PDA

View Full Version : 2010 USO Hitting New Highs in Prize Money, Winner to Get $1.7M to $2.7Mill


tennisbum79
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:16 AM
2010 US Open base prize money tops record $22.6 million with potential $25.2 million payout


July 8, 2010 04:00 PM


The USTA announced that the 2010 US Open purse will top $22.6 million, an increase of $1 million over last yearís record purse, and the richest purse in tennis history. In addition to the base purse of $22.6 million, the top three menís and top three womenís finishers in the Olympus US Open Series may earn up to an additional $2.6 million in bonus prize money at the US Open, providing a potential total payout of $25.2 million.


Both the menís and womenís US Open singles champions will earn a record $1.7 million with the ability to earn an additional $1 million in bonus prize money (for a total $2.7 million potential payout) based on their performances in the Olympus US Open Series.


The Olympus US Open Series Bonus Challenge rewards the top three menís and top three womenís finishers each year with bonus prize money at the US Open and has resulted in the largest paychecks in tennis history for men (2007 Ė Roger Federer, $2.4 million) and women (2005 Ė Kim Clijsters, $2.2 million).


US Open Base Prize Money

The 2010 US Open purse includes a 6.7% increase in menís and womenís singles prize money over last year's total. For the 38th consecutive year, the USTA will offer equal prize money to both men and women -- a Grand Slam first and US Open tradition dating back to 1973. All players also receive per diem payments to help with the cost of accommodations and other expenses.



US Open Bonus Prize Money


The 2010 US Open is the culmination of the Olympus US Open Series, the North American summer season of 10 ATP World Tour and Sony Ericsson WTA Tour events that begins July 19.

The USTA will offer up to an additional $2.6 million in bonus prize money at the US Open to the top three menís and top three womenís singles finishers in the Olympus US Open Series. $5.7 million in bonus prize money has been awarded since the Olympus US Open Series began in 2004.


The menís and womenís winners of the Olympus US Open Series will play for up to $1 million in bonus prize money at the US Open. In addition, the second-place finishers can earn up to an additional $500,000, while the third-place finishers in the Olympus US Open Series can earn up to an additional $250,000.

The top finishers in the Olympus US Open Series will be determined by the Olympus US Open Series Bonus Challenge -- a point structure based on singles results at each of the 10 Olympus US Open Series tournaments this summer. Players must earn points in at least two Olympus US Open Series events in order to be eligible for bonus prize money at the US Open.





http://www.usopen.org/2010_us_open_base_prize_money_tops_record_226_mill ion_with_potential_252_million_payout/

goldenlox
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:19 AM
Kim won $2.2 million when she won the USO series and USO.
That was 2005, so this seems like a normal rise.

I think they should pay more for 1st and 2nd rounds.
3/4's of the field is out after 2 rounds, and they need prizemoney more than the winner needs 1.7 million. They can spare 300,000 for the 96 who are gone before round 3

Donny
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:21 AM
Kim won $2.2 million when she won the USO series and USO.
That was 2005, so this seems like a normal rise.

I think they should pay more for 1st and 2nd rounds.
3/4's of the field is out after 2 rounds, and they need prizemoney more than the winner needs 1.7 million. They can spare 300,000 for the 96 who are gone before round 3

It's business. The 3/4 of the draw does not bring in 3/4 of the revenue at the USO. You could easily find another 100 pro players to take their place, and no one would probably even notice a difference.

goldenlox
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:24 AM
There is no guarantee the winner will be a huge draw.
They can spread the prizemoney a little better than they do now

And if the winner is a big draw, they will get huge endorsement money besides the 1.7 million

tennisbum79
Jul 9th, 2010, 01:32 AM
Kim won $2.2 million when she won the USO series and USO.
That was 2005, so this seems like a normal rise.
You are treating matter-of-factly, as if the players are overdue to get a raise.

In this recessionary times, that is alot of money.
And frankly, I would not have any problem if the prize statyed the same as last year.

nfl46
Jul 9th, 2010, 01:40 AM
Well, let me guess, Serena will get around 2.5 million. Lol. They may as well hand the US Open and check to her right now!

njnetswill
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:16 AM
I'm waiting for the Tea Party crazies to accuse Obama of including this in the stimulus package. :o

Direwolf
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:18 AM
Well, let me guess, Serena will get around 2.5 million. Lol. They may as well hand the US Open and check to her right now!

:worship::worship::worship:

Only if she plays better than her usual non GS self...

slamchamp
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:19 AM
More money for Masha:hearts:

tennisbum79
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:39 AM
I'm waiting for the Tea Party crazies to accuse Obama of including this in the stimulus package. :o
:lol::bounce::lol::worship::lol:

This is not out of the realm of possibilities.

