What The 72nd Ranked Player Says

First topic message reminder :

We're always hearing what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have to say (Murray has a lot to say too... ) but we don't often get to hear what an elite player ranked a little lower thinks about some of the talking points in todays tennis.

From a very interesting interview with Sergiy Stakhovsky (rank 72)

Talking about the difference in earnings between players at the very top and the rest

"And the higher-ranked players can afford themselves everything they need – a coach, a fitness trainer or a physiotherapist. However, the majority of players, who are just trying to make the top-100, don’t have that possibility.

I’m in the negative after the IW and Miami Masters. About five thousand [Note: probably $US, but it’s not definite – Anna]. And that’s while reaching the second round
in Indian Wells."

Getting the best court speed.

"Actually, the courts used to be too fast, and they decided to slow it down to make the game more colorful. But they overdid it. And nobody really liked the final in Australia, which lasted 6 hours."

What Stathovsky thinks of Djokovics style of play

"That’s an example of systematic percentage tennis – a game without errors. Djokovic, in fact, is playing like a wall.
He just does on the court whatever allows him to win. You won’t earn more by playing a beautiful game."


Federer or Nadal?

"Federer plays a less physical tennis. Someone has more God-given talent; someone has more of something else. For me, Nadal is more talented in terms of discipline and hard work. Thanks to that he became the No.1 player at the time. But Federer – that’s a tennis player from God, a talent which found “his own” sports field. One reached success through hard work; the other achieved more, while spending less efforts."

Federer and Nadal on the player council

"He’s a good person (Federer), but too neutral for my taste. He’s too Swiss. He wants to keep out of any bad stories too much. When players want to change something, he looks at it too passively, because it can harm his image.



I respect Nadal more in that context, because he openly supports the players’ interests."

On why he thought Nadal left the player council

"In fact, Nadal didn’t leave because of Federer, and the players’ council, for the most part, doesn’t decide anything. It’s a consulting body. But there are three people who represent the players in the ATP. And Rafa thought that they didn’t defend the players’ interests in the extent that they should. And about certain things, I’m prepared to agree with him."

http://letsecondserve.blogspot.ca/2012/04/translated-interview-with-sergiy.html?m=1

It's an interesting interview. I've just picked out a few things but it's worth reading the whole thing...

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Let me ask you a question, that I have also asked Socal and other like-minded posters. How will Sergiy become a better player by earning more in the early rounds? I provided a comparison of 2010/2011/2012 regarding his specific performance on the court. He was #31, now he is #72. I compared his highest ranking to the current #31 and have clearly shown, IMVHO, his lack of performance. In a competitive sport, earnings are directly proportional to performance. R1 loses in 2012 and two R2 loses are not helping him compared to Benneteau (current #31) who has a similar year to Sergiy when he was #31.

It is a question of performance vs. earnings. I provided a link to his titles/finals and you can see his performance in decline, so his earnings are in decline too. Does that seem reasonable to you? This is a typical 'bell-curve' profile of performance vs. earnings.

First round and early loses are detrimental to any player, no matter whether he is ATP #1 or ATP #72. Think of Murray ( CC) at IW losing to Garcia-Lopez or Nadal losing to Dodig.

LF: I don't think a player can become a top of the chart champion by making more money in the early rounds. Although I am aware that the costs of training, medical support, travelling and fitness are increasing at a fast rate in recent years. Clearly as I said many times before I do think that top 50- to 100 guys should be more consistently rewarded for making it in the main draw of the big events, as I think it's still a terrific achievement to be able to do that and by the way, early rounds are also quite a big part of the overall show imo.

My dear friend Laverfan is so idealistic and I am afraid naive and wrong about how there are quote more Iaccoca CEOs than the ones who run amok and bankrupt companies for big paychecks. Its funny that we just had the most massive conjob robbery in global history imposed on us by the heads of the massive global corporations. In fact most corporations do not end successfully they end in a pile of abused creditors and laid off employs. This is absolute fact, as a lawyer and someone who has worked in business this is irrefutable. There is a life cycle of a corporation that gets successful. Usually you have the visionary founder or founders generation who creates a near insurmountable business edge for a company as it grows. Then the MBA classes at the IVY league come in and some have success for a period of time but eventually in a relatively short period of time the corporate beaurcrat kills the business at some level or competition does and the business is fire saled to better competitor.


Now back to tennis, Jeremy Kyle makes some great points here. Even a lot of the top guys are on the record that there should be something done on this issue. And Summerblues nobody is denying that football is a much bigger revenue sport globally than Tennis. But I think you are sadly mistaken if you think Arsenal generates more revenue than the ATP tour. Obviously tennis is doing well as a whole financially. When you can give the winners check a 100 percent bounce in just 5 years. I don't see what is so impractical about shifting some of the percentage of growth over to the first and second round guys.

socal,

Why won't you answer the question put forward by LF?

JK did. It isn't a difficult question.

Arsenal will generate more revenue than the ATP. It is very naive to think otherwise.

Laverfan, as to your question about how more money would help Stakhovsky be a better player well that is very easily answered laverfan. With a better and strong team to help him with nutrition, recovery, fitness, and tennis. All of this can have an effect. As we have seen the modern tennis champion often requires a professional team of people around him to help him get to the top. How much has Djokovic been benefitted by Vajda or the doctor who diagnosed him with the now famous glutten allergy? How much has Nadal and others been helped by cutting edge medical treatment of knees or other injuries. Going to see the world best orthopedic surgeon for a certain proceducre as opposed to an average one could have a real impact on someone's career.

