RealGM

So Peter Bodo had an interesting piece today:

http://espn.go.com/tennis/blog/_/name/b ... fael-nadal

Here's the quote that made me do a double take:

[url]The next thing you know, No. 70 Somdev Devvarman, a journeyman player, is generating headlines as well. He thinks the players ought to form a new union and get more of the cash. "We only get 12 percent of the revenue when it is we who generate the revenue."

Try walking into your boss's office and dropping that line sometime.

Somdev, how about trying to create a tournament and raising a lot of money while not knowing whether the guys -- or fans -- will show up?[/url]

While I'm typically someone who sides with players over owners, I was never too sympathetic with tennis players about the schedule because I know players used to play even more.

That pay number seems insanely low though. Major American sports league like NFL, NBA, MLB give players more than 50% of the revenue, and tennis players only get 12 percent of the revenue? Can that really be justified from a cost perspective?

Let's also note that Bodo's question at the end shows some serious ignorance imho about labor issues:

Yes, it would be hard for the players to stop tournaments...but all it would take is for Novak, Nadal, Fed, and Murray to stop playing the ATP tour and it would be dead. No one wants to spend big bucks for a tennis tour when they know it doesn't have the best players.

Further:

Let's remember why we exist in the Open Era to begin with: Because the best players left the Grand Slams to have their own tour of head-to-heads, did well, and eventually the tournaments caved. Zero reason the big stars couldn't do this again.

Bottom line, if there isn't a reason why the profit margin in tennis is insanely weak compared to other sports, the players are perfectly reasonable in demanding possibly even triple or quadruple the amount of money they currently get.

The career earnings of average tennis players is very low compared to most other professional athletes even with endorsements included.

I can only think of Sharapova and Federer with all their endorsements making as much as say a Kobe Bryant's per season salary. So this is perfectly justified and I actually like the idea of head to heads in tennis though but that would mean a Federer - Nadal duel with earn big bucks for both players while the likes of Devermann will likely get shafted even more with no one willing to pay for his TV rights.

(http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slu ... yer_082611

Federer is the highest-paid tennis player in the world over the past 12-months with earnings of $47 million from prize money, endorsements, exhibitions and appearance fees. He has only one tournament title this year after averaging eight wins annually since 2003, but his income has never been higher.

Nadal is closing the gap with Federer in the Grand Slam tally (Federer leads 16-10) and on the income side, but he still trails in both categories. Nadal ranks No. 2 among the highest-paid in tennis at $31 million over the past 12-months. He earned $10 million in prize money with the rest generated through appearance fees, exhibitions and endorsements.

Nadal counts Nike, Babolat, Kia Motors, Richard Mille and a host of Spanish firms among his sponsors. Last year Giorgio Armani chose Nadal to follow in the footsteps of David Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo as an underwear model for the brand. This year Bacardi inked Nadal for its “Champions Drink Responsibly” campaign which was first launched in 2008. The new deals bring his corporate earnings to an estimated $21 million annually including exhibitions.

Djokovic ranks No. 4 with earnings of $18 million thanks to nearly $11 million in prize money over the past 12-months. Djokovic’s status as the men’s top player has bumped up his asking price for exhibitions, but his sponsorships are still limited. Current partners include: Sergio Tacchini, Head, FitLine and Telekom Srbija.

The top woman is Maria Sharapova who earned $25 million during the past year and ranks No. 3 behind Federer and Nadal. Sharapova is the world’s highest-paid female athlete with earnings twice as much as any other woman. The three-time Grand Slam winner has bounced back from injuries that saw her ranking fall to 126 on the WTA Tour in 2009. She has won 80 percent of her matches this year and is one of the favorites at the 2011 US Open.

Federer $47 million
Nadal $31 million
Sharapova $25 million
Djokovic $18 million)

I remember reading a Forbes article listing Federer's earnings at 24 million and Sharapova's at 25 mil as the top 2 earners in tennis, so I'm not sure now whose numbers are correct.

Doctor MJ wrote:That pay number seems insanely low though. Major American sports league like NFL, NBA, MLB give players more than 50% of the revenue, and tennis players only get 12 percent of the revenue? Can that really be justified from a cost perspective?

Not only that, but their earnings are tied directly to performance. The lower-ranked players make hardly more than an average salaried worker.

UssjTrunks wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:That pay number seems insanely low though. Major American sports league like NFL, NBA, MLB give players more than 50% of the revenue, and tennis players only get 12 percent of the revenue? Can that really be justified from a cost perspective?

Not only that, but their earnings are tied directly to performance. The lower-ranked players make hardly more than an average salaried worker.

Well that's one of the problems that is very interesting, but not necessarily a real labor issue.

The reality is that you need to earn your way on to the tour with some kind of initial nest egg for travel, etc. Players who take their chance, and flop for whatever reason, can call it quits. Agassi talked about how he almost quit when he flopped some tournaments in a row and his funds were running on fumes. A tennis player is like a start-up business and so the more money they spread to the lesser players, the more players see what their full potential is. On the other hand, the more money goes to the stars, the more kids dream of being tennis players.

So that's just a general dilemma, but not something I expect management really objects to either way. The fact that players make such a tiny fraction in total though is classic union stuff, and of course the twist: If we tripled the players' cut, how many tour rookies could afford to keep improving their game?

