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...

hawkeye wrote:it all depends how fair a fight you want to watch.

Your concept of a 'fair' fight is that every worker 'should' be the CEO of the company they work for, otherwise it is unfair. I wonder if you work for a living or not?

Socal... You live partly in the US. You understand the debate about the 'welfare' system, I assume. You are advocating that lower-ranked players should be given money which is earned as prize money by winner. You do realise the implications of such a system.

Raiders... well said.

I very much agreed with what LF posted yesterday. The interview is heavily bias to support a sympathetic view of the 'lowly' ranked player. He seemed to forget mentioning the free equipment he is paid to wear and endorse as well as appearance fees for tournaments. Instead of moaning 'oh i pay an ex amount in travel, how about I save this much without having to buy the equipment I am provided'

As a tennis player, Strakh is great, very nice, watchable game. I enjoyed watching a couple of his matches this year a lot and do hope he moves up the ranking; he'll need a bit of luck with his draw, as well. Not very stable upstairs, unfortunately, still pretty good as an overall package.
Definitely one of the more exciting players when on form.


Now his tennis aside, Strakh's persona leaves a lot to be desired; I came across a fan on another tennis forum who has been miffed with Strakh for a while, and observed the "big mouth" trend from him, which dated well before this interview.

My two bob: Strakh moans too much, appears to be from comfortable background, if he thinks he's had it hard, maybe he should've swapped and gone to train in swimming pools in Serbia, being humiliated in visa queues BEFORE even being in the position to pay for his plane tickets.
Here's the c&p of those two comments that contain a lot of quotes from that previous interview:

Stakhovsky is a 26 year old self-employed businessman who has already created revenues of over $2.3 million (does not include payments and gifts outside prize money). No. 71 Stakhovsky probably expected to make a million dollars last year after his career-high of $650,838 prize money in 2010, when he was ranked his career high No. 31. Despite declining in ranking, Stakhovsky in his prime has since made $556,000 in prize money after 2010. Last year, despite vacillating between No. 34 to 69, this self-employed businessman had a personal income of about $300,000 after deducting expenses. Having made revenues of $138,622 (prize money) in the first quarter 2012, Stakhovsky is on target to earn more prize money than he did last year.

Stakhovsky says he “respects Nadal more…because he openly supports the players’ interests” (Stakhovsky’s biggest beef is more prize money for poor performers on the tour such as himself). Yet Nadal said nothing when Larry Ellison increased the prize money of the top 8 players of Indian Wells (“boosting the winner’s take to $1 million (a 64 percent leap from last year’s $611,000), and distributing the remainder of the $700,000 hike through the final three rounds of play”), and did virtually nothing for first and second round losers like Stakhovsky. Nadal stayed at tournament owner Larry Ellison's home and even played tennis with him for 1.5 hours, which the New York Times revealed, and surely had many private chats with him over dinner and drinks. The same Nadal who kicked up a public stink at Australian Open and Miami, was strangely quiet in Indian Wells. Does Stakhovsky think that Indian Wells this year “laid a new surface, and they became super-slow with high bounce” because Federer wanted Indian wells to become an even slower court — or because Ellison wanted to help his friend Nadal win the title?

It was revealing that Stakhovsky evaded answering the million-dollar interview question: "so why won’t the players oust Federer from his role as president of the players’ council?" There are about 2,000 ATP players, not just whiners like Nadal and Stakhovsky who think their causes represent everyone. The vast majority of voting ATP Players twice voted for Federer to be president of the ten-member ATP Players Council (2008-2010, 2010-2012)… they did not vote for Nadal or Stakhovsky to be president (though one or both are probably publicizing their views to help them get elected to the Player Council in June, just before Wimbledon) . So whether Nadal and Stakhovsky likes it or not, the majority of players and majority of the the ten-member ATP Player’s Council support what Federer is doing. Federer shows courage in standing up to a minority of players who are not working in the interests of the majority. A players strike could lose sponsors, tournaments, viewers and set tennis back 20 years.

Why believe in the views of a mediocre player with a big mouth. This guy Stakhovsky must either be very close to Federer to see what Federer does (and does not do) and even knows Federer's innner thoughts… or else Stakhovsky is making up stuff without knowing any of these things for a fact. Stakhovsky jumped to conclusions, made speculative predictions and made generalizations about Federer without giving any facts to support his claims: “(Federer) wants to keep out of any bad stories too much” and “(Federer) looks at (changes) too passively, because it can harm his image” and “Federer says the same, just not in the presence of all the other players” and “He doesn’t want to speak publicly about certain things. Because if suddenly there’s a scandal with the boycott of Grand Slams by players, it can be connected to his name.”

and

Many news articles have carried stories of Stakhovsky shooting off his big mouth about these very same issues since at least mid-January (possibly earlier). Below is a small sample (Google for more):

USA Today, March 15: "While extracting concessions from the majors is one issue, some are fighting to rectify what they see as wealth gap within the tour. One of those is Sergiy Stakhovsky. The 76th-ranked Ukrainian has been one of the most vocal players behind the scenes, advocating a more even spread across all rounds at events. "We are not interested in counting somebody's money," he says. "If somebody is winning it, he's winning it….But it should be equal."