Also in the longterm money is the incentivizer of everything in our society. And having a tour that allows middle ranking players to do well will encourage a number of players to try to stay in the game advance within it. There are a lot of great athletes who maybe are good enough to be top 100 but not good enough to get to top 10 that probably drop out sooner or never take their chance because while they know they can be an ok pro they know they are not capable of being champions. So they drop out earlier or go into another activity.

And Legendkillar I am one of those that has been stating you can't compare tennis to working at Tescos, and I would like some evidence that the ATP tour generates less revenue than Arsenal FC. Its simply stated here as if it certifiable fact, it maybe or it might not but at first blush it strikes me as not being right.

Someone's listening anyways.

Roland Garros announced an 7% increase in prizemoney, with a lot of that going to first and second round losers. (20% increase for 1st round loser for example.)

About time too !

Think I'll put in for a Wild Card (no qualifying please)

I'm targeting a first round loss ; and I'm 100% confident I could make it ......

haha lags...you and me both.

socal,

So before I proceed do you still want to go ahead with this fantasy that ATP generates more revenue than Arsenal?

For 2010/11 from property alone they made £157 million

That doesn't include transfers of playing staff or merchandise or away game attendance fees or TV rights fees

So let me say that again £157 million on property alone. That equates to $250 million.

Yes Legendkillar, I would like to see some statistical back up for this point. This lone statistic you provided in isolation is far from proof positive. At Indian wells nearly half a million fans turn up over 10 days for that tournament and take parking, concessions, tickets and TV revs and that week alone they have to gross 20 or 30 million dollars, easy. And we aren't even talking about a grandslam. Eitherway the ATP tour is healthy enough to have increased the winner's purse by 100 percent in 5 years, I am sure tournaments would not be making such steps if there wasn't money in the pot and a profit to boot. Meanwhile the first round prize money in the same period increased by just 20 percent. What would be wrong if this growth was a bit more proportional? I don't see much of an argument for how it would hurt the game in general.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, as to your question about how more money would help Stakhovsky be a better player well that is very easily answered laverfan. With a better and strong team to help him with nutrition, recovery, fitness, and tennis. All of this can have an effect. As we have seen the modern tennis champion often requires a professional team of people around him to help him get to the top.

How big was Laver's, or Pancho's or Emerson's team? You are giving me the same argument that got Lance Armstrong the umpteen TdF trophies, with Floyd Landis chasing and sacrificing himself for the 'greater' good of the team. You want recent examples, look at Borg, McEnroe or Connors, who did not need an entourage.

Now Ryan Harrison has half the coaching staff of USTA sitting in his corner. Perhaps the idea of WTT is a better one.

Some of the greatest athletes I know, ran barefeet, and still won marathons. Bikila, El Guerrouj, Nuurmi, Gaberselassie and many others did not need a 'team'.

socal1976 wrote:How much has Djokovic been benefitted by Vajda or the doctor who diagnosed him with the now famous glutten allergy? How much has Nadal and others been helped by cutting edge medical treatment of knees or other injuries. Going to see the world best orthopedic surgeon for a certain proceducre as opposed to an average one could have a real impact on someone's career.

Did you really say this (sounds like Tenez's physicality argument has come full circle). BTW, have you heard of Ken 'Muscles' Rosewall? Played for 40+ years on the Mens Tour.

I feel sad to use the term 'physicality', but ~6 hours of attritional tennis with, or a 4+ hour 3-set match is why you need doctors to provide PRP ( Lydian). And you want more 'sand' on the courts for 60+ shots rallies. . How many knee procedures will that be, SoCal?

socal1976 wrote:Also in the longterm money is the incentivizer of everything in our society.

So what is wrong with money going to the top dogs or vice-a-versa? You are also implicitly approving the Draper-LTA strategy.

Let us take Jack Sock. He would have made more money in MLB or NBA or NHL, but chose Tennis. The Nadal Football vs Tennis question is still open.

socal1976 wrote:And having a tour that allows middle ranking players to do well will encourage a number of players to try to stay in the game advance within it.

They are middle ranking, because there are players better than them.

If you attribute their ability and financial wherewithal to having a large support 'team', it is a disservice to the highest elite in Tennis.

socal1976 wrote:There are a lot of great athletes who maybe are good enough to be top 100 but not good enough to get to top 10 that probably drop out sooner or never take their chance because while they know they can be an ok pro they know they are not capable of being champions. So they drop out earlier or go into another activity.

So is Sergiy one of the Top 100 who will never get to top 10, yet wants more money?

Slams have 127 losers. Do they stop playing because they lose, no? I could quote Kipling's 'If' and provide some semblance of sanity.

Borg is an example who walked away in his prime, and he was at the top. He had more financial problems after leaving Tennis.

Well Laverfan, players can succeed without the team afterall it is an individual sport. But I think there is a benefit of having the best doctors, trainers, and coaches in any sport. A real and significant benefit. Look at how much guff Murray got and even Federer when they didn't have a top notch coach in their corner. If it didn't help them they would use a coach. In fact for a player as great as even federer i think his performance against Nadal in his peak was hurt by the fact that except for a period with Roche he didn't have a full time great coach, and roche wasn't even fulltime.

The harrison point is mute, most players don't have the benefit of a huge and well funded federation like American, British, or the french federations.

Now as to the argument of Nadal choosing Tennis over football again, you want to go for one example. I have no idea how good Nadal was as junior in football vis a vis tennis or what went into the decision to go with tennis. For his particular case tennis might have been the best route to fortune.

I mean if you guys are happy with a tour of ten multimillionaires and a bunch of journeyman making as much take home salary as the salesman of a car dealership or a skilled auto mechanic then that is fine. I think however that for the overrall health and competiveness of the tour it would be much better to give out a bit more money to the lower rounds in tournaments.

