open hadn't been around the corner. The shoulder injury is obviously not a good one, and really he should probably say goodbye to 2011.

However, under the current system where the No 1 player - who has given so much to the sport this year and helped bring in the crowds - stands to lose share of yearly bonus even with a 'sick note', then I can't say I would blame him for turning up and 'tanking'.

..and, on a slightly different matter, yes one changes or grows up but the nature of teh individual is still there. For good or bad. You learn to control your instincts but those are still around. Under extreme situations, you may find that those character traits might reappear. Good or bad.

Money is the root of all that is evil!

Djokovic won't bother with the tournament if he doesn't feel he can win a couple of matches,.

That's very profound JM (your first bit) and sadly too true.

time please

Another interesting article in The Times.

My feelings about Djokovic are that top players will always stand to lose a lot financially (and in terms of ranking points) by not playing. There will always be huge financial incentives to overplay. Exhibitions, appearance fees in smaller tournaments or simply playing too many tournaments as well as this particular situation.

Part of the difficulty of being a top player is learning to manage these demands. At least they are not living on the breadline so they have the luxury of being in the position of being able to turn down some of these earning opportunities. I would guess the temptation to overplay is more difficult to resist for lower ranked players. I would hope Djokovic is sensible enough to realise his long term health is more important than cash or ranking points. He has earned more of both than any other player this year...

The other bit I find interesting from The Times article was the bit about Murray and ranking points -

There is a chance he can overtake Nadal to become the world No 2 at year’s
end. “It’s just not in my hands,” Murray said. “I would obviously have to
win pretty much every match and he would have to blow it for the rest of the
year. Finishing above No 4 was a secondary goal. Hopefully I can get that
locked up this week and then concentrate on London.”


Murray was asked so admittedly he had to respond. However IMO Harman is doing Murray no favours by bringing this subject up. Also Murray would be wise to learn to respond to questions such as this in the same way that the top three players would.

eh? really don't see anything wrong in what Murray says here. It's pretty much the rigorous truth. it would take a minor miracle for him to overtake Nadal, and that's what he's saying. Really don't see what you can find wrong with what he says here.

Josia, may I humbly correct you: the verse says this 1Tim 6:10 For the LOVE OF money is the root of all evil. Money in itself is not all that bad, he,he, to quote Black Adder, it surely takes the sting out of poverty .

TP, thank you for your colossal effort bringing us this interesting article.

For me, the key question is this: Is Novak fit to play or not at least one match.
If so, he should play.

If his injury is such that he is not fit to play not even one match, then he shouldn't be turning up in Paris and simply wear whatever penalty may or, gracefully may not incur.

I know that he is rearing to go and compete and have a feeling he will turn up, although he is in a perfect position not to. He definitely does not need any round one or two exits after a heroic year he's had.
Stay in Monte Carlo Nole and sip that champagne with your feet up, you've earnt every bubble of it

hawkeye wrote:My feelings about Djokovic are that top players will always stand to lose a lot financially (and in terms of ranking points) by not playing. There will always be huge financial incentives to overplay. Exhibitions, appearance fees in smaller tournaments or simply playing too many tournaments as well as this particular situation.

Part of the difficulty of being a top player is learning to manage these demands. At least they are not living on the breadline so they have the luxury of being in the position of being able to turn down some of these earning opportunities. I would guess the temptation to overplay is more difficult to resist for lower ranked players. I would hope Djokovic is sensible enough to realise his long term health is more important than cash or ranking points. He has earned more of both than any other player this year...

Fair point!

hawkeye wrote:Murray was asked so admittedly he had to respond. However IMO Harman is doing Murray no favours by bringing this subject up. Also Murray would be wise to learn to respond to questions such as this in the same way that the top three players would.

I think this is a British press thing that they have to keep pushing Murray on his aims and his opinions on everything to be quite honest.

I don't know how else he could have responded really - Harman makes the case that he could overtake Nadal to become year end No 2, but Murray quite firmly refutes that, saying 'I ...would have to win pretty much every match and he would have to blow it' - in other words, it ain't happening this year in Murray's opinion.