Tennis Now, January: "After the meeting, Ukraine’s Sergiy Stakhovsky told the media that the proposal to boycott the Australian Open was supported by a majority of players, but was not carried out because it would have been unfair to the tournament’s organizers, who could not have replaced the field at such short notice."

Reuters, January: "ATP members held a behind-closed-doors meeting on Saturday and backed a proposal not to play at Melbourne Park, Ukraine's Sergiy Stakhovsky told Reuters in an interview..."Some of the players were suggesting we're not going to play here," said world number 65 Stakhovsky, referring to Saturday's meeting. There were enough (votes not to play) but it was just not right because we're here and the Australian Open would have no chance to change anything."... Stakhovsky said a majority of the leading players were sympathetic to the demands of the lower-ranked competitors. "More than 80 percent of the top players are on the same page as the rest of the players, saying that grand slams are not paying enough and that some mandatory events are not having proper prize money distribution," Stakhovsky added. "We all have issues. My issue is Indian Wells and Miami are mandatory events and if I lose in the first round I am minus (earnings). I am not making money off these tournaments. "It's four weeks spent in the United States, it's airfares and hotels ... if you're out in the first round you're unable to pay your coach," said the Ukrainian..."You can't just stand up and say we don't play," said Stakhovsky. "You have to have a certain strategy. "We have to say what we want, what we feel is fair for ... the ATP and the grand slams. We have to do some serious paperwork first, legal work. "You never know but I'm confident we are going to change things."...While Stakhovsky spoke of consensus among players, ATP Council vice-president Rafa Nadal suggested there was a rift at the top of the game between himself and president Roger Federer."
http://features.rr.com/article/04as1Qy4ADflA/quotes?q=Sergiy+Stakhovsky

UK's Daily Mail, January: " 'Some of the players were suggesting we're not going to play here,' said Sergiy Stakhovsky, the world No 65 from Ukraine, referring to the meeting. 'There were enough but it was just not right because we're here and the Australian Open would have no chance to change anything.'... Stakhovsky added: 'More than 80 percent of the top players are on the same page as the rest of the players, saying that grand slams are not paying enough and that some mandatory events are not having proper prize money distribution.' 'We all have issues. My issue is Indian Wells and Miami are mandatory events and if I lose in the first round I am minus (earnings). I am not making money off these tournaments. 'It's four weeks spent in the United States, it's airfares and hotels ... if you're out in the first round you're unable to pay your coach. He added, however, that any strike action must be carefully considered. 'You can't just stand up and say we don't play. You have to have a certain strategy. 'We have to say what we want, what we feel is fair for... the ATP and the grand slams. We have to do some serious paperwork first, legal work. You never know but I'm confident we are going to change things.' "

New Zealand's TVNZ, January: "Storm clouds, however, could be gathering over the men's game with Ukraine's Sergiy Stakhovsky saying that players had suggested they might need to go on strike for a more equitable split in prize money and a revamped playing schedule."

If players going out in the first few rounds of masters tournaments are unable to break even soon there will be no early rounds at masters tournaments.

How many players can the ATP tour support with prize money? 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 or more? Tennis generates enough money to provide a little depth in competition. Without a little depth how do we know who the top players really are?

Are players like Sergiy worth paying money to watch in their own right? Or are the just a sort of cannon fodder for the top players? Would people be satisfied watching a series of exhibition matches between "top players"? The very top players make a very good living out of the sport but the lower ranked players (and by lower ranked I still mean the tennis elite) can't be expected to work and perform at their best for so little.

I think it is a very strange comment by Stakhovsky - I think his support of Nadal must hinge on Rafa making accomodating sounds about the prize money being shared lower down in the tournament. However, Federer headed talks with the representatives of all the slams who came to (was it IW?) about this issue and I thought it had been agreed to look at the prize money for the earlier rounds and increase it after these talks. Nadal resigned about this time - are we to understand that Nadal thought that the prize money was still not going to be distributed with a generous enough percentage going to the lower players - I think not, I think he has tried to rally the troops by promising support for this in return for support for his two year ranking scheme - when that failed because the rank and file threw it out along with a reduced schedule, the distribution of money at the tournaments was not such a pressing concern. As NITB rightly points out, Larry Ellison substantially increased prize money for the top four players at this year's Indian Wells but failed to increase the prize money for first round - I didn't hear Rafa raising concerns about that.