The game has enough money where the winners pursue at slams has increased by 100 percent over 5 years. Why not give a portion of that percentage increase over to the guys in the first couple of rounds. Maybe in the next 5 years the winners purse increases by only 80 percent, the top guys would hardly even miss it. As they garner a great deal more revenue from endorsments, appearance fees, exhos, and sponsorships.

One aspect that needs to be considered is that providing additional money can also be a disincentive, to put in more effort to the next round, because the player breaks even, even if they lose in the first round and hence can be 'lazy'.

djlovesyou wrote:Someone's listening anyways.

Roland Garros announced an 7% increase in prizemoney, with a lot of that going to first and second round losers. (20% increase for 1st round loser for example.)

Good research there DJ, I like that 20 percent is a real nice bump. And it didn't seem to cause any problems for the tournament and I don't hear protestations from the top dogs and their camps. If every tournament did something like this, nice incremental increase for the lower round guys then i think we would have an overral healthier and more competitive tour. In life you usually get what you pay for. If you pay the mid ranking guys like garbage most likely over time you will get a group of mid ranking guys that play like garbage.

socal1976 wrote:Well Laverfan, players can succeed without the team afterall it is an individual sport. But I think there is a benefit of having the best doctors, trainers, and coaches in any sport. A real and significant benefit. Look at how much guff Murray got and even Federer when they didn't have a top notch coach in their corner. If it didn't help them they would use a coach. In fact for a player as great as even federer i think his performance against Nadal in his peak was hurt by the fact that except for a period with Roche he didn't have a full time great coach, and roche wasn't even fulltime.

Perhaps he did not want a coach. Murray did not have a coach when he goto to the French SF. Tsonga did not have a coach and got to WTF final. Regarding Federer, he has always had a coach, if not officially, then unofficially, with Severin Luthi.

socal1976 wrote:The harrison point is mute, most players don't have the benefit of a huge and well funded federation like American, British, or the french federations.

Sergiy is Ukrainian. (Can I please nit pick and ask to you look for the difference between 'moot' and 'mute', and I am not trying to offend you).

socal1976 wrote:Now as to the argument of Nadal choosing Tennis over football again, you want to go for one example. I have no idea how good Nadal was as junior in football vis a vis tennis or what went into the decision to go with tennis. For his particular case tennis might have been the best route to fortune.

Murray and Federer both played Football.

socal1976 wrote:I mean if you guys are happy with a tour of ten multimillionaires and a bunch of journeyman making as much take home salary as the salesman of a car dealership or a skilled auto mechanic then that is fine. I think however that for the overrall health and competiveness of the tour it would be much better to give out a bit more money to the lower rounds in tournaments.

For arguments sake (and based on the FO information posted earlier), once the draw for FO 2012 comes out, will you help predict which players would get to the second round of R2? Let us wait and see what the financial incentive does to the motivation of the players in the 'lower' echelons. I would like to use Sergiy as a benchmark (RG 2011 - R32 L Ferrer, RG 2010 - R128 L Mayer, RG 2009 - R64 L Djokovic as a Qualifier which is very good).

socal1976 wrote:The game has enough money where the winners pursue at slams has increased by 100 percent over 5 years. Why not give a portion of that percentage increase over to the guys in the first couple of rounds. Maybe in the next 5 years the winners purse increases by only 80 percent, the top guys would hardly even miss it. As they garner a great deal more revenue from endorsments, appearance fees, exhos, and sponsorships.

As stated, let us wait till the end of FO 2012 and re-visit this topic, if you will.

Interesting article but why should he expect to retire at 32? And he talks about spending minimum $144 for a hotel in Indian Wells. I went to Indian Wells and stayed in a cheap motel for about $40 or something a couple of miles away. He actually makes it sound like a decent life while trying not to, he's hardly poor.

Does have a point on flights though.

And I do still think that lower rounds prize money needs to go up.

http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/are-tennis-players-overpaid-or-underpaid/ was good, although misses the expenses issue.

Hang on I just noticed Stakhovksy says,

"To fly to Australia – that’s already a feat. It’s 24 hours. I’m not risking flying economy there, it’s just unrealistic." No wonder you're left with no money if you fly business class everywhere. What's the "risk" of economy??!?

And what about this: "If I didn’t make it in the top-100 – what next? I mean, I become a tennis instructor, and what life is that? To be on court from 8 till 8 for the rest of my life, to play with amateurs? Yes, it can be financially rewarding, but it’s a hell of a work." What is he saying here? "Hell of a work" to play tennis and get paid. I think there are worse jobs out there!

Meh, it's not such a bad life.

Socal keeps missing the point, which for somebody who purports to be an economist is odd. People get paid what they deserve, full stop. If they're underpaid in their opinion they have to prove their value. If they think the tour would fail without them, they have to refuse to play. Then we'll see.

And not all CEO's are Ivy League tossers who don't deserve their money. I run a company that's made >£8m each year for the last couple of years and I earn my money. The people you refer to are usually sustained because of state involvement or idle owners.

laverfan wrote:One aspect that needs to be considered is that providing additional money can also be a disincentive, to put in more effort to the next round, because the player breaks even, even if they lose in the first round and hence can be 'lazy'.

So when lower ranked players earn enough to "break even" (and breaking even to some could be defined as being able to afford a $40 dollar per night motel room a few miles from the tournament) they get lazy and it acts as a disincentive. They should be paid less to keep them mean and hungry.

Top ranked players already have more money than they know what to do with... So why should they bother playing through a tough semi to get to the final? They will hardly notice the difference in prize money and will already have banked a hefty appearance fee.

Are you saying there is a difference in morals between the two groups? Lower ranked players are lazy and just want to do the bare minimum. That is why they are not in the top 10 or top 5 or number 1. Higher ranked players work harder, are less motivated by money (because they continue to work hard even after they break even) and more motivated by the honour of winning?

