Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers - Page 21 - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #301 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 26th, 2012, 05:34 PM
Senior Member
 
azdaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Itävalta
Posts: 17,989
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Quote:
Originally Posted by jameshazza View Post
More money to the top 100 tankers means less to those in Qualifying who need it more. That is the bottom line.
i'm all for giving more money to the qualifyers but they won't take the money away from them anyway. the point about rewarding a loser is silly considering that with exception of wild cards you get the money for something you earned hard by collecting points throughout the year. basically, players who play smaller tournaments and win there get a bonus by earning a direct entry at a grand slam, so there is not really that much difference between giving money to first round losers and giving money to smaller tournaments so the same players can earn it there. they are not simply losers as some people here imply.

it obviously doesn't solve everything but i do not see any negatives. i highly doubt players need that much money incentive in order to win a round of a grand slam. the only negative would be that some players who are not fit will just show up and crash out or tank it but we are talking about perhaps 1 or 2 players per tournament. all others will give their best and surely not just for money.
azdaja is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #302 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 26th, 2012, 06:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 393
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

With the amount of 1st 2nd 3rd round losses sharapova had over the past years she should be worried about it and should say yes.

Because we all know at some point she's going to slip back to that point.
Serenaluv is offline  
post #303 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 27th, 2012, 06:19 AM
country flag RVD
Senior Member
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 32,980
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Question:

Most people here agree that tennis is a job.
All tennis players agree, and have stated this time and time again.
So when a player goes out there, and entertains the crowd, yet loses in the first round, are we saying that they should NOT get paid?!

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that logic.

Also, just because a player loses in the first round does not mean that they did not bust their ass conditioning for the competition in order to make the qualifying cut. Especially in the slams.

There is no job that I know of where a person works and does not get paid because they somehow failed to beat the 'other person' in whatever manner of job performed.

People have the most twisted logic, and I think Maria should rethink her position.
She honestly sounds like she hasn't given this issue the full ponderance of consideration.

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. - Malcolm X
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. - Malcolm X
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius
The greatest scholars are not usually the wisest people. - Geoffrey Chaucer
RVD is offline  
post #304 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 27th, 2012, 07:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Marlene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,203
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVD View Post
Question:

Most people here agree that tennis is a job.
All tennis players agree, and have stated this time and time again.
So when a player goes out there, and entertains the crowd, yet loses in the first round, are we saying that they should NOT get paid?!

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that logic.

Also, just because a player loses in the first round does not mean that they did not bust their ass conditioning for the competition in order to make the qualifying cut. Especially in the slams.

There is no job that I know of where a person works and does not get paid because they somehow failed to beat the 'other person' in whatever manner of job performed.

People have the most twisted logic, and I think Maria should rethink her position.
She honestly sounds like she hasn't given this issue the full ponderance of consideration.
Great summary. One thing--Sharapova was not advocating for no pay at all for 1st round losers; she was against a pay raise.
Marlene is offline  
post #305 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 27th, 2012, 07:42 AM
Serena's #1 Hater
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 19,718
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Quote:
Originally Posted by eDonkey View Post
That is almost as selfish as Maria's original statement.
Thank god Stacey Allaster & Co. do not think that way, tennis would surely die after the Shrieking gods at the top retire. As the game got more physical it is much harder for younger girls to break the edge of top 300 or top 100 or whatever, so they would give up this.

Let's take, for example, Julia Glushko. She is the same age as Azarenka and has been stuck in that 100-400 range like forever - for 5 consecutive years. She is currently at #165 which is about her career-high 157. She was once #10 in the Junior rankings so she must have showed some potential. She has played 18 tournaments this year and has won one of them. And she got $56,592 as prize money for the whole season. She played 2 GS qualifications and got the MD where she met a seed in R1. So we have $28,525 of her prize money for the year coming from these 2 GS. That's even more than a half.

Is it fair?
Yes, because that's where her talent level is. If Ms. Glushko wants to earn more money playing tennis, she needs to make herself a better player and win more matches. If you make it so that players can earn a decent living playing nothing but Challengers, what would be their incentive to get to the next level?

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord." -- Proverbs 18:22

"Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard." -- Herb Brooks

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -- Muhammad Ali
darrinbaker00 is offline  
post #306 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 27th, 2012, 07:49 AM
country flag RVD
Senior Member
 
RVD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 32,980
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlene View Post
Great summary. One thing--Sharapova was not advocating for no pay at all for 1st round losers; she was against a pay raise.
Yes. I should be more specific---

If the more successful players are receiving a pay raise, then of course it stands to reason that this should happen across the board. I'm not suggesting a massive pay increase for the 1st round losers. However, as costs increase throughout the association (doctors fee, trainers fees, transportation costs, hotel/boarding, etc...) so then should pay increase for all.
The fact that tournaments are turning a sizable profit--- it is only good business to pass on a small percentage to those athletes who are rightly training to make this sport profitable for the tournaments.