About the No 3 ranking - there is definitely less respect between Murray and Federer than exists between some of the other top players, and the press certainly delight in trying to stoke that a little - I am not sure it really matters, and as many have pointed out what is actually unusual is the respect and liking between Federer and Nadal, not the tension between Nadal and Djokovic or Federer and Murray


NITB - you're welcome

I think I've found a typo tp, must do better!

On a serious note, kudos to you for taking the time and effort. I have a subscription and really like reading what Harman has to offer; alas I'm too selfish to share it with anyone else.

It all seems rather punitive to me, when you've been to the sharp end of so many tournaments there should be some slack allowed.

time please

Like you say the press delight in the lack of respect Murray has for Federer. I think there is no smoke without fire. So why would any player not respect Federer? It doesn't mean they don't have to go all out to beat him (think of Nadal) or even like him but I find it difficult to understand how any player past or present cannot respect Federer.

I'm confused as to why this thread which started off about Djokovic possibly losing money by not playing Paris has turned into another Andy is disrespectful of Roger thread.

Whether Murray has respect for Federer is not the same as whether he shows it.

He' s a fool if he does not respect Federer as an opponent, and since he's not a fool he almost certainly does.

I suspect that it's a two-way personality thing more than anything else. Murray has never really deferred to Federer (nor has Djoko) beyond recognising his obvious achievements from time to time, and Federer seems not to like a player who combines being able to beat him on the Court from time to time with not treating him as the 'King' off it.

barrystar wrote:I suspect that it's a two-way personality thing more than anything else. Murray has never really deferred to Federer (nor has Djoko) beyond recognising his obvious achievements from time to time, and Federer seems not to like a player who combines being able to beat him on the Court from time to time with not treating him as the 'King' off it.

I think Federer doesn;t like to beaten by some styles more than personalities....though those 2 are linked. I think he never minded being beaten by shotmakers like Safin or Nalbandian. To me that's what really rattles him...to be beaten essentially physically.

Positively 4th Street wrote:I think I've found a typo tp, must do better!

tears hair out and rushes to find

Calder106 wrote:I'm confused as to why this thread which started off about Djokovic possibly losing money by not playing Paris has turned into another Andy is disrespectful of Roger thread.

I will give you a clue. Flying bird of prey and the 2nd vowel in the Alphabet

You tell me how this happened?

I thought E was the second vowel but think I know what you mean. Either that or I'm rubbish with cryptic clues.

Anyway as it is not relevant to the thread subject have decided not to put my tuppence worth in (maybe showing my age there)

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:I suspect that it's a two-way personality thing more than anything else. Murray has never really deferred to Federer (nor has Djoko) beyond recognising his obvious achievements from time to time, and Federer seems not to like a player who combines being able to beat him on the Court from time to time with not treating him as the 'King' off it.

I think Federer doesn;t like to beaten by some styles more than personalities....though those 2 are linked. I think he never minded being beaten by shotmakers like Safin or Nalbandian. To me that's what really rattles him...to be beaten essentially physically.

Tenez. What does your theory say about Nadal? From what he says it appears that Federer has more respect for Nadal than any other player.

Well - We do not really know how much respect Federer has for Nadal.

Nadal certainly made the sport more interesting more millions of fans and that is what I think Federer respects. Plus Nadal has teh same sponsor (Nike) so he cannot say too bad things about him.

Federer says that it took him a while to understand "Nadal" and accept his rivalry with him but then "it all made sense"........or something like that.

I don;t like Nadal's game but I understand the appeal and positive aspect he brought in the sport. However it has also a very negative side HE.

Clearly they should not vary the rules or it is a mockery. Djokovic should do whatever he feels like, but the rules can't just be rewritten when it suits someone.

bogbrush wrote:Clearly they should not vary the rules or it is a mockery. Djokovic should do whatever he feels like, but the rules can't just be rewritten when it suits someone.

Agreed.
Which is why he WILL play. He's a smart cookie and can play anybody's game....

Novak Djokovic will not "lose" any money. Not getting a "bonus" is not losing money. All that is going to happen is that Novak Djokovic will get a huge wad of cash in a paper envelope - but the size of the envelope might vary. He still has his tournament prize money, his tournament expenses, his appearance fees and his sponsorship income.

ps thanks for rendering this interesting news - it has also been on the BBC radio but they didn't explain it was associated with "bonuses".