This thread is depressing. Stakhovsky is an elite player who is being honest about his profession. I am surprised at the criticsm he is recieving for not being as good as Nadal or Federer...

hawkeye wrote:They should be paid less to keep them mean and hungry.

Did I say they need a pay cut? To follow Socal's 'money incentivizes' is wrong. And you are proving my point because the Top echelons, despite their money are still playing.

Nadal and Djokovic push their bodies to the limit for the win. Money is secondary at that point.

Arthur Ashe got less money than Tom Okker for winning the USO. He played for the love of the sport. If you feel so inclined, please read Bud Collins's book.

hawkeye wrote:Are you saying there is a difference in morals between the two groups? Lower ranked players are lazy and just want to do the bare minimum. That is why they are not in the top 10 or top 5 or number 1. Higher ranked players work harder, are less motivated by money (because they continue to work hard even after they break even) and more motivated by the honour of winning?

There are no morals for complaining about not breaking even. Business has ups and downs. So is Sergiy's performance.

hawkeye wrote:This thread is depressing. Stakhovsky is an elite player who is being honest about his profession. I am surprised at the criticsm he is recieving for not being as good as Nadal or Federer...

I will ask Nadal to cut a piece of his 2008 Olympic Gold and give it to Sergiy.

bogbrush wrote:Socal keeps missing the point, which for somebody who purports to be an economist is odd. People get paid what they deserve, full stop. If they're underpaid in their opinion they have to prove their value. If they think the tour would fail without them, they have to refuse to play. Then we'll see.

And not all CEO's are Ivy League tossers who don't deserve their money. I run a company that's made >£8m each year for the last couple of years and I earn my money. The people you refer to are usually sustained because of state involvement or idle owners.

i don't purport to be an economist BB. I stated that I have some experience with working for and with corporations and some legal training and background on the legal structure of a corporation. In my experience the professional manager class at the highest levels is not necessarily compensated at what they are worth. I am glad you are worth your salary, many executives I am sure are, how about the CEO of countrywide mortgage, Lehman before the collapse did they earn every penny of their 8 and 9 figure salaries? Is bankrupting a company a marketable asset that deserves such massive renumeration? See this is my difficulty in having a discussion with you, you are a black and white thinker who overgeneralizes and lacks either the desire or ability to look at gradations and variations. You posit your own unsupported maxim that people always get paid exactly what they are worth. Well tell me then how much is it worth to bankrupt once profitable companies. Because alot of big time ceos and financial guys make tons of money right before some of their decisions lead to directly to destroying an old and profitable ongoing concern. How much was the million dollar CEO who bankrupted my company with assinine decisions during a boom market, was he worth all one million bucks that he got? I am sure your one line overgeneralization that people always get paid exactly what they are worth would resolve the entire controversy over AIG execs who bankrupted the largest insurance company in the world, and some of those directly responsible got bonuses of 8 and even 9 figures. In my experience, and it is only my personal experience the companies who hire promote from within and who have some reasonable control of executive compensation are actually much better run then the companies who go out and hire a bunch of MBAS and lifelong corporate bureacrats who often know nothing about the core business of said company.

Strakh can always change careers and play a baddie in the next Bond film...

http://www.sergiy-stakhovsky.com/images/uploaded/SS%20small.jpg

socal1976 wrote:But I think you are sadly mistaken if you think Arsenal generates more revenue than the ATP tour.

To be exact, my comparison was not on the revenue but on the total money paid out to the athletes.

Tennis: Here I used laverfan's $42mil per year excluding three slams. With the three slams added I think it will add up to somewhere around $70mil.

Arsenal: This I got from this link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/sep/30/arsenal-annual-accounts

Converting to US dollars at 1.6 exchange rate gives about $200mil. I did make the assumption that bulk of the Arsenal salaries goes to the players. If you think that is incorrect, I can try to dig further, but even if say only 50% of Arsenal salaries go to players (and I find it hard to believe it would be that low), Arsenal would still be paying its players more than the entire ATP.

The context was that you were suggesting that if Arsenal backup goalie can earn good money, so should tennis players around #100 in the world. I think the figures above show that this argument does not really work - players around #100 in tennis are much further down a (smaller) totem pole than the Arsenal backup goalie.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:As for Summerblues comments I'd like to know what exactly is bigger than tennis: for example: Arsenal's total revenues? Profits? Debts?? Let's discuss further........

See above.

socal: Say you have two sports. Both played by comparably many people, investing similar effort. However, assume that somehow or other only one of the sports is popular as a spectator sport. Clearly, players playing that sport would be making far more money than the players in the other sport. You could call a top 50 player in the "non-spectator" spot "elite" but they still would not make any money.

I think tennis situation is somewhat similar. It is not totally unpopolar, but it is a niche sport in the world of spectator sports. Being the ten thousendth best player means you are pretty good as a player but it also means that your efforts are worth pretty much nothing financially. Your pay will reflect that - you will get pretty much nothing. From the perspective of the sport as a source of living, a player around #100 is not "elite". The entire tennnis "industry" can really support only a few hundred players. Also, being part of the "entertainment" industry, it comes with a relatively skewed structure where top performers are worth large portion of the total industry's earning power. In this context, a player around #100 is definitely not an "elite" worker. He is more comparable to an extra on a movie set - someone entirely replaceable and not very economically valuable in their own right, but nevertheless needed to make sure the entire production can be put together.

Good research summerblues, I don't want to be stickler but I really think you have to produce the profits and or revenues of both sports. You did the arsenal end of it all right. By the way if they have so much money why do they always have such a crap defense and keeper?