time please wrote:I think it is a very strange comment by Stakhovsky - I think his support of Nadal must hinge on Rafa making accomodating sounds about the prize money being shared lower down in the tournament. However, Federer headed talks with the representatives of all the slams who came to (was it IW?) about this issue and I thought it had been agreed to look at the prize money for the earlier rounds and increase it after these talks. Nadal resigned about this time - are we to understand that Nadal thought that the prize money was still not going to be distributed with a generous enough percentage going to the lower players - I think not, I think he has tried to rally the troops by promising support for this in return for support for his two year ranking scheme - when that failed because the rank and file threw it out along with a reduced schedule, the distribution of money at the tournaments was not such a pressing concern. As NITB rightly points out, Larry Ellison substantially increased prize money for the top four players at this year's Indian Wells but failed to increase the prize money for first round - I didn't hear Rafa raising concerns about that.

time please. From reading your detailed anaysis of what Nadal was thinking, what he wants, what others think about what he want, how he tried but failed to manipulate others into giving him what he wants and how he stomped off when he didn't get what he wanted... I can almost imagine you were there.

lol hawkeye - that is how I would logically interpret events.

Btw you might call it manipulating, but others call it political manovering - it happens in business everywhere.

Ask yourself: 1) why would Rafa think he could count on lower ranked players for the 2 year ranking scheme?
2) what would the lower ranked players like resolved in return for such support?

I generally think the most simple explanation is the correct one in life


I did enjoy your rather impassioned response but I don't think it bears much relation to my post at all!

My data is based on the 2012 ATP Calendar.

I do not have Singles Prize money for W, USO, RG (TBD).

The Total Prize Money for Men's Singles (with the above exceptions) for 2012 is $42,162,384.

The current Top 10 have so far earned, in prize money, $11,422,503, which is roughly 27% of what is on offer.

The question is - the remaining 73% ($31 Million) spread across the remaining 1990 players (considering 2000 ATP professionals) is an average of $15,447.18. If the average is taken across Top 100, this amount is $307,398.81. Next step would be a poll to see how many posters on 606v2 earn between these two numbers annually and see what the wealth distribution looks on 606v2. If the ATP tour is 'mirror' representation of 606v2, it would be a real-world confirmation of this statistical model and would validate that the current distribution is realistic.

BTW, Federer made a strategic earnings move by winning IW as he knew Larry Ellison had increased prize money. Wonderful and very shrewd.


The list is from ATP website.

Top 10 (2012)

Djokovic $3,323,881
Nadal $1,725,465
Federer $2,316,585
Murray $1,053,481
Tsonga $516,678
Ferrer $771,998
Berdych $521,801
Tipsarevic $304,223
Fish $180,690
Isner $707,701

$11,422,503


PS: Sergiy Stakhovsky made $138,622 in prize money (from ATP web site), not much different from Top 10 player Fish. I feel bad for him not making as much as Djokovic or Nadal. Is he going to win AO next?

PPS: Daniel Gimeno-Traver (ATP #101) made $48,443 so far.

hawkeye wrote:If players going out in the first few rounds of masters tournaments are unable to break even soon there will be no early rounds at masters tournaments.

How many players can the ATP tour support with prize money? 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 or more? Tennis generates enough money to provide a little depth in competition. Without a little depth how do we know who the top players really are?

Are players like Sergiy worth paying money to watch in their own right? Or are the just a sort of cannon fodder for the top players? Would people be satisfied watching a series of exhibition matches between "top players"? The very top players make a very good living out of the sport but the lower ranked players (and by lower ranked I still mean the tennis elite) can't be expected to work and perform at their best for so little.

I agree here with hawkeye, and Laverfan nobody is claiming that the CEO should make as much as the ordinary workers. I certainly agree that the top guys should make the lions share of the money. But I do believe that the unseeded top 100 guys bring value to tour. And are therefore worth getting a little bit bigger share of the money for prize money than they currently do. I am talking about a couple of percent of the prize money being shifted down. For Djoko, Murray, Nadal, and especially fed prize money is a only a portion sometimes a small portion of what they make in exhos, appearance fees, and in sponsorships. And the prize money as Dj pointed out has already grown for the top guys by 80 percent in the last 5 years. Would Fed and Nadal even notice if instead of an 80 percent increase in prize money they received a 70 percent increase or 60 percent increase over 5 years? But the extra income for the unseeded top 100 guys who are still the tops of their profession would maybe help those guys a lot more and further incentivize their performance. I think it is a change that helps the overrall health of the tour.

Hasn't an increased share of the profit from tournaments going to bolster up the prize money for the preliminary rounds been just agreed upon with representatives from all the slams - talks Indian Wells?

Have I missed something?

socal1976 wrote: Would Fed and Nadal even notice if instead of an 80 percent increase in prize money they received a 70 percent increase or 60 percent increase over 5 years?

There is a whole Nadal taxation discussion. You do realise, he is not playing Queens, but instead has gone to Halle. I wonder why?

socal1976 wrote:But the extra income for the unseeded top 100 guys who are still the tops of their profession would maybe help those guys a lot more and further incentivize their performance. I think it is a change that helps the overrall health of the tour.

As I have stated, I prefer a healthy, but commensurate tour. My example in the previous post shows that there is 73% prize money still to be had. These players in Top 100 do not need to win slams, but even 250s offer pretty good money for Singles. For example if Sergiy skipped the whole US tour, there are enough 250s (Bastad, Belgrade, Bucharest, Estoril, Gstaad, Kitzbuhel, Marseille, Metz, Montpellier, Moscow, Munich, Nice, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Umag, Vienna and Zagreb).

Also notice - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Sergiy-Stakhovsky.aspx?t=tf - he has not won any titles in 2011.

He wants a '2-year' ranking, without being in the second round of more than one MS. He has lost in 4 R2 matches and rest in R1s in 2012.

Sergiy's highest ranking is 31. Benneteau (current #31) - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Be/J/Julien-Benneteau.aspx?t=tf - has been to two finals, Sydney and Winston-Salem, in 2012. Where is Sergiy in 2011/2012? If he wants a hand-out, he should ask the UKraine Tennis Federation.

Lets not forget here that the expenses of hotel, airfare, and coaching suck up basically all of the paltry earnings that you guys are talking about for these next tier of players. I mean 300,000 dollars in prize money is not that much when you have to travel the globe 10 months of the year and live out of hotel and then you take taxes out of it. I bet you a great deal of people on this website make more money take home and net than lets say the 100 or 90 player on tour.

socal1976 wrote:...................................................................................
........................................................................................................
I bet you a great deal of people on this website make more money take home and net than lets say the 100 or 90 player on tour.

You may or may not be right socal.

But let's for a moment assume that you are right. In which case the corollary is surely also true ; meaning that those guys ranked say 90 or 100 could - by a swift change of occupation - also make more 'take home money' than they currently do from tennis.

However the fact is these guys have made a carefully-considered decision to try their chances on the pro tour. A (very) limited number will hit the big time, and thereby reap the jackpot rewards, non-monetary benefits and sundry other privileges that follow - albeit for a relatively short number of years of course .

All players, including those at the lower end of the top 100, have made various sacrifices to get to where they are. But ultimately they are playing sport for a living - something which, in most people's eyes, can never be considered 'a proper job'

I can admire their ability and dedication to the cause. But ..... I certainly won't be showing them any sympathy !

Hands up everyone who was clearing $300 000 at the age of 26?

The guy is plain envious.
I wonder why he never won Miami in 2007, like the 18 year old Nole? Or RG like 18 year old Nadal? or Wimbledon, like 1 year old Becker....
I mean,the guy is just a pansy...

socal1976 wrote:Lets not forget here that the expenses of hotel, airfare, and coaching suck up basically all of the paltry earnings that you guys are talking about for these next tier of players. I mean 300,000 dollars in prize money is not that much when you have to travel the globe 10 months of the year and live out of hotel and then you take taxes out of it. I bet you a great deal of people on this website make more money take home and net than lets say the 100 or 90 player on tour.

Are you saying that prize money is the sole source of income for the Top 100. What about equipment and clothing sponsorship, money from National Tennis federations, etc.?

noleisthebest wrote:Hands up everyone who was clearing $300 000 at the age of 26?

The guy is plain envious.
I wonder why he never won Miami in 2007, like the 18 year old Nole? Or RG like 18 year old Nadal? or Wimbledon, like 1 year old Becker....
I mean,the guy is just a pansy...

Boris won Wimbledon when aged just 1 ....??

Now that's what I call precocious talent !!

Yep .... you're right, nitb. Not too many folk rake in $300k and upwards at only 26 .......

There is some scary stupidity leaking onto this thread.

If I earned $2m in my lifetime, I wouldn't bitch about it.

Laverfan equipment and clothing and other endorsments are not very much for a guy in that next tier. Come on how many Sergi Stakhovsky commercials or billboards have you seen. The top guys get an even more heavily weighted share of the non-prize money stuff. A guy like Stakhovsky is lucky if he gets free clothers and equipment and a little extra pocket change. Davy was top 5 in the world at one point and didn't have a sponsor for quite sometime. For the lower ranked guys prize money makes up a much bigger share of income. They don't get tv commercials, they don't get appearance fees.

And Nitb, the prize money is gross which you have to pay expenses on. I rent a couple properties to someone and out of the rent I have to pay housing association dues,maintenance, taxes, and management costs. I am lucky, lucky if after all that if I net 40 percent of what I charge my tenante for rent. Take 40 flights for you and your coach, 150 nights for 2 at a hotel, the coaches salary and etc out of the 300 grand and it simply isn't a great deal of money.

Interesting you mention Novak, Novak's family and he himself were underwater as a tennis player until he won miami in 2007. His father had to borrow money from loan sharks to keep him on tour early on. And Novak early on started moving up the rankings, but even at 16 in the world in early 07 he wasn't yet making anything on tour.

legendkillarV2 wrote:There is some scary stupidity leaking onto this thread.

If I earned $2m in my lifetime, I wouldn't bitch about it.

Earning 2 million dollars in your lifetime if you are in your 30s now and are talking about a whole lifetime of earnings is not a lot of money. You would live very ordinary and middle class. Plus again that 2 million is basically his gross revenue, it is not his profit.

Steady on socal, you're getting us all quite tearful now

Not just for poor Sergi ; we're even more worried about that paltry rental yield from your own property portfolio ....

http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/are-tennis-players-overpaid-or-underpaid/

Please read.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan equipment and clothing and other endorsments are not very much for a guy in that next tier. Come on how many Sergi Stakhovsky commercials or billboards have you seen. The top guys get an even more heavily weighted share of the non-prize money stuff. A guy like Stakhovsky is lucky if he gets free clothers and equipment and a little extra pocket change. Davy was top 5 in the world at one point and didn't have a sponsor for quite sometime. For the lower ranked guys prize money makes up a much bigger share of income. They don't get tv commercials, they don't get appearance fees.

And Nitb, the prize money is gross which you have to pay expenses on. I rent a couple properties to someone and out of the rent I have to pay housing association dues,maintenance, taxes, and management costs. I am lucky, lucky if after all that if I net 40 percent of what I charge my tenante for rent. Take 40 flights for you and your coach, 150 nights for 2 at a hotel, the coaches salary and etc out of the 300 grand and it simply isn't a great deal of money.

Interesting you mention Novak, Novak's family and he himself were underwater as a tennis player until he won miami in 2007. His father had to borrow money from loan sharks to keep him on tour early on. And Novak early on started moving up the rankings, but even at 16 in the world in early 07 he wasn't yet making anything on tour.

300 K was his net prize income Socal. Enough to whet his appetite and work a bit harder. He is a wonderful player to watch but to slow for base-line game in order to be consistent with his rankings at the moment. Nothing stopping him form working brutally on his groundies and fitness

I do agree that lower ranked players should get a bit more for the early rounds, but even if they did, say get 20% increase, Strakh is the sort of guy that would still moan, he's a bit silky for tennis. The tour is very, very competitive and he just can't hack it in my opinion.

As an example, in the past ten years Indian Wells has improved the money it pays its champions by 137.2 per cent and those who lose in the first round have received an 86.7 per cent increase in the same time-frame. The Australian Open has undergone a 103.9 per cent increase for the champions and those in the first round have seen their remuneration go up 23.1 per cent. It is figures such as these that make the grand-slam events vulnerable.

Extracted from a Neil Harman article around March 2012 (around IW).

The USA Today Study referenced in the original Neil Harman article....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/story/2012-03-14/bnp-paribas-open-indian-wells-pay-disparity-on-the-atp-tour/53538094/1

The answer is obvious; if the rewards were insufficient below #50 there wouldn't be anyone playing ranked there.

As there is, it is.

That is an excellent article laverfan. Some extracts...

Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, who have shared the top three ranking spots since 2007, have been more dominate in terms of prize money accumulation than any trio since the men's tour was formed more than two decades ago. They've raked in between 20% and 26% of available prize money the past five years. The only other trio ever to break 20% was Federer-Nadal-Andy Roddick in 2006.


The 20% mark had never been crossed before — not in the heydays of the Boris Becker-Stefan Edberg-Ivan Lendl or Pete Sampras-Andre Agassi-Jim Courier rivalries.


"It's really bad," says Michael Russell, 33, a veteran who has never ranked higher than No. 60 in his 14-year career. "It's been going on a long time. You look at the difference of a
guy ranked 80 and a guy ranked 10. They are going to make a lot more money, but the differences are astronomical. Compared to other sports, it's not even close."


Federer, a 30-year-old with a record 16 major singles titles, is well aware of the building discontent among the rank-and-file. He is president of the Player Council.


Everyone, he says, has an equal shot to win it. But Federer isn't numb to the needs of players at the other end of the spectrum.


"I believe it's a winner's tour, so the money is there for everyone to play for," he said in a recent conference call. "But at the same time, we wish as well that the lower rounds would also get a bigger raise as well


"Obviously it's an important task for the council and the board to make sure all the lower rounds get a bigger raise in the future."


As veteran Russell says, "You need other guys to make up a whole tour just like in golf and other sports. It would be nice if it were spread around a little more. We need the top guys to stand up and help everyone else out a little bit more."


"It's like a Civil War going on inside of the sport," says Roddick, the 2003 U.S. Open champion. "I don't know that it's ever gonna work unless people put the
best interests of the game ahead of the best interests of themselves. We don't have a history of doing that in tennis
---------



Sigh... I don't want a "civil war" I just want to watch a few pretty backhands and forehand with a little drama and gossip thrown in...

