If You Were a Tennis Tournament Director How Would You Split the Prize Money?

The Scenario is Based on the Prize Money Awarded at the US Open 2015:

The total prize money to be awarded is approximately 38 million dollars:
keeping it simple you have to split this amongst 6 competitions:

A) Mens Singles Championship: 7 rounds, 128 competitors.   Total prize money A
B) Womens Singles Championship: 7 rounds, 128 competitors.   Total prize money B

C) Mens Doubles Championship:  6 rounds, 64 doubles teams. Total prize money C
D) Women's Doubles Championship: 6 rounds, 64 doubles teams. Total prize money D

E) Mens Wheelchair Singles Championship: 3 rounds, 8 competitors. Total prize money E
F) Women's Wheelchair Singles Championship: 3 rounds, 8 competitors.  Total prize money F.



The Actual Prize Money Split at the US Open 2015 was:
A) Mens Singles Championship: Total prize money = $16.5 million
B) Womens Singles Championship:  Total prize money = $16.5 million

C) Mens Doubles Championship:   Total prize money =  $2.5 million
D) Women's Doubles Championship:  Total prize money =  $2.5 million

E) Mens Wheelchair Singles Championship:  Total prize money = $50,000
F) Women's Wheelchair Singles Championship:  Total prize money = $50,000
[Irrelevant further information: all wheelchair entrees were given $300 dollars / day expenses + a food allowance]

Look no one begrudges the wheelchair champs getting a nice pay day that is a pittance the more the better, within reason. Not part of the equation.

I would do it based on a ratio of looking at TV ratings and ticket sales. What you basically do is look at what both tours pull in, in terms of ticket, sponsor, and tv ratings revenues. Of course you don't look at the coed events. You look at the separate events. Lets say in these objective measures of popularity the male tour generates 1 billion and lets say hypothetically the women's tour generates 500 million. Then the men pot should be twice as large as the Women's pot. If the women sell a billion the Men sell 500 million then they should get double. You study it over maybe a 5 year period to set the increase and account for a little statistical anomaly, that would be the period you look at.

My own preference is for the Men to never do a coed event even at wimbeldon its two different tours. But this type of formula I feel would be fair. The bigger draw getting the bigger cut of the pie. That is what it is in basically every industry.

socal1976 wrote:Look no one begrudges the wheelchair champs getting a nice pay day that is a pittance the more the better, within reason. Not part of the equation.

I would do it based on a ratio of looking at TV ratings and ticket sales. What you basically do is look at what both tours pull in, in terms of ticket, sponsor, and tv ratings revenues. Of course you don't look at the coed events. You look at the separate events. Lets say in these objective measures of popularity the male tour generates 1 billion and lets say hypothetically the women's tour generates 500 million. Then the men pot should be twice as large as the Women's pot. If the women sell a billion the Men sell 500 million then they should get double. You study it over maybe a 5 year period to set the increase and account for a little statistical anomaly, that would be the period you look at.

My own preference is for the Men to never do a coed event even at wimbeldon its two different tours. But this type of formula I feel would be fair. The bigger draw getting the bigger cut of the pie. That is what it is in basically every industry.

The End of Year Tournaments for Men & Women are separate events - does anyone have any data on these specific events?  Total prize money & total income the tournaments bring in.

Wikipedia:
WTA World Finals (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million
ATP World Tour Final (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Look no one begrudges the wheelchair champs getting a nice pay day that is a pittance the more the better, within reason. Not part of the equation.

I would do it based on a ratio of looking at TV ratings and ticket sales. What you basically do is look at what both tours pull in, in terms of ticket, sponsor, and tv ratings revenues. Of course you don't look at the coed events. You look at the separate events. Lets say in these objective measures of popularity the male tour generates 1 billion and lets say hypothetically the women's tour generates 500 million. Then the men pot should be twice as large as the Women's pot. If the women sell a billion the Men sell 500 million then they should get double. You study it over maybe a 5 year period to set the increase and account for a little statistical anomaly, that would be the period you look at.

My own preference is for the Men to never do a coed event even at wimbeldon its two different tours. But this type of formula I feel would be fair. The bigger draw getting the bigger cut of the pie. That is what it is in basically every industry.

The End of Year Tournaments for Men & Women are separate events - does anyone have any data on these specific events?  Total prize money & total income the tournaments bring in.