All it takes is for someone to contact FoxNews and and you have breaking news story.
Next thing you know, FoxNews will be accusing BJK of convincing Obama to slip this through at the 11th hour , after Michelle Obama has conveyed BJK's message.

Possible because FoxNews is good at making up stories, not at sourcing or verifying them.

Sorry for getting off topic, but njnetswill post was so funny and improbable, but plausible to become news at the same time

skanky~skanketta
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:40 AM
Well maybe they should pay the 1st and 2nd round losers a little more, but the fact is that if they want to make more, they have to really perform. This is basically similar to General Managers earning way more than Junior Executives. Because they have to perform a lot better. Can you imagine if a WC gets a high amount and loses the first round? It would be completely undeserved.

LoveFifteen
Jul 9th, 2010, 03:04 AM
Serena will likely win the Open but she ain't winning the US Open series. :lol:

tennisbum79
Jul 9th, 2010, 03:41 AM
Serena will likely win the Open but she ain't winning the US Open series. :lol:
Agree with that.:lol:

goldenlox
Jul 9th, 2010, 04:16 AM
Well maybe they should pay the 1st and 2nd round losers a little more, but the fact is that if they want to make more, they have to really perform. This is basically similar to General Managers earning way more than Junior Executives. Because they have to perform a lot better. Can you imagine if a WC gets a high amount and loses the first round? It would be completely undeserved.But 3/4's of the whole draw will be out after 2 rounds. That is simple mathematics.
Only 32 players in the world left after 2 rounds.

This sport needs a bigger middle class. There are a few superstars and thousands who are broke, and struggling to stay on the tour.

I think the WTA with their Tier I's and definately super Tier I's, should pay more in the early rounds too.

But with the majors, the rewards for the final 8 are already enough, pay the 96 going home the 1st week.

darrinbaker00
Jul 9th, 2010, 04:25 AM
But 3/4's of the whole draw will be out after 2 rounds. That is simple mathematics.
Only 32 players in the world left after 2 rounds.

This sport needs a bigger middle class. There are a few superstars and thousands who are broke, and struggling to stay on the tour.

I think the WTA with their Tier I's and definately super Tier I's, should pay more in the early rounds too.

But with the majors, the rewards for the final 8 are already enough, pay the 96 going home the 1st week.
If they want to make more money, they should win more matches. If they're not making enough to live, they should hang up their racquets and get a regular job. Playing tennis for a living is a privilege, not a right.

Larrybidd
Jul 9th, 2010, 07:23 AM
Kim won $2.2 million when she won the USO series and USO.
That was 2005, so this seems like a normal rise.

I think they should pay more for 1st and 2nd rounds.
3/4's of the field is out after 2 rounds, and they need prizemoney more than the winner needs 1.7 million. They can spare 300,000 for the 96 who are gone before round 3

That would mean that players could get a bonus from simply being wildcarded into the draw. This ain't a charity. You wanna get a payday? Win some matches at the Open!!

TennisFan66
Jul 9th, 2010, 07:43 AM
If they want to make more money, they should win more matches. If they're not making enough to live, they should hang up their racquets and get a regular job. Playing tennis for a living is a privilege, not a right.

Agree.

The influx of money into tennis is the two headed monster. You've seen general standards raised tremendously with the current crop of players so far ahead of 'good old days' players. Some countries are throwing money after local tennis talent to thurn out new 'stars' ..

Flip side of course is the pressure from parents, national tennis org etc. There was a story in British Daily Mail here the other day about an 11 yr old girl (yep 11) and how the parents sold up, gave up everything, so the girl could spend some years at Bolletteries .. :help:

As the old saying goes: One carrot can motivate a thousand dunkeys.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291657/Family-selling-splitting-girls-tennis-dream.html

Kim's_fan_4ever
Jul 9th, 2010, 07:57 AM
It's getting ridiculous :help: Tennis players are clearly overpaid.

TennisFan66
Jul 9th, 2010, 08:01 AM
It's getting ridiculous :help: Tennis players are clearly overpaid.


Five words for you:

John Terry £120,000 a week.

Edit: Meaning if so, its clearly not 'just' top tennis players. Its in all sports. Football (US and European versions), golf, tennis .. Its the world we live in. Its a celebrity world/culture. If the papers/media didn't have top sports men/women to write about, they'd give us more brainless TV talent, Big Brother shows, X factor and instead of having tennis stars, you'd have a world filled with more Paris Hiltons, Katie Prices and Kerry Katonas.

Bart
Jul 9th, 2010, 08:47 AM
Nice and what do we get in return? Overweight players, low quality tennis, boring matches and inconsistent top players. Way to go!