Great post hawkeye, I especially agree with the point Russell the journeyman made when he stated that the gap between the top 10 guys and the number 70 or 80 in tennis is probably much worse than in most other sports. Laverfan the numbers you posted about how much the top rounds have gotten increased at a much faster pace than the lower rounds furthers my point I believe. The gap is there and its growing and growing. Over what it was just 5 years ago. 103 percent for the winner increase in prize money over 5 years at the AO as opposed to 23 percent increase for the first round winner. 23 percent over 5 years is barely faster than the rate of inflation. I mean what would be wrong about growing it proportionally. I think it would improve the competiveness even more on tour.

socal1976 wrote:I mean what would be wrong about growing it proportionally.

You are forgetting my CEO analogy again. If a company performs well, do you think a CEO and a Marketing Director get the same proportional raise?

socal1976 wrote:I think it would improve the competiveness even more on tour.

How does more money increase competitiveness? Is it going to attract better players? Is it going to make the current Top 100 better players? Nadal chose Tennis over playing Football. As you point out, Football has more money than Tennis, so why Tennis? If money was the only motivator, how is it that there have been a handful of slam winners, despite a 103% increase at the top in money?

Also, the rate of inflation across the Globe is not the same?

socal1976 wrote:You would live very ordinary and middle class.

You make it sound like that is terrible. Are you suggesting that #100 tennis player should live better than ordinary and middle class? And if they do not then we should pity them? I hope not.

You said something about players in top 100 hundred being the elite among millions that play tennis. So what? Millions (or billions?) tie their shoelaces every day and still even the very best ones cannot make living out of it. Tennis is obviously a bit better but you have to realize that as an industry it is very small.

Just to put the size of tennis as industry in perspective:

Laverfan says that, not counting three of the slams, total prize money for 2012 will be about $42mil. Let's gross it up a bit and assume that total paid in 2012 will be $100mil.

For comparison, Tesco paid its employees about $10bil in 2011. So Tesco alone is about 100 times bigger industry than all of ATP tennis combined. So #100 tennis player may have as much claim to being "elite" as #10,000 employee of Tesco - maybe not quite the checkout counter person, but hardly mindnumbingly impressive.

On top of that, tennis is a very different industry from supermarkets. Tennis is entertainment. It so happens that in the entertainment industry the earnings are more skewed towards the top earners. People may not be willing to pay top dollar to go to the best checkout counter but they do care more about seeing the top performer.

As another comparison, consider a movie that makes enoguh money to pay about $100mil to its performers. Do you really think that performer #100 will get paid really well?

What are you talking about summerblues, yes I think a tennis player who manages to be one of the 100 best at a sport that millions upon millions of people play and spend money watching and going to events should do better than a middle class worker. And of course laverfan money in sports incentivizes more good athletes to enter the game. I know a number of great tennis players who are also good golfers and not a single one of them chose to play tennis over golf and a couple went pro. One played in the Nike Circuit which was like a challengers level for golf and another gal played collegiately and never played pro. Yet both were geared by their parents to play golf because there is more money in it. Neither became a millionaire off either sport. But they actively took their chance in golf when I think both of my friends were better tennis players than golfers.


And summerblues really the tesco analogy is so not analogous. Walmart is even bigger than Tesco and employs like 2 million people, so what? None of us care to watch either employees of walmart or tesco work for enjoyment. YOu are missing my comparison to other sports here. You can be the back up goal keeper on a mid level club in europe and make millions of dollars and not even play. How much is arsenal's second string keeper or left back contributing to their revenues or their fan attendance? Yet as part of a team he still gets a big pay day. That is because on some level mid level players are valued more in team sports. And yes call me elitist I hope that a top 100 tennis player makes more money than a plumber or bus driver. If that wasn't the case then I don't think we would have a very watchable tour. And the disparity is only getting worse and worse.

CEO analogy Laverfan by the way is a perfect example of this disparity run amok. There is no way one CEO is worth a half billion dollar year salary, people pay them that much but I have intimate experience in corporate structures. One of the biggest overcompensated group of people in the world are high ranking corporate beaurcrats. A company I worked at our CEO made a million bucks and his decisions led directly to the bankrupting of the company. His great skill involved taking a profitable growing company and bankrupting it, even before the last recession when the construction market was hot. I guess he really earned his million dollars. If Tennis is going down the road of CEO compensation in earning discrepancy I will tell you it won't be healthy for the sport. Most high paid executives I have seen are good at ass kissing, networking, and backstabbing. And as a group are overpaid and underqualified.

socal1976 wrote:What are you talking about summerblues, yes I think a tennis player who manages to be one of the 100 best at a sport that millions upon millions of people play and spend money watching and going to events should do better than a middle class worker.

You are going back to millions playing tennis. But that is entirely irrelevant. What matters is how much money tennis generates as a spectator sport. And the answer is that not all that much.

socal1976 wrote:None of us care to watch either employees of walmart or tesco work for enjoyment.

So what? Why should people who we watch for enjoyment make more money than people who do something else for living? Say I want to watch tennis and I want to have my car fixed. I am willing to pay for both. Not clear to me why the tennis player should make more than the mechanic. I have no problem if the math works out that way (say mechanic can only fix one car at a time but the player can be watched by many people simultaneously), but would find it equally ok if the math worked out in the mechanic's favor.

socal1976 wrote:YOu are missing my comparison to other sports here. You can be the back up goal keeper on a mid level club in europe and make millions of dollars and not even play. How much is arsenal's second string keeper or left back contributing to their revenues or their fan attendance? Yet as part of a team he still gets a big pay day.

Arsenal is paying about $200mil in wages annually. That is probably 2-3 times as much as combined ATP annual prize money. Second string keeper is maybe somewhere #10-#20 in the pecking order. So yes, you could easily expect them to make more than #10-#20 tennis player, let alone #100 tennis player.

socal1976 wrote:
CEO analogy Laverfan by the way is a perfect example of this disparity run amok. There is no way one CEO is worth a half billion dollar year salary, people pay them that much but I have intimate experience in corporate structures. One of the biggest overcompensated group of people in the world are high ranking corporate beaurcrats.

The point I was making was that at the pinnacle of any specific industry, the top dog gets paid more, irrespective of the industry. You also side-stepped my question of the AO 103% increase and why there so few slam winners in the last ten years. I gave you an example of Nadal's choice to play Tennis vs Football.

Why is the 64% increase at IW 2012 not an incentive for Michael Russell to win the IW? He was in the qualifers and lost to Tim Smyczek in Q2. It clearly tells me that Tim was a better player on that day. At RG 2001, Russell had MP against Kuerten, but did not close the match and lost in five sets. Kuerten was the better player that day. Kuerten was hungrier for the RG prize money.

socal1976 wrote:But they actively took their chance in golf when I think both of my friends were better tennis players than golfers.

Your examples of collegiate friends are noteworthy, but not exceptional. How do you know they were better Tennis players, they chose a different sport. Would Murray have made more money playing Football?

socal1976 wrote:A company I worked at our CEO made a million bucks and his decisions led directly to the bankrupting of the company. His great skill involved taking a profitable growing company and bankrupting it, even before the last recession when the construction market was hot. I guess he really earned his million dollars.

For every Bernie Ebber, there are many more Lee Iacoccas, or Steve Jobses, or Bill Gateses, or Mark Zuckerbergs.

socal1976 wrote:If Tennis is going down the road of CEO compensation in earning discrepancy I will tell you it won't be healthy for the sport. Most high paid executives I have seen are good at ass kissing, networking, and backstabbing. And as a group are overpaid and underqualified.

Your anecdotal experiences are perhaps negative.

Corporations succeed and fail. Examples of a companies which lost their edge, like RIM (maker of Blackberry) or Nokia or Motorola to the Samsungs, LGs and HTCs of the world. Think of Federer being the Rolex and Djokovic being the Samsung, if that helps any.

LF,

Despite making so much sense that even my 10 year old nephew would actually gush at the effort, I feel your wasting time with people who want to argue in an empty phone booth.

Furthermore NITB provided some stunning research into this prat's comments in the past and how some of the posters on here who liken a pro players position to the average worker is beyond reality!

I can no longer take these posters seriously.

LK... Socal is a fairly reasonable poster. I am perfectly willing to debate. If there are possibilities to make life more comfortable for the lower echelons of the ATP/WTA, it is worth discussing.

Tennis is a competitive sport and should remain so, including remuneration for players. Every player that is part of the system, should be fairly and decently treated.

I would also expect some of the older players to consider post-ATP/WTA careers and still stay connected with Tennis, since it is a life-long passion.

If Socal owns a business, he will consider the welfare of the lower rank and file. .

I have admiration for every player, no matter what their rank is.

I think it is poor comparison to compare the distribution of wealth in the everyday workplace compared with any professional sport.

The one true comparison is that like sports people are paid based on their skill sets. Unfortunately for Stakhovsky there are 71 players with a better skill set. To then throw your toys out of the pram because the amount of money he earned in the top 30 is less than now is quite pathetic. The whole I support the Nadal cause because it benefits me and keeps me earning more money even though my performances do not reflect that.

I would've appreciated if he had also mentioned the perks that go with the game of tennis. Would've given more balance.

Wow that was somee read right there! special mentions must go out to Nitb and laverfan kudos

I see some seriously silly comments on here, from people that clearly has never ever held a racket in their life., let alone take part to competitions. Loughable in particular is considering the number 72 in the world an underachiever, this in both general terms as if it was easy ride to get to such a performance level, and, specifically, talking about someone who has been well into the top 50 and who happens to be a truly excellent player.......