Wikipedia:
WTA World Finals (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million
ATP World Tour Final (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million

That is one event, this year the men have 500k extra from what I understand more than the women. If you look across the board at the average analogous tournament on the Woman's tour they are about half as well funded. For example no 250 on the Men's tour is under around 500k most are well over that. A huge number of the women's tour 250s for example are total financial contribution of 250 dollars. The same for their equivalent 500 pointers and non coed 1000 pointers. So in one signature tournament they make the same that isn't a sample of anything. The male TV contract is almost three times as high, are all those tv broadcasters ignorant about the relevant draw of the respective tours?

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:The End of Year Tournaments for Men & Women are separate events - does anyone have any data on these specific events?  Total prize money & total income the tournaments bring in.

Wikipedia:
WTA World Finals (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million
ATP World Tour Final (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million

That is one event, this year the men have 500k extra from what I understand more than the women. If you look across the board at the average analogous tournament on the Woman's tour they are about half as well funded. For example no 250 on the Men's tour is under around 500k most are well over that. A huge number of the women's tour 250s for example are total financial contribution of 250 dollars. The same for their equivalent 500 pointers and non coed 1000 pointers. So in one signature tournament they make the same that isn't a sample of anything. The male TV contract is almost three times as high, are all those tv broadcasters ignorant about the relevant draw of the respective tours?

If someone had some time to spare maybe they could look at the ATP 250, 500, Masters events  & corresponding WTA events, looking at number of events, prize money and the all important income.  Not sure how readily available that data is, especially the tournament income (turnover and profit).  The 250 tournaments would be a good indicator of events containing top 100 players but not necessarily the "big names".  Would make for a good socio-economic project.  250 and 500 events or their equivalent outside of the ATP/WTA would probably set prize money purely on the local economics and interest.

Ps maybe if the WTA was more exposed and accountable to the economics of women's tennis - then they would act on complaints to the women's game - the shrieking and the excesses in dress (Venus Williams wearing lingerie costumes in the past to promote her clothes company springs to mind).  But in practical terms that will only happen if the men's & women's tennis competition is separated in time or space (or both).

I think we all know what tournament directors do with the money if given free reign. They slip Rafa and Federer whatever it takes to get them to turn up and then put whatever they can get away with as prize money to attract some competition. But at Slams and Masters they are not allowed to do this because presumably people want to see the closest they can to a fair fight. Isn't it one of the reasons that tennis became open rather than have the big names go off to make money once they had gained their fame?

Any talk of giving prize money according to popularity makes it look less of a sport and more like the tennis equivalent of the X factor. Perhaps there should be a phone in vote to determine what player gets the most cash? If it was run like this Djokovic, Murray and the rest of the ATP would be left fighting for crumbs instead of doing pretty well out of FeDal.

hawkeye wrote:I think we all know what tournament directors do with the money if given free reign. They slip Rafa and Federer whatever it takes to get them to turn up and then put whatever they can get away with as prize money to attract some competition. But at Slams and Masters they are not allowed to do this because presumably people want to see the closest they can to a fair fight. Isn't it one of the reasons that tennis became open rather than have the big names go off to make money once they had gained their fame?

Any talk of giving prize money according to popularity makes it look less of a sport and more like the tennis equivalent of the X factor. Perhaps there should be a phone in vote to determine what player gets the most cash? If it was run like this Djokovic, Murray and the rest of the ATP would be left fighting for crumbs instead of doing pretty well out of FeDal.

I think you are massively overstating Rafa in this scenario. I like him but he's probably a lower draw than Novak now. Probably still a bit ahead of Murray though. Federer is obviously by a distance the biggest draw in the game.

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:The End of Year Tournaments for Men & Women are separate events - does anyone have any data on these specific events?  Total prize money & total income the tournaments bring in.

Wikipedia:
WTA World Finals (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million
ATP World Tour Final (2015): Prize Money $7.0 million

That is one event, this year the men have 500k extra from what I understand more than the women. If you look across the board at the average analogous tournament on the Woman's tour they are about half as well funded. For example no 250 on the Men's tour is under around 500k most are well over that. A huge number of the women's tour 250s for example are total financial contribution of 250 dollars. The same for their equivalent 500 pointers and non coed 1000 pointers. So in one signature tournament they make the same that isn't a sample of anything. The male TV contract is almost three times as high, are all those tv broadcasters ignorant about the relevant draw of the respective tours?

If someone had some time to spare maybe they could look at the ATP 250, 500, Masters events  & corresponding WTA events, looking at number of events, prize money and the all important income.  Not sure how readily available that data is, especially the tournament income (turnover and profit).  The 250 tournaments would be a good indicator of events containing top 100 players but not necessarily the "big names".  Would make for a good socio-economic project.  250 and 500 events or their equivalent outside of the ATP/WTA would probably set prize money purely on the local economics and interest.

Ps maybe if the WTA was more exposed and accountable to the economics of women's tennis - then they would act on complaints to the women's game - the shrieking and the excesses in dress (Venus Williams wearing lingerie costumes in the past to promote her clothes company springs to mind).  But in practical terms that will only happen if the men's & women's tennis competition is separated in time or space (or both).

That is interesting. Very interesting. By my reckoning the men's game had double the tickets sold and a global audience 40 million more.

Born Slippy wrote:

I think you are massively overstating Rafa in this scenario. I like him but he's probably a lower draw than Novak now. Probably still a bit ahead of Murray though. Federer is obviously by a distance the biggest draw in the game.

That's not what Moore said he referred to them both. Didn't Rafa and Fed get paid $3.9 each for playing their IPTL match in India this off season. That's more than Novak got for winning the AO. There is nothing to suggest that Novak has overtaken either Federer or Nadal in popularity. He is still very much benefitting from sitting on their coat tails.

Federer and Nadal earn the most for playing in the IPTL. Each of them earns in the region of $3.9 million.

http://www.sportsrageous.com/sports/federer-nadal-earns-big-money-in-one-iptl-season-more-than-dhoni-and-kohli/9986/

Born Slippy, did you hear the crowd in the recent Nadal-Djokovic match at Indian Wells ? It seemed very one sided. The commentators kept mentioning it as well, one one stream they even said it was like a Davis Cup match at times.

I went to the World Tour Finals semi between Nadal and Djokovic at the 02 arena, and again it's not even comparable who has more support. I went with a friend who was a Federer fan and he was literally laughing; there were tonnes of Spanish flags and some Swiss flags, probably more Swiss flags than Serbian flags. It was very loud at the start, and then as soon as Nadal started getting outplayed, the fans realised there's not much hope and the atmosphere went a bit flat. Really pro-Nadal, it was obvious as soon as they both walked onto court.
And I'm not blind to crowds being against Nadal, for example I went to see Nadal vs Rosol at Wimbledon- and the crowd in the last set definitely wanted to see an upset.
Obviously as a sponsor, Djokovic has a more sure long term future in the game, as Nadal is prone to injuries and may also retire much earlier as his results are suffering. As well as that you want to associate yourself with a winning brand, and right now Novak (and to some extent Federer and Murray) are winning well, while Nadal really isn't.
If you look at social media, Nadal does best, even better than Federer on Facebook and twitter. This is because Nadal has most support from the younger generation who are more likely to use Facebook. Federer has the support of the older generations clearly, and thus overall no doubt is the biggest draw.

Yeah Djokovic who has played Fed and Nadal 100 times on the biggest stage has as much right to extra money from the ATP tour as Serena does. If Novak was Fedal's hitting partner he would have a much bigger and rightful claim to riding the coattails than any woman on the WTA who hasn't done crap for the money they are getting. Unless you count commercial and legal extortion through conducting a media witchhunt to be worthy of rewarding. Hell if Djokovic valet parked Fed's car a hundred times he would have a better claim for riding Fed's coattails than Maria and Serena; at least in that case Fed gets some real work done for him as opposed to the WTA that has done literally nothing to deserve the tens of millions they have pilfered through extortion.

Serious question though. What actually funds the prize pools? Is it just ticket and merch revenue, sponsor money, or both?

Just going for ATP vs WTA

If its mostly sponsor money, then the half and half split is justifiable based on the message sponsors want to give out, regardless of any fairness.

If its tickets and merch, relative revenue sales have to come into effect.

Personally, id just go for a hybrid. Make the pool from sponsors a 50-50 split, sends a good message, then each relative prize pool gets topped up based on revenue sales attributable to either.

This is how the Miami Open chooses to describe itself on twitter

One of the most prestigious events on tour, renowned for its color, music & glamour.

https://twitter.com/MiamiOpen

Color, Music and Glamour

A tournament director would do well to remember that they are selling tickets for a social occasion. Believe it or not there will be many people attending that do not follow tennis closely and indeed may only have a passing interest in the game. They are there for the social occasion to be seen or perhaps to do a little bit of business. How often are the best seats empty at the slams whilst those that could be occupying them are having afternoon tea, tucking into a 3 course meal or trying to persuade someone to buy something.

Some of these people may only have a passing knowledge of the players apart from Rafa, Roger, Serena and Sharapova. They will want the winners to get shiny trophies and big cheques as "proof" that what they are attending is important. In fact a shiny trophy is more important to most? The last thing they want is talk of sexism or to hear that some of the matches they are watching are considered more prestigious than others. Purely on those grounds a tournament director should award equal and fat cheques to the winners of the women's and mens events.

hawkeye wrote:This is how the Miami Open chooses to describe itself on twitter

One of the most prestigious events on tour, renowned for its color, music & glamour.

https://twitter.com/MiamiOpen

Color, Music and Glamour

A tournament director would do well to remember that they are selling tickets for a social occasion. Believe it or not there will be many people attending that do not follow tennis closely and indeed may only have a passing interest in the game. They are there for the social occasion to be seen or perhaps to do a little bit of business. How often are the best seats empty at the slams whilst those that could be occupying them are having afternoon tea, tucking into a 3 course meal or trying to persuade someone to buy something.

Some of these people may only have a passing knowledge of the players apart from Rafa, Roger, Serena and Sharapova. They will want the winners to get shiny trophies and big cheques as "proof" that what they are attending is important. In fact a shiny trophy is more important to most? The last thing they want is talk of sexism or to hear that some of the matches they are watching are considered more prestigious than others. Purely on those grounds a tournament director should award equal and fat cheques to the winners of the women's and mens events.

I am always so surprised at how magnanimous the media, the women players, and the tournament is in giving away the money of the ATP tour pros. Its a great gig using legal commercial extortion to take money you can't earn on your own.

socal. Maybe Djokovic should leave them all too it and set off on a solo tour?

hawkeye wrote:socal. Maybe Djokovic should leave them all too it and set off on a solo tour?

Frankly, as I stated I am much more concerned about how this impacts the quality of the mid level ATP tour pro than Djokovic or Murray. Both guys are doing very well. But I don't want coaching, training, and talent sacrificed on my tour to reward false charges of sexism and the equivalent of legal commercial extortion. Please go on and tell us how Novak who has played Rafa and Roger 100 times in the biggest matches is riding their coattails just like Serena and Maria. Because you do write some of the best flights of fantasy for any English woman not named Rowling or Christie, but I think the difference is they were trying to do fiction.

How to split money between men and women, that is a good question.
I would derive the prize money from their revenues from admissions, broadcasting, sponsors, but would add an add-on about 10% in favor of  women, because we sometimes love them  
But when considering Navratilova's feministic words then I would give both of them what they just deserve from revenues.

paulcz wrote:How to split money between men and women, that is a good question.
I would derive the prize money from revenues from admissions, broadcasting, sponsors, but would add an add-on about 10% in favor of  women, because we sometimes love them  
But when considering Navratilova's feministic words then I would give both of them what they just deserve from revenues

Paul nothing wrong with feminism there is a lot to be done for women in the world sexism is a real problem, however this case is not sexism and if anyone is being unjustly treated it is the ATP players. I would posit that frankly Serena, Venus, Martina, and all the equality in prize money crowd actually do a disservice to the cause of feminism by associating their naked, cynical, and unfair extortion as some quest to fight discrimination or oppression. To me that is the really disgusting part of what they are doing.

socal1976 wrote:

paulcz wrote:How to split money between men and women, that is a good question.
I would derive the prize money from revenues from their admissions, broadcasting, sponsors, but would add an add-on about 10% in favor of  women, because we sometimes love them  
But when considering Navratilova's feministic words then I would give both of them what they just deserve from revenues

Paul nothing wrong with feminism there is a lot to be done for women in the world sexism is a real problem, however this case is not sexism and if anyone is being unjustly treated it is the ATP players. I would posit that frankly Serena, Venus, Martina, and all the equality in prize money crowd actually do a disservice to the cause of feminism by associating their naked, cynical, and unfair extortion as some quest to fight discrimination or oppression. To me that is the really disgusting part of what they are doing.