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 9th, 2010, 08:59 AM
Although I'm for equal prize money, I'm totally against these numbers. It's unnecessary and IMHO will convert the sport into a prostitute e.g. soccer in Europe... :weirdo: :smash:

skanky~skanketta
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:01 AM
But 3/4's of the whole draw will be out after 2 rounds. That is simple mathematics.
Only 32 players in the world left after 2 rounds.

This sport needs a bigger middle class. There are a few superstars and thousands who are broke, and struggling to stay on the tour.

I think the WTA with their Tier I's and definately super Tier I's, should pay more in the early rounds too.

But with the majors, the rewards for the final 8 are already enough, pay the 96 going home the 1st week.
Well, the fact is, nobody wants to be "middle class". Everyone wants to be in the higher echelons of tennis or whatever it is they do. By rewarding those who perpetually lose early, you're just giving room for complacency. If a player is broke, it's really her own fault for not performing. Why pay them more for non-performance? That would be completely unfair for the players who actually put in the effort and make the most out of their abilities.

If they aren't all that talented to begin with, why even play the sport? Yes, there are cases where some players get bad luck at the slams, but there are plenty of other MM tournies/Challengers they can play to get their rankings up/earn some money in the first place.

At the end of the day, tennis is still a job. Just use a corporate mindset and you'll see why they are paid accordingly. If you think about it, winning matches is like a promotion money-wise. Their rankings can be likened to bonuses. The more work = higher rank = bonus. At least that's how I see it.

Break My Rapture
Jul 9th, 2010, 09:20 AM
It's getting ridiculous :help: Tennis players are clearly overpaid.
What? If any sports athletes are overpaid, it's the football players. :rolleyes: Some of them do nothing than sitting on a bench the entire matches and still earn the big bucks, which is ridiculious. At least tennis players train and play matches every day of the week, IMO they deserve their money.

Kim's_fan_4ever
Jul 9th, 2010, 10:10 AM
What? If any sports athletes are overpaid, it's the football players. :rolleyes: Some of them do nothing than sitting on a bench the entire matches and still earn the big bucks, which is ridiculious. At least tennis players train and play matches every day of the week, IMO they deserve their money.

I never said football players weren't overpaid so get off my back :rolleyes: And tennis players are overpaid, it's ridiculous how much money they get. Both Kim and Serena received 750k euros for that horrible match they played yesterday, obviously they fully deserved it:yeah:

xan
Jul 9th, 2010, 10:31 AM
I agree there should be more money for the lower rounds. The early-round slam money is a huge percentage of the total yearly earnings for Top 40-100 players. These are good players - struggling to stay on tour, and the slams should help support the depth of the tour. Also good payouts for qualifying for a slam would spur others on to reach that standard.

As for the total payout - it is not significantly up. Only the bonus money for the US Open series makes it richer than other slams

Kworb
Jul 9th, 2010, 11:02 AM
I agree players ranked 50-200 should earn more money. These are not bad players. Often the only reason they are this low is that they don't have the resources to get the team and training they need to get to the next level. By shifting some of the prize money, not just at the Slams but everywhere, to players who lose early, upcoming talent can focus on their tennis and not just on their finances.

Donny
Jul 9th, 2010, 11:32 AM
It's getting ridiculous :help: Tennis players are clearly overpaid.

They made far more than that for the organizers of the event.

Or should the organizers simply keep more of the profit rather than hand it out to the players?

Rix643
Jul 9th, 2010, 11:41 AM
Perverted. (And not just tennis).

brickhousesupporter
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:14 PM
Kim won $2.2 million when she won the USO series and USO.
That was 2005, so this seems like a normal rise.

I think they should pay more for 1st and 2nd rounds.
3/4's of the field is out after 2 rounds, and they need prizemoney more than the winner needs 1.7 million. They can spare 300,000 for the 96 who are gone before round 3
That attitude would lead to complacency among the pros. There would be no incentive to get better. You would just be hoping to loose in a grandslam first round.

goldenlox
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:26 PM
It would not be complacency at all. There are thousands of players trying to make a living.
A handful make 90% of the money. Prizemoney, endosements, appearance fees, they go to a few players.

The rest of them are fighting to pay bills.

TennisFan66
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:52 PM
According to among others the lovely Annabel Croft, you have to be top 70 in the WTA to actually make 'a living' from your tennis. Now if I compare it to sub No 9999 on the Chelsea or Man City bench, you could argue tennis players are hugely underpaid and at least the lower ranks would deserve a pay increase.

As for the 'top'. Well, lets put it this way. I doubt Roger Federer is trolling the night clubs in Zurich every weeked. Hunting for yet another glamour model for the Nth time to cheat on his wife. So in my world, Roger is more 'deserving' of his money than the likes of John Terry ..

I dont know what US stars in baseball, basketball, US football are paid, but I would be surprised if they are not well above a top male/female tennis player.
I hope they show more class than our average European (British) footballer though!!

Break My Rapture
Jul 9th, 2010, 12:55 PM
According to among others the lovely Annabel Croft, you have to be top 70 in the WTA to actually make 'a living' from your tennis. Now if I compare it to sub No 9999 on the Chelsea or Man City bench, you could argue tennis players are hugely underpaid and at least the lower ranks would deserve a pay increase.

As for the 'top'. Well, lets put it this way. I doubt Roger Federer is trolling the night clubs in Zurich every weeked. Hunting for yet another glamour model for the Nth time to cheat on his wife. So in my world, Roger is more 'deserving' of his money than the likes of John Terry ..

I dont know what US stars in baseball, basketball, US football are paid, but I would be surprised if they are not well above a top male/female tennis player.
Totally agree. :yeah:

LoveFifteen
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:01 PM
The bonus money in the US Open series is a huge waste. It doesn't give the top players any further incentive to show up at the series events because they already make most of their money from endorsements, not prize money. I agree that they should give more money to the losers in the earlier rounds. A lot of them struggle to make a living in tennis, and with extra money, they could devote more time to training instead of worrying about how to pay their bills. When you're worried about your bills, you get stressed, and stress leads to weight gain. Maybe that's why there are so many Lumpovas? :sad:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 9th, 2010, 02:11 PM
It would not be complacency at all. There are thousands of players trying to make a living.
A handful make 90% of the money. Prizemoney, endosements, appearance fees, they go to a few players.

The rest of them are fighting to pay bills.

then win matches...

if they hand out millions to everyone people won't try to get fit enough, improve their games etc to try to win, since you could lose and still comfortably...in which way is that right

дalex
Jul 9th, 2010, 04:16 PM
Someone tell that Jankovic about this! Although I'm not sure she understands this $$$ currency. Would help if someone could convert $s into pairs of shoes, glitter, Rancho Santa Fe castles or something else that would be of interest to her.

tonybotz
Jul 9th, 2010, 10:29 PM
ew this rubs me the complete wrong way. they can charge a ridiculous amount of money to sit in the heavens at AA Stadium, sell overpriced horrible food sold by rude vendors, but have all this money to crap around with. i hate the usta.

cellophane
Jul 9th, 2010, 10:34 PM
I never said football players weren't overpaid so get off my back :rolleyes: And tennis players are overpaid, it's ridiculous how much money they get. Both Kim and Serena received 750k euros for that horrible match they played yesterday, obviously they fully deserved it:yeah:

It's business. It is how it is.

Donny
Jul 9th, 2010, 10:35 PM
According to among others the lovely Annabel Croft, you have to be top 70 in the WTA to actually make 'a living' from your tennis. Now if I compare it to sub No 9999 on the Chelsea or Man City bench, you could argue tennis players are hugely underpaid and at least the lower ranks would deserve a pay increase.

As for the 'top'. Well, lets put it this way. I doubt Roger Federer is trolling the night clubs in Zurich every weeked. Hunting for yet another glamour model for the Nth time to cheat on his wife. So in my world, Roger is more 'deserving' of his money than the likes of John Terry ..

I dont know what US stars in baseball, basketball, US football are paid, but I would be surprised if they are not well above a top male/female tennis player.
I hope they show more class than our average European (British) footballer though!!

Lol @ even comparing American sports to tennis.

There are a dozen or more teams in the NFL more valuable than the entire ATP tour.

Bijoux0021
Jul 9th, 2010, 10:38 PM
The bonus money in the US Open series is a huge waste. It doesn't give the top players any further incentive to show up at the series events because they already make most of their money from endorsements, not prize money. I agree that they should give more money to the losers in the earlier rounds. A lot of them struggle to make a living in tennis, and with extra money, they could devote more time to training instead of worrying about how to pay their bills. When you're worried about your bills, you get stressed, and stress leads to weight gain. Maybe that's why there are so many Lumpovas? :sad:
I agree with you. But, you know the saying...The rich always get richer.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Jul 9th, 2010, 10:45 PM
Too much in my opinion. 1 million is great but 2 and a half million?
Shouldn't that money be put into the developement program? No wonder American women players are struggling

Everything is boatloaded for the winners that already have millions while the 2nd and 3rd rounders don't even get a percentage of what they should be getting in comparison..

Dawson.
Jul 10th, 2010, 12:13 AM
Seeing as though the USD has seen better days, this payout is not much different to Kim's 2005 cheque.

Wimbledon gave out £1m for the first time this year. A huge leap at first glance of around £250k, but taking the economy into account, it really isn't that significant.

shoparound
Jul 10th, 2010, 12:18 AM
and some of the workers at the US Open only get paid $8.50 an hour

goldenlox
Jul 10th, 2010, 12:20 AM
and some of the workers at the US Open only get paid $8.50 an hourAnd a USTA official was making $9 million a year.