I could not imagine the top 8 or 10 driving the totality of the WTA.
All players share in the success that is the WTA, and are a significant force . Even in their untimely defeat(s).


Aside:
There are posters suggesting that these athletes play just to receive a tiny payout.
Are these posters really truly serious?!
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Especially for slam entrants.
I can't even imagine how anyone could draw such a conclusion when many of these athletes have to travel and board using their own money.
My goodness...that's just crazy-talk.

Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. - Malcolm X
A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. - Malcolm X
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Confucius
The greatest scholars are not usually the wisest people. - Geoffrey Chaucer
RVD is offline  
post #307 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 27th, 2012, 08:09 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,018
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrinbaker00 View Post
Yes, because that's where her talent level is. If Ms. Glushko wants to earn more money playing tennis, she needs to make herself a better player and win more matches. If you make it so that players can earn a decent living playing nothing but Challengers, what would be their incentive to get to the next level?
Earning more money in Grand Slams?
PetraReeMona is offline  
post #308 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 10:01 AM
Senior Member
 
soul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 596
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Then it means that Maria did not have any financial problems when she came to USA; and doesnt undrestand how early round loosers keep their life go on besides a huge amount of them play to be become qualified.
It is ashame that a person who came to USA with a little amount of money -700dollars- all the time told how she suufered and her father now telling this.
What a pity..........
soul is offline  
post #309 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 10:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Qetusi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 718
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Q. You said about the Australian Open prize money that you didn't think it would be a good idea to increase the first round loser's prize money. What do you think about the case of injured players who come back after and they're struggling at first because they have no support from federation or maybe don't have sponsors as well? So the first round loser's paycheck is very important to these kind of players, don't you think?

MARIA SHARAPOVA:
I do. I think it's obviously an incredible position to be in a Grand Slam main draw. I mean, don't get me wrong. I just think that when you're in a position to be in a Grand Slam first round, you want to have the motivation to go further, to win the match, to get prize money, to get more prize money, to get more points.
I always feel like there has to be something on the line. You don't just feel like just because you're in the draw you're going to be paid more. There is no doubt ‑‑ I mean, I think that it's obviously very difficult for somebody that's maybe ranked 190, a 100‑something, to make really good money, because this is one of the most expensive sports.
I mean, the expenses are incredibly big and challenging. In order for you to get to the next level, you have to have a really good team of knowledge and people, and that takes a lot of money. That's no secret.
But yet when you just arrive to a place, you want to have a motivation to get yourself through to the next round. So I don't think that there is anything that I said that I'm trying to take away from losing or somebody that's just there.
It's a really incredible position to get there. It takes a lot. You obviously have to win tournaments, go far in tournaments, and be consistent, so...
Qetusi is offline  
post #310 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 10:33 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Chrissie-fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 13,788
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

I like Maria, but I'm always suspicious when a multi-millionaire says that the have nots shouldn't get more. I understand the logic of the argument that in professional sports you shouldn't get rewarded for losing, but to enable yourself the privelage to compete in a slam (or on the wta tour) you already need to have your share of wins behind you. You don't get paid whatever it is you get paid at a slam for losing in the first round itself. You get paid for working yourself up to the level where you are good enough to compete there. Often that working up took place at tiny ITF events where the rewards are barely sufficient to keep yourself going. The money those players may get at a slam is the pot of gold at the end of the tunnel for them. And it doesn't make them rich. It just means that they can continue their careers for awhile longer and get some extra time to try to become even better which benefits the tour as a whole.

Chrissie-fan is offline  
post #311 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 02:04 PM
PharMaria Co. CFO
 
tejmeglekvár's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,787
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrissie-fan View Post
I like Maria, but I'm always suspicious when a multi-millionaire says that the have nots shouldn't get more. I understand the logic of the argument that in professional sports you shouldn't get rewarded for losing, but to enable yourself the privelage to compete in a slam (or on the wta tour) you already need to have your share of wins behind you. You don't get paid whatever it is you get paid at a slam for losing in the first round itself. You get paid for working yourself up to the level where you are good enough to compete there. Often that working up took place at tiny ITF events where the rewards are barely sufficient to keep yourself going. The money those players may get at a slam is the pot of gold at the end of the tunnel for them. And it doesn't make them rich. It just means that they can continue their careers for awhile longer and get some extra time to try to become even better which benefits the tour as a whole.
Then give them directly the money where they WIN those matches.
I find this "playing slams is a reward, privilege" but at the same time "just give the losers the money" thinking utterly ridiculous.
tejmeglekvár is offline  
post #312 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 02:41 PM
Ook!
 
watchdogfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,600
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

If there's a pay increase, it should be applied across all the rounds. It's disappointing Maria thinks the 1st round losers shouldn't benefit from the pay rise as well. It's surprising when you consider her background that she's always come across as a bit selfish.