Agree. Women are lucky that they play most of the tourneys with men. If Williams and Navratilova want to be fair, then the split of women and men would be a solution. ATP is an unbelievably weak organisation and it is not only in this case.

paulcz wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

paulcz wrote:How to split money between men and women, that is a good question.
I would derive the prize money from revenues from their admissions, broadcasting, sponsors, but would add an add-on about 10% in favor of  women, because we sometimes love them  
But when considering Navratilova's feministic words then I would give both of them what they just deserve from revenues

Paul nothing wrong with feminism there is a lot to be done for women in the world sexism is a real problem, however this case is not sexism and if anyone is being unjustly treated it is the ATP players. I would posit that frankly Serena, Venus, Martina, and all the equality in prize money crowd actually do a disservice to the cause of feminism by associating their naked, cynical, and unfair extortion as some quest to fight discrimination or oppression. To me that is the really disgusting part of what they are doing.

Agree. Women are lucky that they play most of the tourneys with men. If Williams and Navratilova want to be fair, then the split of women and men would be a solution. ATP is an unbelievably weak organisation and it is not only in this case.

True, I think as soon as the fed money train ends and resources get tight the men will revolt and we will just hear a statement that such and such events will not be coed anymore because the ATP feels it's in the best interests of its professionals to play separate events and that moving forward that is the best way to market their tour. No mention of money, equality, etc. just a bland statement that won't say much except that it could be a huge disaster for the WTA. The aggression, entitlement, and unjust actions of the equal pay crowd will kill the goose that laid the golden egg one day, I can almost guarantee it.

it comes down I guess, to the merits of "social fainess" against "financial fairness".
You could argue that the side that makes more money for them, should be compensated as such, that's financially fair
Socially fair would be. Were both here as equals, that should represent in our finances.

That's muddled a bit with separate tv deals. I would probably give an equal standard amount, with a little cherry on top, say 5% of the merch sales on top. This makes the discrepancy small, and the grumblings away.

If I was dodgy though, I would probably use the equal prize pot idea to give them the bare minimum, citing the need to keep it even to avoid paying more to the dominant side.

Well I am confident the WTA would advocate equal splits across all the events.

Everyone knows they are fearlessly committed to equality.

bogbrush wrote:Well I am confident the WTA would advocate equal splits across all the events.

Everyone knows they are fearlessly committed to equality.

Yes, they want to make equal money to the men without earning it, and what they can't get on their own tour they are happy taking from the men. Oh I know the idea that for decade in the fedal era one dollar for men's prize money equaling one dollar for the lower rated WTA hasn't cost the men anything. Afterall as long as ATP pots grow faster than inflation they haven't lost anything while woman's pots grow at 400 percent in the fedal era. I mean a tournament director having to pay two dollars for every dollar he wants to increase the men's tour wouldn't in anyway repress or act as discentive to increasing ATP pots. I mean all this extra growth in the women's tour doesn't come from the men, it comes from Tournament directors who didn't take growth from the men they all just decided to make less money in support of equality, well based on what evidence are these claims of the equal pay crowd that defy the logic of any business made. Nothing, they have no evidence but are happy to ignore all the mountains of evidence you produce and pretend that their bogus assertions ignoring all the rules of logic, business, and how the world works is right because they say so. Ignore mountains of evidence on one side, produce no evidence in favor of your position, then claim that you were proven right. About sums up the arguments of the equality at all costs crowd.

You know I was being ironic, right?

bogbrush wrote:You know I was being ironic, right?

Yes, I let you do the irony and quick cutting wit, I'll do the substantive arguing. Odd being on the same side of the issue with you, but I like it for a change.

Posted on another thread and copied verbatim here...

The interesting part is that there is gender-based separation of Men's vs Women's tour (if you ignore an event called Mixed doubles), but gender separation of prize is intolerable for the sake of a mythical 'equality'. Pretty interesting.

By such token, Mixed doubles should get the highest prize money, because at least there is 'less' gender separation.

I like both tours, but separately. The prize money discussion should be kept out when when genders are discussed.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You know I was being ironic, right?

Yes, I let you do the irony and quick cutting wit, I'll do the substantive arguing. Odd being on the same side of the issue with you, but I like it for a change.

I think it's caused some posters to question their grip on reality.

In the words of ABBA "the winner takes it all"

That's how's I'd divide it.

legendkillarV2 wrote:In the words of ABBA "the winner takes it all"

That's how's I'd divide it.

Does it feel the same, legendkillar2
When I call your name?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:In the words of ABBA "the winner takes it all"

That's how's I'd divide it.

Does it feel the same, legendkillar2
When I call your name?

Honey I'm still free take a chance on me.