JK... no one is denying Sergiy's Tennis capabilities. We are discussing his financial and political acumen and the larger context of player remuneration.

He has even tried to play doubles recently (with Youzhny and Dodig) to bolster his earnings.

LF: I don't even want to point them out, but if you read through the thread there is plenty of derisory comments on Sergyi.

Regarding the remuneration issue, he made a very honest, crystal clear remark on a very specific topic, around the low financial return players get from the early round of the big events, and it seems to me he provided evidence to support his argument well. It is clear, at least to me, that the distribution of prize money is uneven and penalizes those who need to play the qualifying rounds. Simples.

It IS simple, but not in the way you imply.

One of the key observations here was by summerblues, showing that Arsenal Football Club is bigger than tennis. The total wages paid by AFC is bigger than the total money paid to ATP members. That it is skewed to the top end is simple market forces.
Oh and socal, rises barely above inflation aren't cuts. Do you work in local government?

bogbrush wrote:It IS simple, but not in the way you imply.

One of the key observations here was by summerblues, showing that Arsenal Football Club is bigger than tennis. The total wages paid by AFC is bigger than the total money paid to ATP members. That it is skewed to the top end is simple market forces.
Oh and socal, rises barely above inflation aren't cuts. Do you work in local government?

Nope, but I am inclined to think that having a strong beckground in Economics sometimes help.

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........

Indeed let's discuss economics.

I would like for Stakhkovsky to tell us exactly what his breakeven point is.

Or is that Taboo because of his adoring fans?

But....let's have a look at what mr Roger Federer has to say on this issue, some interesting consideration in there.

Federer, a 30-year-old with a record 16 major singles titles, is well aware of the building discontent among the rank-and-file. He is president of the Player Council.

He understands that it's more "sexy" to offer a big winner's check and that it's hard to say no when someone offers more money, strings or no strings.

Everyone, he says, has an equal shot to win it. But Federer isn't numb to the needs of players at the other end of the spectrum.

"I believe it's a winner's tour, so the money is there for everyone to play for," he said in a recent conference call. "But at the same time, we wish as well that the lower rounds would also get a bigger raise as well.
"Obviously it's an important task for the council and the board to make sure all the lower rounds get a bigger raise in the future."

The question remain: does mr Roger Federer work for the governament?

LK, Boggo?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:LF: I don't even want to point them out, but if you read through the thread there is plenty of derisory comments on Sergyi.

Part of drision stems from espousing the now-notorious two-year ranking. Pretty sure you have read that comment.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Regarding the remuneration issue, he made a very honest, crystal clear remark on a very specific topic, around the low financial return players get from the early round of the big events, and it seems to me he provided evidence to support his argument well. It is clear, at least to me, that the distribution of prize money is uneven and penalizes those who need to play the qualifying rounds. Simples.

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.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:The question remain: does mr Roger Federer work for the governament?

He is a self-employed Tennis player, who happens to have been elected the President of the PC of ATP, twice, IIRC, to represent players. There are other members of the 'advisory' council.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It IS simple, but not in the way you imply.

One of the key observations here was by summerblues, showing that Arsenal Football Club is bigger than tennis. The total wages paid by AFC is bigger than the total money paid to ATP members. That it is skewed to the top end is simple market forces.
Oh and socal, rises barely above inflation aren't cuts. Do you work in local government?

Nope, but I am inclined to think that having a strong beckground in Economics sometimes help.

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........

A strong background in businesses a big help too.

You'll understand that an above inflation increase means better off, of course, and that just because another guy gets even more doesnt make him worse off.

In a word...no.

Where is the extra income going to come from to subsidise the lower ranked players?

The tournament sponsor? No

Gate receipts? No

The ATP? Hell No

So my question to you JK is who is going to be subsidise the lower ranked players because I am a paying customer and I don't want to watch a player ranked 71 in the world (he has gone up) compared to a Federer.

Like Federer stated: The Money is there for everyone to win.

Like ROTLA stated, everyone has started from scratch, with nothing. All came on to tour equally.

Supply and demand.

I could only tell you where I would get the extra-income if I were in the tennis council;

- From increasing prize money proportionally at all stages of a tournement, rather than esponentially in the latter rounds and zeroin the early round.

- I would look at the appearence fee, which in my view are a distortion and would need to be lowered or eliminated completely.

One problem is that the ITF essentially expect all players who have a DA into the slams to compete.

It's not really fair that a player ranked 100 in the world should spend that month in Australia (which they are essentially obligated to do) and not break even.

But it shows how tennis has gone these last few years. Even 'proper' tennis fans (as witnessed on messageboards) have zero interest outside of the marquee names..

They have lower ranked tournaments and I think if they were to run 500 events side by side, this would then create a level playing field for the lower ranked players as all the top seeds would not compete in the same event without having forgo another ranking event.