Here is where I think you get bogged down in the detail and fail to realize the larger point that I am making. The top guys are getting headliner money and of course I think they deserve it. But lets focus on the financial picture in tennis. 100 percent increase in winners' money over 5 years is a perfect indicator that there is a growing pool of money to be disbursed. Now what would be so damaging if instead of 100 the growth had been 80 or 75 percent, still a very health growth rate and some of that percentage whatever it may be (more than Arsenal less than arsenal whatever) be given to the mid rankers?

They are not extras, extras are not allowed to steal the show, where a tennis competitor always has a fighting chance. Sometimes the Dodig's of the world beat the Nadals. Sometimes Murray loses to young. There is no script it is a sport and competition and while these guys aren't the stars they certainly are not extras either.

And absolutely they are the elite of the sport. Tennis is not as weak a sport globally as people believe. It certainly after golf, auto racing, football, and maybe basketball is among the top 10 for certain. We aren't talking about competitive hot dog eating. Enough revenues exist in tennis where Nadal, Fed, and Djoko all rate high up on the list of highest paid athletes world wide. I think Federer makes the money after Tiger, Kobe, and Lebron James. And the top guys wouldn't be hurt very much a relatively smaller percentage of their earnings are derived from prize money. Most of the money they make is from endorsements anyway maybe 2 or 3 to 1 for the absolute best guys.

socal wrote: Now what would be so damaging if instead of 100 the growth had been 80 or 75 percent, still a very health growth rate and some of that percentage whatever it may be (...) be given to the mid rankers?

The highlighted and underlined part is what I have a 'fundamental' issue with. I would prefer that the prize money of the top 4 remain unchanged and the ATP tournaments increase the early rounds available money, independently.

Ellison decided to add money at SF or later rounds in IW, which is what Sergiy may have a legitimate complaint about (but he is not Ellison).

RG has increased the early rounds money, without decreasing the SF or later rounds.

As you indicated, there is no cap on 'profit' that Ellison makes, which no one wants to address at all in this discussion. If the IW daily collection (not profit) is USD 20/30 M, and the Mens Prize is USD 1M (3-5% of daily gross for a two week tournament), you do realise how much profit is being made here, and you talk about bad CEOs. We will not go into Ellison's other personal vagaries, Tenez can provide much more humourous insight into that aspect.

As NiTB indicates, Nadal was Ellison's 'guest', and I am reasonably certain he did not pay for room and board. Should Nadal have helped out Sergiy in reimbursing USD 144/diem hotel?



Players making an early exit at the second Grand Slam event of the season will get more money this year, with losers in the second qualifying round up to the third round of the main draw getting a pay increase of between 10 and 20 percent. The singles champions will receive a 4 percent rise in prize money.

Here is the RG 2012 prize money link - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/french-open-tennis-raises-prize-money-for-early-round-losers.html

Now the question can be turned around, why are the early rounders and Q2/Q3 losers getting 10-20% while the top dogs get a paltry 4%?

Also, why are Q1 losers being penalised?

socal1976 wrote:Good research summerblues, I don't want to be stickler but I really think you have to produce the profits and or revenues of both sports.

I don't think so, not for this discussion. If we were discussing whether or not tennis pays a fair portion of its revenue to the players then yes, we would need to dig deeper. But the focus of his thread has been whether, given the overall earnings what they are, tennis pays too much to the top performers. For that, I only need to compare "wages" to "wages", no need to look beyond that.

socal1976 wrote:Here is where I think you get bogged down in the detail

No fair. I could have dismissed you out of hand with some phony argument but instead attempted to collect a bit of hard data. Does not mean I am getting bogged down in detail.

socal1976 wrote:They are not extras, extras are not allowed to steal the show

I could say you are getting bogged down in detail here . Sure, tennis is not as scripted as a movie, but the point remains. Like it or not, audiences come to see top performers, not the #100s in the world. There is a reason why tournament organizers are not too thrilled if all the superstars get eliminated in the early rounds.

socal1976 wrote:And absolutely they are the elite of the sport.

I suspect in the end we may just have to agree to disagree on this item. I can see that they are "elite" from the perspective that out of millions that play tennis, they are in the very top echelon. But the problem is that, when it comes to talking how much they should make, that does not matter so much. The #100 may be in the very upper echelon, but it is the upper echelon of an endevour that is in vast majority of those millions of players worthless (worthless in a sense that it has zero economic value). Why, in an industry where being number #10,000 out of millions is worth zilch, should #100 out of millions be worth a lot? And once we restrict ourselves to the group that can make living out of tennis, being #100 is not so elite anymore - you are talking maybe #100 out 500 total, if that.

I should also mention that I am not necessarily saying that the current structure is optimal. I suspect it is a balancing act between two sides:

a. on one hand, from a very short term perspective, just looking at who brings revenue to the tournaments, I suspect #100 players are already being overpaid

b. on the other hand, if they were paid their short-term economic value (i.e., possibly almost nothing) that could in the long run kill the sport

It may well be that the longer-run economic oprimum is indeed achieved when lower ranked players are paid more than now, sort of like what you are saying.

The bit that got me into this discussion was when you were suggesting that players around #50-#100 should definitely earn more than middle class - almost to the point where you were suggesting it was unfair if they did not, and when you seemed to be supporting it by the numbers of people who play tennis and the amount of effort it takes to be that good. Those arguments just seem rather irrelevant. These players are either worth the money or they are not. Maybe they are, but that is not clear, and if they are not, then no matter how good they are or how much effort they put into it, they should not get paid well.

Good post, summerblues, here is where I think we have found some common ground. Focus on your point b, in your argument. Of course in terms of box office people come out to see djokovic or Fed or Nadal. But that isn't always the case. Take Stakhovsky I bet he is a reasonably big draw among ukranians, and I bet Nishikori is a big draw among Japanese. These players add to the overall health of the tour. As you and others are argueing you get what you pay for. Well that usually is true, if you fund the mid ranking players like crap they will end up over the long haul and on average end up being crap.

And people do watch sports for the upset and the cinderella story can be a captivating draw in a match or in a particular tournament. So again I think your attempt to lessen the significance of the rank and file guy is a bit overstated. They are not the headliner but occasionally these guys give use matches and moments that are particularly special. Take Isner v. Mahut. Although Isner is now in the big time category especially since he is American, but at the time he wasn't that big time of a guy. Nicky Mahut deserves a pay raise and so do those like them. I don't think we really realize how good and elite these guys really are. I watched a futures event, not even a challenger a futures event at my club. And I mean I stood right on the court. Frankly, my jaw dropped at the balls these guys were hitting and their movement.

So I think my fault in your argument is you understamate these guys and how thin the margins are at the top. I also feel like you underestimate the value of what funding these guys better could do for the sports overrall health and competiveness.

Take Stakhovsky I bet he is a reasonably big draw among ukranians

Only the drunken ones, the sobered ones take to TheDolgo.

Stakhovsky is a useful player, big strong guy. I remember him coming out all guns blazing against Roger Federer in last year's Dubai QF. He pretty much matched Fed for the first six games or so, gave him something to think about , and if he had been able to maintain a better percentage on 1st serve I sensed he had the game to push him a lot further.

But then I guess that's why their respective rankings are as they are .......

I do agree with those that point out the widening percentage gulf between the prize money at the top of the tournament and the first few rounds.

I actually wrote an article on Larry Ellison's decision to increase the prize money for the semis and the finals at IW by some margin while adding nothing to the pot for the lower rounds and whether the ATP would have any teeth in this instance - it was removed, and I didn't question it at the time though I thought it was a bit odd. I had, then, misunderstood and thought Ellison was a sponsor rather than owning the tournament, but that can't have been enough to have a post removed??

The fact that the top four have won a bigger percentage of the pot is due to their consistency and excellence, but I do believe that the pot should be increased and the increase should be at the lower end of the tournaments, and not just exponentially increase what is already a hugely fat cheque for the winner as Ellison did.

As many have pointed out, the rank and file make up the tour and without them there are no future stars and no tennis tournaments.

That is the danger of the ATP relying too much on its star culture

time please wrote:I do agree with those that point out the widening percentage gulf between the prize money at the top of the tournament and the first few rounds.

I actually wrote an article on Larry Ellison's decision to increase the prize money for the semis and the finals at IW by some margin while adding nothing to the pot for the lower rounds and whether the ATP would have any teeth in this instance - it was removed, and I didn't question it at the time though I thought it was a bit odd. I had, then, misunderstood and thought Ellison was a sponsor rather than owning the tournament, but that can't have been enough to have a post removed??

The fact that the top four have won a bigger percentage of the pot is due to their consistency and excellence, but I do believe that the pot should be increased and the increase should be at the lower end of the tournaments, and not just exponentially increase what is already a hugely fat cheque for the winner as Ellison did.

As many have pointed out, the rank and file make up the tour and without them there are no future stars and no tennis tournaments.

That is the danger of the ATP relying too much on its star culture

Brava!

Did I get it right, your article was removed and no explanation whatsoever provided for its removal?? That's no good.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Did I get it right, your article was removed and no explanation whatsoever provided for its removal?? That's no good.

I do not recall. TP, can you provide more details.

Hi Laver, it was late one night before the start of IW and linked to an article (think it might have been either a local newspaper or espn, can't recall exactly) about how Ellison had invested a lot more into the prize money pot, but that it would only benefit those reaching at least the semis, thus widening the earning potential even further.

It wasn't hugely important to me and I only brought it to the forum as another topic so at first when it wasn't on the front page I just assumed no-one interested enough to respond, and then I realised it just wasn't there. Thought the link might have been the problem or the fact that I was a little critical of Ellison.

As I say, I wasn't bothered or would have asked, just mentioned it now in the light of these discussions.

Of course, there is the possibility that I was completely dappy and didn't press send, but sure I did see it appear (albeit briefly) on the forum page.

time please wrote:Hi Laver, it was late one night before the start of IW and linked to an article (think it might have been either a local newspaper or espn, can't recall exactly) about how Ellison had invested a lot more into the prize money pot, but that it would only benefit those reaching at least the semis, thus widening the earning potential even further.

It wasn't hugely important to me and I only brought it to the forum as another topic so at first when it wasn't on the front page I just assumed no-one interested enough to respond, and then I realised it just wasn't there. Thought the link might have been the problem or the fact that I was a little critical of Ellison.

As I say, I wasn't bothered or would have asked, just mentioned it now in the light of these discussions.

Of course, there is the possibility that I was completely dappy and didn't press send, but sure I did see it appear (albeit briefly) on the forum page.

This was archived because of misogynstic and racial comments from posters.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Socal keeps missing the point, which for somebody who purports to be an economist is odd. People get paid what they deserve, full stop. If they're underpaid in their opinion they have to prove their value. If they think the tour would fail without them, they have to refuse to play. Then we'll see.

And not all CEO's are Ivy League tossers who don't deserve their money. I run a company that's made >£8m each year for the last couple of years and I earn my money. The people you refer to are usually sustained because of state involvement or idle owners.

i don't purport to be an economist BB. I stated that I have some experience with working for and with corporations and some legal training and background on the legal structure of a corporation. In my experience the professional manager class at the highest levels is not necessarily compensated at what they are worth. I am glad you are worth your salary, many executives I am sure are, how about the CEO of countrywide mortgage, Lehman before the collapse did they earn every penny of their 8 and 9 figure salaries? Is bankrupting a company a marketable asset that deserves such massive renumeration? See this is my difficulty in having a discussion with you, you are a black and white thinker who overgeneralizes and lacks either the desire or ability to look at gradations and variations. You posit your own unsupported maxim that people always get paid exactly what they are worth. Well tell me then how much is it worth to bankrupt once profitable companies. Because alot of big time ceos and financial guys make tons of money right before some of their decisions lead to directly to destroying an old and profitable ongoing concern. How much was the million dollar CEO who bankrupted my company with assinine decisions during a boom market, was he worth all one million bucks that he got? I am sure your one line overgeneralization that people always get paid exactly what they are worth would resolve the entire controversy over AIG execs who bankrupted the largest insurance company in the world, and some of those directly responsible got bonuses of 8 and even 9 figures. In my experience, and it is only my personal experience the companies who hire promote from within and who have some reasonable control of executive compensation are actually much better run then the companies who go out and hire a bunch of MBAS and lifelong corporate bureacrats who often know nothing about the core business of said company.

They were worth it because they were smart enough to get paid it. They might have been crap at their job, but they somehow had enough about them to get it. That what I mean; life is how it is and the results are always your own responsibility, good or bad. You get the resut you deserved, always.

That garbage CEO? Why couldnt his competition, or you, get the job then? Years ago i would see people who I thought were dim running business but it never bothered me or made me resentful (it puzzled me for a while I admit). I've learned a lot successfully running a fair sized business for this long in a very competitive environment and one thing is that's there's nowhere to look for the reason for your failures but yourself.

The bottom line is that if some tennis players get crap prize money, tough, do something about it. Strike, whatever, anything to discover your worth. And when the truth arrives, accept it and either get on with it or do something different.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:Hi Laver, it was late one night before the start of IW and linked to an article (think it might have been either a local newspaper or espn, can't recall exactly) about how Ellison had invested a lot more into the prize money pot, but that it would only benefit those reaching at least the semis, thus widening the earning potential even further.

It wasn't hugely important to me and I only brought it to the forum as another topic so at first when it wasn't on the front page I just assumed no-one interested enough to respond, and then I realised it just wasn't there. Thought the link might have been the problem or the fact that I was a little critical of Ellison.

As I say, I wasn't bothered or would have asked, just mentioned it now in the light of these discussions.

Of course, there is the possibility that I was completely dappy and didn't press send, but sure I did see it appear (albeit briefly) on the forum page.

This was archived because of misogynstic and racial comments from posters.

Oh I see - when I looked it had generated no responses but it was off the forum by the morning (remembering now)

As I am sure that there was no racist or misogynstic comments in either the link or my post (imposs for me to be the latter in any case!) I am presuming that either I or the link provoked such comments from another poster?

If this is the case, couldn't the responding posts have been removed and my original piece left? I was actually trying to bring a new discussion to the forum and it seems a little strange if posters seeking to disrupt have the power to hijack threads like that and get them removed - I had thought it was maybe because the link from the newspaper worried the mods because it was critical of Ellison, though I could see nothing that would have anyone nervously contemplating a call from lawyers.

socal1976 wrote:I don't think we really realize how good and elite these guys really are. I watched a futures event, not even a challenger a futures event at my club. And I mean I stood right on the court. Frankly, my jaw dropped at the balls these guys were hitting and their movement.

You say you do not think we should compare tennis to Tesco or mechanics but then you keep making argumennts that work in the world of tescos and mechanics, but not in the entertainment industry.

If one mechanic can fix 20 cars per month and another one 21, then they will likely get paid similar amounts of money, because they create similar value. If an employer decided to pay the mechanic that fixes 21 cars per month much more, the cost per one car fixed would go up dramatically. Another employer who would not do the same could drive him out of business.

The same rule does not apply in entertainment. Unlike mechanics, entertainers do not create any value other than the entertainment of people. It so happens that people are drawn towards top performers and if one player is - by some "objective" measure - 5% better than another, that will often be enough to draw a big majority of fan interest in their direction. The market value of a player who is "5% worse" may well be a small fraction of the other player's value. So the argument that players down the food chain play great tennis is irrelevant.

Anyway, I think I am pretty close to (or even beyond) the point where I have said all I have to say from enough angles so that continuing would add little to the discussion. I suspect I have also seen the substance of most of what you have to say so I will stop somewhere around here. In the end, we will have not changed each other's opinions, but I have found the discussion interesting nonetheless.

I would have thought a 25% increase would be spread evenly across the board. That would be fair in my view and I thought this is what happened in the past. if you earnt 1000 by losing in the first round, you get an additional 250. if you earnt 1million for winning you'd get extra 250k. Makes perfect sense to me.

Not doing so means lower ranked players were overpaid (which no-one argued then) or that they are now underpaid.....unless it "suddenly" responds to the decline of market demand which I don;t think to be the case as more people walk the grounds of tournaments.

But what we see in tennis is a reflection of what is seen in our societies. We can see it both ways: fair and unfair but one thing for sure is that in our societies "re-adjustements" are made regularly through wars.

time please wrote:

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:Hi Laver, it was late one night before the start of IW and linked to an article (think it might have been either a local newspaper or espn, can't recall exactly) about how Ellison had invested a lot more into the prize money pot, but that it would only benefit those reaching at least the semis, thus widening the earning potential even further.

It wasn't hugely important to me and I only brought it to the forum as another topic so at first when it wasn't on the front page I just assumed no-one interested enough to respond, and then I realised it just wasn't there. Thought the link might have been the problem or the fact that I was a little critical of Ellison.