"That's not my wonder! It's just a smelly sock!"

watchdogfish is offline  
post #313 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 02:42 PM
Junior Member
 
SantaBabyTennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 82
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

This is basically as reasonable an argument as Stako makes against equal pay.

Professional tennis boasts it's the ultimate meritocracy, but it not only isn't, it hasn't pretty much since Roger Federer became Grand Poo-Bear. While the prize $ has increased sometimes by quite a lot, it's been radically disproportionately allocated to quarterfinals +. All the while, inflation has every bit as much hit lower ranked pro-tennis players as much as anyone else, and expenses necessary to compete have also increased. The reason there is such a huge gap between top players and everyone else is because the top players have all the money. A man ranked 50 can't afford to take two weeks off with an injury, much less a full personal trainer and coach. Someone ranked 150 is lucky to even have money in savings for after they retire. The same argument Maria made was the argument made against increasing lower rounds in proportion to the increases made to the latter, and it's really nothing more nor less than greed or the sort of shocking ignorance of the circumstances of others that prompted, "Then let them eat cake."

The truth is that being a GOAT tennis player doesn't actually correlate to having any real understanding of professional tennis as an entertainment business. While people lick Roger Federer for all he has done for tennis, the truth is the absolute worst decisions made in pro-tennis over the last decade have been his. Like Maria, he's incapable of seeing the larger issues. While he waxes poetic about how courts used to be, and the tennis played on them, guess who the #1 force behind homogenizing courts was?

The facts are thus: While preventing lower ranked players from affording the assistance they enjoy has certainly made being a steady top 10 player easier than it used to be, this has directly correlated to far, far fewer competitive matches that are enjoyable to watch. Players who came up before the Great Divide like Serena dominate easily on the all, and players who came up in and after the Great Divide have glaring technical flaws, mental and/or emotional fragility, questionable fitness and inconsistency. The ones who make it (Laura Robson) come from parents with money to burn or major underwriting by their federations. They have the support system the reigning GOATS enjoy pretty much from day one, rather than having to make it on their own with occasional long distance help from people in their home countries. Ask yourselves, if Stosur had the support team Maria and Serena did when she was 18, how different do you think her career would be? How different would she be? Instead she stayed in hospice and slept in bus terminals.

In this mess comes performance enhancing drugs and match fixing. When the gamblers can offer a player more to tank a 2nd round match than he'll get if he wins the tournament, do you really think he or the gamblers are the real problem? When players can't afford trainers and coaches, and they can't afford to take off if injured, how long before they feel desperate? How long before they realize they're actually getting completely screwed by pampered Princesses and decide using PEDs isn't even cheating, because Nadal has a dramatically unfair advantage over them simply be being able to afford to stay in a hotel?

Of all of the players likely to lose in the first round of a Slam, how many are qualifiers that won multiple matches already? And how is it their fault they drew Serena Williams or Roger Federer in the first round so GOAT can had a walking-bye? And do you really think any of those against first round loser getting a little bit more money are because they believe you should reward failure?

LET THEM EAT CAKE.
SantaBabyTennis is offline  
post #314 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 10:23 PM
Senior Member
 
azdaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Itävalta
Posts: 17,989
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

Quote:
Originally Posted by tejmeglekvár View Post
Then give them directly the money where they WIN those matches.
I find this "playing slams is a reward, privilege" but at the same time "just give the losers the money" thinking utterly ridiculous.
well, since i think that playing slams is a privilege i have to reply to this. i actually find it utterly ridiculous that players who work hard to get into the main draw of a grand slam and then draw the world #1 or so are considered losers. imagine that, the world #33 draws the best player in the world in round one.

top 8 players who don't win a match at yec win plenty of points and money too and aren't they just "losers" as well? don't give them anything there, give them all the points where they actually win something. i can think of plenty of other examples where qualifying and losing everything while at the main event is a huge achievement. what's supposed to be ridiculous, let alone utterly so about these things? really.
azdaja is offline  
post #315 of 408 (permalink) Old Oct 28th, 2012, 10:44 PM
Senior Member
 
sweetadri06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,713
                     
Re: Sharapova not backing pay rise for early losers

I've decided to revisit this issue, and changed my stance on first round losers. I'm fine with the pay raises in the early rounds. Tennis is their job and even if they do lose they still are out there entertaining the spectators; They have to pay for coaches/trainers/flights etc just like the top players do. Slams are where most players make their money. So if the champion gets a 2 million dollar paycheck, a first round loser should be taking home decent prize money, there are only 7 rounds in a slam afterall.

20
sweetadri06 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome