PDA

View Full Version : Why do prize money increase? Why not donate to charities?


strictennis
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:43 AM
I don't get it! Help the poor and not get the richer to be richer! This is Ridiculous!!!

:fiery:

WorldWar24
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:51 AM
good point. And it's not like it's helping out much the struggling players that lose in qualifying or early rounds. That's a tiny % of the prize money, they still earn very little. And if the increase is supposed to motivate top players more, I doubt it happens because they already earn so much they don't even know how much they get. They're probably more concerned about their sponsorships which are the real deal for them :silly: Or maybe the GSs are doing this competition, each raising the prize money every year until it gets out of control and the champion gets a former Soviet Republic as prize, or a continent, or a planet in the solar system, so then people can agree on which is the best slam and this crazyness can end:silly:

aussie12
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:57 AM
sadly this is how the world goes round. greed will always overcome generousity. money is too important to too many people.

Goai
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:01 AM
I agree. They aren't even really helping the lower ranked players who find it hard to make ends meet. Instead, the rich get more rich. It's societies fault that athletes are being paid more and more. These cheap thrills have more consumer power than the real issues.

Martie
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:05 AM
I agree with those above who have mentioned the lower ranked players. I believe that when prize money increases, a greater proportion of the increase should go to those who lose in lower rounds. That's the best way to create greater depth in the tour.

LoveFifteen
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:07 AM
i don't get it! Helping the poor and not getting the richer to be richer? This is Ridiculous!!!

:fiery:

Oh, Good God, give me a fucking break! :rolleyes:

darrinbaker00
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:10 AM
I agree with those above who have mentioned the lower ranked players. I believe that when prize money increases, a greater proportion of the increase should go to those who lose in lower rounds. That's the best way to create greater depth in the tour.
Well, I believe that if the lower-ranked players want to make more money, they should play better tennis. ;)

Martie
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:12 AM
Well, I believe that if the lower-ranked players want to make more money, they should play better tennis. ;)

Yes but to play better tennis, you need to travel to tournaments to face better players. That is expensive.

darrinbaker00
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:15 AM
Yes but to play better tennis, you need to travel to tournaments to face better players. That is expensive.
BOO comma HOO comma HOO! If it's that bad for them, then they should hang up their racquets and work for a living.

WorldWar24
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:19 AM
BOO comma HOO comma HOO! If it's that bad for them, then they should hang up their racquets and work for a living.

well most of the times they DO have to hang up their rackets and work for a living because they can't afford to travel, pay coaches etc, so they do depend on this income from the early rounds. And it's not like they're crap, they just didn't get their break. Life on tour is great for the top pros, for everyone else it's not so good but you know nothing about that of course

Paneru
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:21 AM
Yes but to play better tennis, you need to travel to tournaments to face better players. That is expensive.

Are you really surprised in a sport whose
origins catored originally to the elite
"upper class" of folks and in many
ways still do?

Many of the top elite players have and give to
various chairities and maybe the tennis establishments
simply leaves it up to the individual athletes as to what
they will do with the monies aside from their tennis expnses
and their personal life expenses.


I'm more surprised honestly that people
are still so surprised by this. Have you all
been living under a rock?

LH2HBH
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:22 AM
Why have any prize money then? - Just donate the lot ;)

darrinbaker00
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:32 AM
well most of the times they DO have to hang up their rackets and work for a living because they can't afford to travel, pay coaches etc, so they do depend on this income from the early rounds. And it's not like they're crap, they just didn't get their break. Life on tour is great for the top pros, for everyone else it's not so good but you know nothing about that of course
The top pros became top pros for one simple reason: THEY'RE BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. If Maria Sharapova had never cracked the top 100, would she be living the lifestyle she's living now? Of course not. The better players deserve to make more money.

Martie
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:39 AM
Are you really surprised in a sport whose
origins catored originally to the elite
"upper class" of folks and in many
ways still do?

Many of the top elite players have and give to
various chairities and maybe the tennis establishments
simply leaves it up to the individual athletes as to what
they will do with the monies aside from their tennis expnses
and their personal life expenses.


I'm more surprised honestly that people
are still so surprised by this. Have you all
been living under a rock?


Oh for fucks sake.

Do you think its a good thing that tennis is such an elitist sport? And that finances often revent people from pursuing a career, which given time could be promising.

Go under your rock.

Martie
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:41 AM
The top pros became top pros for one simple reason: THEY'RE BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. If Maria Sharapova had never cracked the top 100, would she be living the lifestyle she's living now? Of course not. The better players deserve to make more money.

How can you be so certain. If kids in the poorest countries had the opportunity to play tennis, be coached, had the money to travel, then things would be different.

Obviously the best players deserve to make more money than the lower ranked ones, but it shouldn't be as disproportionate as it is.

Reckoner
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:44 AM
Wow, big surprise the two people attacking this valid are Americans :tape:

Randy H
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:45 AM
The better players deserve more money, yes, because they win and do their job better. But that doesn't mean that the lower ranked players don't deserve more money. The gap is too far, and it's sad when people ranked 150th in the world at their profession are barely even able to make ends meet once they're through covering all the expenses needed to be a full-time touring pro.

1star
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:54 AM
i don't get it! Helping the poor and not getting the richer to be richer? This is Ridiculous!!!

:fiery:You are really a sympathetic person:)
Also i think they can increase prize money for the low ranked players to improve their lives.
:wavey:

Martie
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:55 AM
The better players deserve more money, yes, because they win and do their job better. But that doesn't mean that the lower ranked players don't deserve more money. The gap is too far, and it's sad when people ranked 150th in the world at their profession are barely even able to make ends meet once they're through covering all the expenses needed to be a full-time touring pro.

:yeah: Exactly.

darrinbaker00
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:56 AM
The better players deserve more money, yes, because they win and do their job better. But that doesn't mean that the lower ranked players don't deserve more money. The gap is too far, and it's sad when people ranked 150th in the world at their profession are barely even able to make ends meet once they're through covering all the expenses needed to be a full-time touring pro.
Since when is being a full-time touring pro a right? If they want to make more money playing tennis, then they need to go farther in tournaments. Period.

Randy H
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:06 AM
Since when is being a full-time touring pro a right? If they want to make more money playing tennis, then they need to go farther in tournaments. Period.

Few things in life are a right, that's not the point. The point is that these are people working their butts off, and while they may not be #1 in the world, #150 in the *world* at what you do is still incredibly impressive and deserves more financial merit than these players see. Compare the salary of the 150th best person of any of other profession out there that requires the amount of skill and effort put in by these ladies and see how it compares.

frontier
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:13 AM
there are a select few who make money on tour the rest are living paycheck to paycheck.top players do earn more from endorsements players like serena venus pova momo juju kim hingis are worlds apart from the rest they make millions and can afford to make donations the rest are not so fortunate

DutchieGirl
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:24 AM
good point. And it's not like it's helping out much the struggling players that lose in qualifying or early rounds. That's a tiny % of the prize money, they still earn very little. And if the increase is supposed to motivate top players more, I doubt it happens because they already earn so much they don't even know how much they get. They're probably more concerned about their sponsorships which are the real deal for them :silly: Or maybe the GSs are doing this competition, each raising the prize money every year until it gets out of control and the champion gets a former Soviet Republic as prize, or a continent, or a planet in the solar system, so then people can agree on which is the best slam and this crazyness can end:silly:

I was thinking something like that too - why don't they increase the prizemoney at the LOWER tournaments to help out the lower ranked players. The top players do make alot of money on (and off) the court already.

drake3781
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:28 AM
The top pros became top pros for one simple reason: THEY'RE BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. If Maria Sharapova had never cracked the top 100, would she be living the lifestyle she's living now? Of course not. The better players deserve to make more money.

I think you are really wrong about this, quite shocking really; but I don't have the frame of mind to write back. And some others already are trying to talk to you about it, but you are not getting it. Maybe tone it down a bit and try to understand the other side.

aussie_fan
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:34 AM
I don't know if or how much the organizations of grand slams give to charities but why should they? The players are professional, they perform a service that enterains millions and millions of people around the world, they deserve to get an increase if the grand slams have more money then they used.

The gap between the winner and the first rounds might be a bit high though.

darrinbaker00
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:41 AM
I think you are really wrong about this, quite shocking really; but I don't have the frame of mind to write back. And some others already are trying to talk to you about it, but you are not getting it. Maybe tone it down a bit and try to understand the other side.
I "get it" just fine, thank you very much. I just don't think lower-ranked players have a right to earn more prize money without winning more matches. If the #150 player in the world feels like she isn't making enough, then she should hit the practice court. If #150 is the best she can do, then she has two choices: keep playing $50K tournaments, or get a real job.

strictennis
Apr 25th, 2007, 06:11 AM
I "get it" just fine, thank you very much. I just don't think lower-ranked players have a right to earn more prize money without winning more matches. If the #150 player in the world feels like she isn't making enough, then she should hit the practice court. If #150 is the best she can do, then she has two choices: keep playing $50K tournaments, or get a real job.

Let's just say, all top players are paid like they are rank "#150", they rather get a real job right? Because they are struggling to travel around the world, paying for this and that and it's really really tough. I believe tournaments should increase prize money to those who exits early rather than increase the winner's paycheck. And you will never get new top players when they struggle to survive on the circuit. It takes time to be a pro not like a month or two.

DutchieGirl
Apr 25th, 2007, 06:25 AM
Let's just say, all top players are paid like they are rank "#150", they rather get a real job right? Because they are struggling to travel around the world, paying for this and that and it's really really tough. I believe tournaments should increase prize money to those who exits early rather than increase the winner's paycheck. And you will never get new top players when they struggle to survive on the circuit. It takes time to be a pro not like a month or two.

Exactly - players ranked 150 in the world still do need to win alot of matches to get to that ranking. OK, it might not be at the Tier 1 tournaments and stuff, but it doesn't mean that they aren't winning matches. Maybe if players are ranked around 1000 then they are not winning many matches in a year.

For example: Elise Tamaela is ranked 153, she has a 19-6 win loss ratio this year (won 1 ITF, and made the final of another already, plus 2x SF). She is winnig matches, but her earnings are basically shite. She has earnt so far this year: $17,179, and most of that came from AO quallies. Now granted, she is playing against a lower standard of player, but does it mean she's not trying either? I mean Vaidisova is 17-6 for the year, but has earnt $382,176. Yes, she has been playing at bigger tourneys, against higher ranked players, but LOOK at the difference in earnings for almost the same records. In fact, Elise has won MORE matches than Nicole has this year! As I said, I understand that the level if tennis is a bit less for Elise, but I don't really think that the level difference means Nicole deserves an extra $365k! I don't see why they couldn't increase the prizemoney MORE in the ITF challengers BEFORE giving out more money at other tourneys. (this was more for darrinbaker).

Polikarpov
Apr 25th, 2007, 06:35 AM
I agree that they should also increase the prize money for lesser players.

I think donating and helping poor people should be something that you really want and not something forced. If you don't want to help others fine. If you want to help, then good.

Life is unfair and we should all deal with it.

darrinbaker00
Apr 25th, 2007, 06:43 AM
Exactly - players ranked 150 in the world still do need to win alot of matches to get to that ranking. OK, it might not be at the Tier 1 tournaments and stuff, but it doesn't mean that they aren't winning matches. Maybe if players are ranked around 1000 then they are not winning many matches in a year.

For example: Elise Tamaela is ranked 153, she has a 19-6 win loss ratio this year (won 1 ITF, and made the final of another already, plus 2x SF). She is winnig matches, but her earnings are basically shite. She has earnt so far this year: $17,179, and most of that came from AO quallies. Now granted, she is playing against a lower standard of player, but does it mean she's not trying either? I mean Vaidisova is 17-6 for the year, but has earnt $382,176. Yes, she has been playing at bigger tourneys, against higher ranked players, but LOOK at the difference in earnings for almost the same records. In fact, Elise has won MORE matches than Nicole has this year! As I said, I understand that the level if tennis is a bit less for Elise, but I don't really think that the level difference means Nicole deserves an extra $365k! I don't see why they couldn't increase the prizemoney MORE in the ITF challengers BEFORE giving out more money at other tourneys. (this was more for darrinbaker).
You made my point for me, my friend. If Elise Tamaela wants to make more money as a professional tennis player, she needs to improve her ranking. Period. No one wants to pay to see the 153rd-best female player in the world play, and that's why she earns what she earns.

DutchieGirl
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:32 AM
You made my point for me, my friend. If Elise Tamaela wants to make more money as a professional tennis player, she needs to improve her ranking. Period. No one wants to pay to see the 153rd-best female player in the world play, and that's why she earns what she earns.

I didn't make any point FOR you, my friend. As I aknowledged that Elise is ranked lower, yet I asked is it right that the DIFFERENCE in prize money is SO big? Nicole earned $365k MORE just in prize money - let alone all the sponsorships she has (which I won't get into, because people make their own sponsor deals). Sorry, but if it was ANY other profession (not sports), and there was that big of a difference between someone in the top 20 in their field, and some around 150, then I'm SURE people would be saying something about it. Some people DO want to see the #153 player in the world play, even if YOU do not. Besides, increasing the prizemoney in LOWER tourneys should INCREASE the competitiveness, as it will allow MORE girls to play tourneys, and earn some money, and therefore better their game. This should make the standard of ALL tourneys better, as not just players who have a good background can play, but also players who might not be so well off. I'm sure alot of talented players have hung up their racquets after a couple of years on the circuit because they haven't had the opporunity to play so many tournaments because the money just isn't there when you have to start out playing in the $10k's and $25k's. You do have to work your way up mostly through the tourneys to better your game. Most players won't be able to start out their career winning WTA tournaments (nor would most players be given the chance to participate IN a WTA tourney at the start of their career).

So in other words: OF COURSE the top players should get MORE than the #153 player, BUT how much more is reasonable...coz it sure as hell isn't reasonable at the moment.

Direwolf
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:38 AM
why doesnt the secretary who sometimes does more things than the boss get a higher pay??

im not against you, saying that it shouldve gone to charity instead...
but look at some tennis stars who earns lots money...
look at where their money goes...
I know for Venus n Serena...
that they reach out to the lesser priviledged people...
and bring hope and tennis to them...

DutchieGirl
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:41 AM
why doesnt the secretary who sometimes does more things than the boss get a higher pay??

im not against you, saying that it shouldve gone to charity instead...
but look at some tennis stars who earns lots money...
look at where their money goes...
I know for Venus n Serena...
that they reach out to the lesser priviledged people...
and bring hope and tennis to them...

Obviously the boss is good at making himself look like he's doing something then. ;) And if the secretary only "sometimes" does more than the boss, then it's not really a good comparison, coz these girls are all out there working their butts off! It's not like it's onlt the players in the top 100 who are working hard on their games. ;)

Max565
Apr 25th, 2007, 08:42 AM
I agree that they should also increase the prize money for lesser players.

I think donating and helping poor people should be something that you really want and not something forced. If you don't want to help others fine. If you want to help, then good.

Life is unfair and we should all deal with it.

I agree. Lessening the gap between the lower ranked and top players wouldn't hurt and 'giving to charity' shouldn't be forced upon or pressured to do... Players should voluntarily donate (they do that anyways...) :)

strictennis
Apr 25th, 2007, 09:52 AM
I agree. Lessening the gap between the lower ranked and top players wouldn't hurt and 'giving to charity' shouldn't be forced upon or pressured to do... Players should voluntarily donate (they do that anyways...) :)

Extra/ addition prize money shouldn't be forced to be given to charities, however what was in my mind is the money could have been given to charities rather than the winner's enormous winnings pouch from the big tournaments. As for smaller tournaments the WTA, Larry Scott, should look into it too.

goldenlox
Apr 25th, 2007, 10:32 AM
This is a topic I follow very closely. These ITF tournaments don't draw crowds or have tv networks paying for broadcast rights. So they don't have money to throw around.
What the WTA is doing is having 4 big tournaments, like Miami, that pay players who are 40-100.
It's true that players ranked about 150 or 200 are much worse off than baseball players at that level of their sport.

But players ranked 40-100 need this extra money. The players who can't get into the top 100 are in a difficult financial spot.

DutchieGirl
Apr 25th, 2007, 10:37 AM
But players ranked 40-100 need this extra money. The players who can't get into the top 100 are in a difficult financial spot.

Which is what we have been saying. And while the ITFs don't have that much money, WTA does, and I'm sure could come up with some sort of agreement with ITF tourneys to spread the money around better.

goldenlox
Apr 25th, 2007, 10:53 AM
The ITF has tons of money from the majors. The WTA doesn't support the ITF.

DutchieGirl
Apr 25th, 2007, 11:04 AM
The ITF has tons of money from the majors. The WTA doesn't support the ITF.

Majors pay their own prize money. And if you read what I said above, you'd see that I KNOW that the WTA doesn't support the ITF. :rolleyes: That's why I said I'm sure they could come to an AGREEMENT...

goldenlox
Apr 25th, 2007, 11:09 AM
TA is the worst of all the ITF organizations. They rob the players.

CORIA01
Apr 25th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Money Is All In Our World!
Even In Tennis They Prefer Give More Money To Rich People Than Kelping The Poorest One!
Totally Silly!!!!

wicked0987
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:30 PM
Hmmm, I believe some people are confusing Wimbledon organizers with a charity. Wake up, it's a company that is trying to make the largest profit possible. They do not make much money with weaker players, it's the elite people come to see. That is why they invest money in the top players, to keep them motivated to win the tournament and provide a show. Wimbledon is not an NGO! Although I believe that if the company has too much money they should really think about donating it (or try and buy a nobel price like bono) but I don't think that was the reason behind this decission.

And from the player's point of view, a lot of money is good, but more money is better:p

goldenlox
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:55 PM
That's not totally true. People come to see the brand, Wimbledon.
A women's final could be any 2 players, and it will draw a good crowd.

Harvs
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Players are not going to play in tourneys if the prizemoney is going to charities...
I think it is always a beautiful things when players do give money to charities... but it should be there money to begin with as that is what the tournament has earned and decided to put into prizemoney.

Kim's_fan_4ever
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:05 PM
That's what I think every time I read that money prises are increasing. To me it's ridiculous, especially at GSs :tape:
There are many people in need all around the world that desperately need food or water, for example people in Africa.
Simply ridiculous.

goldenlox
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:08 PM
Most of the tour is broke, The players who are good enough to win majors all have endorsements deals. So there will be a disparity.
Like golf. Tiger makes much more than #50.
But #50 in golf probably makes over a million.
The WTA has to make sure these 4 super Tier I's, and all the Tier I's, pay better qualies and round 1 prizemoney.

rjd1111
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:19 PM
I don't get it! Help the poor and not get the richer to be richer! This is Ridiculous!!!

:fiery:


On one hand how would you like it if the Company you worked for

just decided to give part of your salary to charity?

On the other hand I wouldn't mind them starting a fund to help lower

ranked players.

*JR*
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:36 PM
Since when is being a full-time touring pro a right? If they want to make more money playing tennis, then they need to go farther in tournaments. Period.
Unless they're named Anna Kournikova, of course. :shrug:

Sally Struthers
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:11 PM
Pro tennis not a charity. Do you think they do this out of the goodness of their hearts alone? No. They get tax write offs and good publicity for donating to charity. It doesn't mean they're going to devote all extra money to charitable funds. Why even give prize money at all? Just donate it all to starving people around the world! Hell, let's all do that. Just make enough money to get by then donate the rest to charity. Give me a break. :rolleyes: As far as I am concerned, they should make the tour even more exclusive and eliminate all tournaments under tier 2 status. In fact, I don't even care about players ranked outside the top 50. They're just minor blips on the radar to me if I even recognize their names :lol:

rjd1111
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:18 PM
That's not totally true. People come to see the brand, Wimbledon.
A women's final could be any 2 players, and it will draw a good crowd.


A Wimbledon Final between Vakulenko and Azarenka cannot begin

to be compared in ratings to a final between Serena and Henin.

Ryan
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:21 PM
you have to reward people accordingly. If there's a negligable difference between a first round loss and a 4th round loss in a Slam, there's no reason to fight so hard. :shrug: I think tennis players on average are paid way too much - ditto with every kind of celebrity, but there's nothing you can do about it.

rjd1111
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:41 PM
That's what I think every time I read that money prises are increasing. To me it's ridiculous, especially at GSs :tape:
There are many people in need all around the world that desperately need food or water, for example people in Africa.
Simply ridiculous.


Why should the Onus of World hunger be heaped on the

the shoulders of pro Tennis Players.

There are Governments and World organizations every where addressing this
situation everyday.

Why not ask the CEO's and VP's of some of these fortune 500 companies,

many of whom are responsible for the food shortages donate some

of their Millions they get as bonuses for lay offs and cut backs.

Or Government officials who pay farmers not to grow crops because too

much food will drive the price down.

I have seen instances where crops were destroyed rather than given

to poor people who could have eaten them.

Talk about the rich getting richer. Its not the Tennis Players. There

is more money being made on poverty than anything else in the world.

and guess what. All of it is coming out of Your pocket.

Craigy
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:44 PM
What about football (soccer). Those guys get payed FAR too much money.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:51 PM
Well if singers, actors and other entertainers make zillions of dollars or euros I don't see why it should be any different with top athletes, including those in tennis. At least in sports you know that those that reach the top really are great while in popular music or the movies even non-talents can sometimes make a fortune with some good marketing and/or if you have the right look.

Of course it's kinda obscene to make that kind of money simply because you can hit a tennis ball over the net while millions are dying of hunger. But if the players get that much money it's because the game generates even (much) more and if the players don't get it - it ends up in the pockets of the businessmen with the fat cigars and the fancy suits. I prefer that the players get it and if they have a conscience they will have the decency to give some of it to charity themselves. No need for anyone else to be charitable with money that doesn't really belong to them but should go to the players.

Helen Lawson
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:51 PM
Most of these girls are shit out of luck and a job at around 30, whether they're a living legend or a journeywoman. So they need to make as much as they can to either set up a second career if they weren't that successful on the tour, or finance the rest of their lives not having any more paychecks.

ezekiel
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:56 PM
kids shoulnd't meddle in grownup stuff , until you had a job, a real job.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:01 PM
I agree with those above who have mentioned the lower ranked players. I believe that when prize money increases, a greater proportion of the increase should go to those who lose in lower rounds. That's the best way to create greater depth in the tour.

:worship:

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Most of the tour is broke

I'm thinking this is true especially in the US (with rare exception - and perhaps outside of the US Open). Perhaps tennis is flourishing in Asia and Europe and their may be a market ready to be established in South American regions, but here in the US -- DOA!

Max565
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Well if singers, actors and other entertainers make zillions of dollars or euros I don't see why it should be any different with top athletes, including those in tennis. At least in sports you know that those that reach the top really are great while in popular music or the movies even non-talents can sometimes make a fortune with some good marketing and/or if you have the right look.

Of course it's kinda obscene to make that kind of money simply because you can hit a tennis ball over the net while millions are dying of hunger. But if the players get that much money it's because the game generates even (much) more and if the players don't get it - it ends up in the pockets of the businessmen with the fat cigars and the fancy suits. I prefer that the players get it and if they have a conscience they will have the decency to give some of it to charity themselves. No need for anyone else to be charitable with money that doesn't really belong to them but should go to the players.

I agree 100 % :) :worship:

Besides, tennis isn't the richest sport in terms of what the players get for actually playing and winning... the top european footballers will get much more than what a top tennis player would... and they don't even need to win to receive the money...

Increasing the prize money will escalate the sport and make tennis a more high-profile and glamorous sport... More kids will be encouraged to play if they see tennis as a fun but profitable sport...

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:50 PM
Most of the tour is broke, The players who are good enough to win majors all have endorsements deals. So there will be a disparity.
Like golf. Tiger makes much more than #50.
But #50 in golf probably makes over a million.
The WTA has to make sure these 4 super Tier I's, and all the Tier I's, pay better qualies and round 1 prizemoney.

Agree. I don't have a problem with how much the top players are making, but those outside the top 50 deserve a bigger slice of the pie. Putting the focus on increasing prize money for the early rounds and qualifying rather that the later rounds is definately the way forward.

roarke
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:53 PM
I hope all of you can answer in the affirmative:

When you get a raise do you give it to charity? After all there are people out there with a lot less than you have.

When your business or your family's business turn a profit year after year, do you give it to charity? After all so many businesses that go belly up and could use a little help, or have employees who are living one step for the streets.

The easiest thing that one can do is to spend other people's money. Don't get me wrong we should all strive to help each other and we should especally try to make sure that no one human being goes hungry. However being charitable begins with you. We can't expect others to give when we ourselves are not giving. We may not have as much to give as the rich but our obligation should not end just with us pointing the finger and saying the rich needs to give more.

kaetchen
Apr 25th, 2007, 06:03 PM
I'm new here, but I think this is a very good thread. I would agree with the point of donating to charity, but that's what the world we live in has turned to - the rich become richer and the gap between rich and poor increases all the time. That's why we can't expect the tennis governing bodies to be charitable organisations. But I would always acclaim any player really committed to charities. There's so much pain and sorrow in the world and they can help make it a little better. Yet this must be their personal decision.
As for the other issue - I completely agree about the pay to the lower ranked players. Saying that they just need to get better is understatement. Imagine how difficult it is for the players from the little countries who don't have a mighty federation behind them or home tournaments and who need to travel all the time all over the world just to play qualies...I'm not so naive to believe success is function of talent only....

drake3781
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:09 AM
I'm new here, but I think this is a very good thread. I would agree with the point of donating to charity, but that's what the world we live in has turned to - the rich become richer and the gap between rich and poor increases all the time. That's why we can't expect the tennis governing bodies to be charitable organisations. But I would always acclaim any player really committed to charities. There's so much pain and sorrow in the world and they can help make it a little better. Yet this must be their personal decision.
As for the other issue - I completely agree about the pay to the lower ranked players. Saying that they just need to get better is understatement. Imagine how difficult it is for the players from the little countries who don't have a mighty federation behind them or home tournaments and who need to travel all the time all over the world just to play qualies...I'm not so naive to believe success is function of talent only....

Welcome, and I appreciate your response! Thoughtful person. :wavey:

supergrunt
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:15 AM
The player's don't need more money... at all. But they do donate alot to charity.

Paneru
Apr 26th, 2007, 02:08 AM
Oh for fucks sake.

Do you think its a good thing that tennis is such an elitist sport? And that finances often revent people from pursuing a career, which given time could be promising.

Go under your rock.

Do people here actually listen and comprehend?

Did I say it was okay?
NO!

I simply asked why in the world are you
people surprised now all of the sudden
why this has been the status quo!

Don't speak out of turn to me
for simply stating a fact!

If you want to change things, you have to
first know where, why, & how!

Many of the big names on tour brought the talent,
determination, and sacrifice while the help of family
and others helped them get to their place today.

This problem is systemic of a society that has catored to
the "upper class" making it all the harder for those w/o
to rise. Yet, players still do and can rise.

It's a matter now of how the Tour and Federations can help
along these players with talent but w/o sufficient means.

strictennis
Apr 26th, 2007, 05:05 AM
I'm new here, but I think this is a very good thread. I would agree with the point of donating to charity, but that's what the world we live in has turned to - the rich become richer and the gap between rich and poor increases all the time. That's why we can't expect the tennis governing bodies to be charitable organisations. But I would always acclaim any player really committed to charities. There's so much pain and sorrow in the world and they can help make it a little better. Yet this must be their personal decision.
As for the other issue - I completely agree about the pay to the lower ranked players. Saying that they just need to get better is understatement. Imagine how difficult it is for the players from the little countries who don't have a mighty federation behind them or home tournaments and who need to travel all the time all over the world just to play qualies...I'm not so naive to believe success is function of talent only....

Well said.

strictennis
Apr 26th, 2007, 05:09 AM
A Wimbledon Final between Vakulenko and Azarenka cannot begin

to be compared in ratings to a final between Serena and Henin.


If I was told to pay big bucks to watch these 2 play every tournament final. It would bore the shit out of me. We all need a breath of fresh air, new faces. There can never, Never be any new faces on tour if they are broke or struggling. Anyway, though I may not who Vakulenko and Azarenka, but I'm willing to give a watch.

Do you think you know Serena back in the early nineties? Would you want to watch Serena vs. Kournikova final in 1992 or a Seles vs. Graff final? :o

darrinbaker00
Apr 26th, 2007, 05:36 AM
If I was told to pay big bucks to watch these 2 play every tournament final. It would bore the shit out of me. We all need a breath of fresh air, new faces. There can never, Never be any new faces on tour if they are broke or struggling. Anyway, though I may not who Vakulenko and Azarenka, but I'm willing to give a watch.

Do you think you know Serena back in the early nineties? Would you want to watch Serena vs. Kournikova final in 1992 or a Seles vs. Graff final? :o
1. When Billie Jean King was on her way out, in stepped Chris Evert. When Evert was on her way out, in stepped Steffi Graf and Monica Seles. The tour will never, EVER, run out of new faces.

2. Serena and Kournikova were both born in 1981, so if either or both of them had made it to a WTA Tour final in 1992..... :eek:

rjd1111
Apr 26th, 2007, 02:02 PM
If I was told to pay big bucks to watch these 2 play every tournament final. It would bore the shit out of me. We all need a breath of fresh air, new faces. There can never, Never be any new faces on tour if they are broke or struggling. Anyway, though I may not who Vakulenko and Azarenka, but I'm willing to give a watch.

Do you think you know Serena back in the early nineties? Would you want to watch Serena vs. Kournikova final in 1992 or a Seles vs. Graff final? :o


In 92' Serena and Anna were 11 yrs old.
However I know where you are coming from.
And yes, as a Tennis fan I do like to see fresh faces someimes. But its not
about Tennis fans. They will watch regardless. High Ratings come from
the casual fans and non fans who tune in to watch Name Faces. They are
not going to watch 2 players they have never heard of.