I'd assume a grand slam player must be paid pretty well, at least from his sponsors. I've heard amateur MMA fighters make around $200k for 3 fights in a calender year, money for the fight, winning bonuses and sponsor money included and these guys don't even get on TV.

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:I'd assume a grand slam player must be paid pretty well, at least from his sponsors. I've heard amateur MMA fighters make around $200k for 3 fights in a calender year, money for the fight, winning bonuses and sponsor money included and these guys don't even get on TV.

Hmm, I'll admit I don't have a handle on sponsorship money. I'll say up front that from a labor management perspective, it doesn't make any sense to bring it up against the labor. If anything it's just more evidence that these players are in demand.

However, with that said, I don't see what sponsorship companies get out of paying the 99th best player in the world 100K+ in a year unless he's got some other niche going on. The big tennis companies can only really use the superstars for their own marketing purposes.

12%. That seems really low. I guess its that way for the same reason the NBA owners won big this year against the players. Lower tiered guys of which there are alot can't really afford to lose any salary at all. They would need the big names to be willing to take the tour hostage.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus12/story/_ ... -pollyanna

has anybody seen what Nadal said about Federer.

I did not know it was only 12%, if that is the case the they really need a bigger share of the pie. The problem i see is (the lower ranked players would prefer the money) while the higher ranked players would prefer the shorted sched. (So i guess they need a bit of both).

Doctor MJ - You maybe correct that the sched is less than before, but I think the way tennis is being played now provides more stress to the body. I also think it is unfair for the top players (particularly top 4, it becomes almost a curse) as they seem to always play all the way to the semi's. I think it is not a coincedence that Novak, Murray and Nadal are the ones complaining about the sched. The problem is you cant have tournaments without them now can you.

They are pretty open to playing as many tournaments as they prefer right?

I was listening to Vijay Amritraj today discussing the Nadal comments and he said the top guys can just play the 4 slams, the masters series and a few warms up tournaments and this would come close to 20 weeks in a calender year, which is likely the least for any pro sport.

Do they not get pressured? as what would the other tournaments look without the big 4?

I also think part of the reason is seeding as well. They play to maintain the seeds.

Yeah he was maintaining that the top 4 players can still pick and choose carefully and still accrue enough points to maintain their seeds if they do well at the slams but the call for a strike makes more sense if you also add in the other demand of the players that the prize money isn't increasing enough in tune with the profits and the tour's income from revenues.

Davydenko said this:

American John Isner said he had been to the meeting and felt the players had a "legitimate beef" over prize money, which is also an issue at the Indian Wells tournament, where Davydenko said those players who lose in the first round can sometimes lose money after paying tax and travel costs to compete.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus12/story/_ ... er-federer

That kind of thing cannot happen at any tournament and while these guys might travel a lot more luxuriously than economy class and budget inn, they still should make more from the tourney than depending exclusively on sponsor money or they might just have to throw themselves at every event to make sure they are making enough in a season.

The players are absolutely right on the prize money, but I'm not sure about the schedule. And there's also this ranking system business too which I don't get.

Prize money: Go to the ATP website and click on a draw sheet for an average tournament, and look at what a first-round loser gets. Now, click on the draw for the qualifying portion of the tournament and see what a guy gets who doesn't qualify. Now go do the same for a challenger event (essentially the AAA or AHL of tennis).

As with anything in life, performance should have a lot to do with what you earn. But if you go to a tournament and go out early, you often lose money, maybe a lot of money. That's not good for growing the sport.

Schedule: There are a lot of tournaments, but that also presents opportunity. If the schedule is compressed, some of the mid-ranked and lower-ranked guys who now make an occasional run and get a large paycheck will have a more difficult time doing that. For the top guys, it doesn't really matter either way.

If they really are worried about injuries, one thing they could do instead of (or besides) cutting the schedule is looking at the surfaces. If there were more tournaments on grass, for example, and less on hard, would the injuries go down, thus reducing the need for a shorter schedule. Or are the physical demands on the players just too great today? Another factor to consider - players are getting bigger and taller. In the NBA, tall guys seem to be susceptible to certain injuries that shorter players don't get as much. Maybe we are seeing some of the same in tennis.

Ranking: A number of players apparently want a two-year ranking system, instead of the current one-year. This is just silly. Rafael Nadal would still be #1 under this system. Juan Martin del Potro would be something like #30 or #40 because two years ago he missed a whole season (he's currently #11). Milos Raonic would be something like #50 (currently #25). It would keep the same guys at the top, and make it hard for young guys (or guys with long-term injuries) to get a high ranking. And it wouldn't represent the true ability of players at the current time.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/tennis/2012/10/ ... rse_money/

When 17-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer threatens to boycott your tournament, it's probably in your best interest to listen to what he has to say.

That's why it's no surprise that the Australian Open announced on Tuesday that the tournament has increased its 2013 prize money by US $4.15 million to a record US $31.1 million.

Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley hasn't said how the extra US $4.15 million prize money will be distributed, but I'd be shocked if most of it wasn't put towards the qualifying purse.

This link has a lot more information about the increase and the issues.

http://www.tsn.ca/tennis/story/?id=406551