As I say, I wasn't bothered or would have asked, just mentioned it now in the light of these discussions.

Of course, there is the possibility that I was completely dappy and didn't press send, but sure I did see it appear (albeit briefly) on the forum page.

This was archived because of misogynstic and racial comments from posters.

Oh I see - when I looked it had generated no responses but it was off the forum by the morning (remembering now)

As I am sure that there was no racist or misogynstic comments in either the link or my post (imposs for me to be the latter in any case!) I am presuming that either I or the link provoked such comments from another poster?

If this is the case, couldn't the responding posts have been removed and my original piece left? I was actually trying to bring a new discussion to the forum and it seems a little strange if posters seeking to disrupt have the power to hijack threads like that and get them removed - I had thought it was maybe because the link from the newspaper worried the mods because it was critical of Ellison, though I could see nothing that would have anyone nervously contemplating a call from lawyers.

Sometimes I feel those threads are so thoroughly infested with misogynists, racists and hijakers that is totally pointless task to try to clean them up, I'd suggest the only way is to reset the hard drive then!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Sometimes I feel those threads are so thoroughly infested with misogynists, racists and hijakers that is totally pointless task to try to clean them up, I'd suggest the only way is to reset the hard drive then!

It is in the archive. Reading through it now seems so to have peer posters being accused and labelled. It is better off in the archives.

I wasn't even aware of the thread.

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Sometimes I feel those threads are so thoroughly infested with misogynists, racists and hijakers that is totally pointless task to try to clean them up, I'd suggest the only way is to reset the hard drive then!

It is in the archive. Reading through it now seems so to have peer posters being accused and labelled. It is better off in the archives.

Laver can I just say that I now feel really uncomfortable - your above reads slightly ambiguously as if it might be I who was accusing and labelling posters. Why is my article better in the archives unless it is the piece that is giving offence - I also think that by saying 'reading through it now seems so ' makes it sound as if I wrote something objectionable.

Unless I had a complete out of body experience, I am sure that you can't mean my post????? and if this is so, could I please ask why the responding problem posts can't be removed and the original piece brought back - unless of course the mods do have a problem with my article, in which case I would be very grateful if you could unconfuse me forthwith

They were worth it because they were smart enough to get paid it. They might have been crap at their job, but they somehow had enough about them to get it. That what I mean; life is how it is and the results are always your own responsibility, good or bad. You get the resut you deserved, always.

That garbage CEO? Why couldnt his competition, or you, get the job then? Years ago i would see people who I thought were dim running business but it never bothered me or made me resentful (it puzzled me for a while I admit).

Well thank you BB for giving us a terrifying picture of the way your mind works. If you manage to make the money then you deserve it. Your logic is so wrong and reprehensible on so many levels that if you really don't see it I think it is a waste argueing with you about it. Let people just get paid without thinking about the damage it does to society or whether they are crap at their job or not. Also you assume that those hiring these bad managers have access to perfect information about what future buffoonry these guys will get themselves into. Shareholders in most modern corporations have little or no information, quite purposefully(by the management), of what the professional managerial class is doing with their money until it is often too late. I guess under the BB theory the Drug lord and pimp should be applauded for being worth it, because they social darwinistically managed to be paid well for their activities.

The problem is that the alternative is some diot sitting in judgement on everyones value. The people stupid enough to hire idiots deserve to lose their money because they don't know how to hire. If they have bad data, get some more, or change techniques, or observe performance closer. Hire some people to watch the management if they want. Easy.
Meanwhile, whining about the guy who got the job is missing the point so badly it just leads to repetition of the fault. Ever wondered why the same mistakes keep getting made? It's what you did in that post.

Yes, they all earn their money. If you don't like the drug lord and pimp earning it you should think about how they pull it off. Essentially, in both cases it's the fault of well meaning fools who outlaw things people want to do. Stop that, you stop the drug lord and pimp because there's no criminal margin.

I think it's very simplistic to believe that people always get paid what they deserve or that individuals are solely responsible for their own destinies. That's just fantasy. There are often many extenuating, mitigating or indeed underhanded elements that influence our lives and prospects, and for the most part these are outside of our control. You could be a woman but your interviewer is a chauvinist and thus hires the less competent male; of a certain ethnic background towards which the employer is prejudiced. Some people are born priveleged, others have to struggle for everything with no additional support. A sub-saharan child does not have the same prospects as an Emirati child, and so on.

Of course starting points are different, it'd be daft to argue differently. My philosophy broadly is based on the futility, thereafter, of looking externally for reasons or not getting what we want. It may even be that the odds are stacked against one but what is the advantage of dwelling on it?

All anyone can do is take their destiny in their own hands. There's no assurance of outcome but it beats sitting down and blaming everyone or expecting others to fix it for you, which is a very common trait in Britain. The outcome of that activity is invariably negative.

I've therefore found it helpful in life to hold myself responsible for anything adverse. It's very empowering, very motivating.

bogbrush wrote:The problem is that the alternative is some diot sitting in judgement on everyones value.

I think this is very true. Nevertheless, I still think you take your line of reasoning too far in what follows. It is one thing to say that living in the world where companies can hire and overpay useless CEOs is better than available alternatives, but it is quite another thing to say that those CEOs deserve what they make. Unless you are using a very different definition of the word "deserve" where you tautologically accept that you always get what you deserve. But then you would almost start to sound like Lydian when he says that everyone who wins 10 slams has to be supertalented, and we would not want that, would we?

It is meant in the tautological sense. Clearly many of them are complete tossers.

And Lydians point isn't a tautology, it's just wrong. Nadal deserves his Slams because he won them. It doesn't prove anything about talent.