[BH both wings]

Originally Posted by tae04

First rounders should get more. They are usually the ones grinding on tour and barely making enough to travel, pay coaches, and make a decent salary. I don't know about Wildcards, but definitely people coming thru qualifying should enjoy the increase.

How about raising the payout for the qualifiers directly?

[homogenius]

Greedypova

[VIKANADAL01]

I think she is selfish too cos Tenniswomen outside the top100 have not the easy life she has, they have to pay for their hotel, their travel... She lives in another world and seems to not pay attention to others difficulties.

[NashaMasha]

How about raising the payout for the qualifiers directly?

This, winning a match should be rewarded more, including qulifiers , but not Cadantu-s losing 0-6. 0-6 in the 1 R and winning about 100 000 just for participation

I think she is selfish too cos Tenniswomen outside the top100 have not the easy life she has,

Who has easy life on this forum? Who is paid in real life for not being successful? Tennis - is a professional sport, it's their work . If you are not successfil = you are fired.

22000 USD covers all expenses 1R losers bear for participation at Slams, it's not like they are underpaid ....

But 1R winners are underpaid , it's a really huge achivement for low ranked players, because they have to beat higher ranked or even seeded players to win just 59% more....

[Wiggly]

Tennis isn't a team sports where everyone has a role within the team.

A journeywoman's role is to lose in the first round in front of few spectators on a non-telivised court.
An average NHL player will play 82 games in front of about 15 000 spectators or more.

Stakhovsky should understand this.

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by Mustachepova

I'm sensing Simon Cowell levels of hatred

Spot on. Yes, we are almost, not quite but almost, in the same ballpark there.

For the record I would feel the same way about any top ten multimillionaire tennis player who said the same thing too.

[aselto]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

Do you really think that winner of First round should earn only 59% more than loser?

That's one way of looking at it. The other is that 96 players are unseeded and have a chance of drawing Azarenka or Serenka in the first round. They have to calculate this risk in mind and the first round prize money has to be enough for, let's say, a #70 ranked player to be worth it to come to Australia and more than likely lose in the opening round, but with chances to have a good run like Giorgi at Wimbledon or Robson at US Open, or Rosol winning against Nadal. Grand Slams wouldn't be Grand Slams without such stories.

Now imagine if AO's draw had 40-50 direct acceptance players from Australia because only 70-80 international players fancied their chances to progress to the second round.

[KournikovaFan91]

Don't qualifiers get bonus money from the Qualy draw

[Shvedbarilescu]

Over the last few years, the prize money at the top end has increased much more rapidly than the prize money for qualifiers and early round losers. Thanks to the men and the top of the ATP, namely Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray this unfairness was addressed this year at Wimbledon and prize money for players in qualifying and early round losers increased my a greater percentage than prize money for the later rounds. But this change only begins to address the many years when the prize money increases were focused primarily on the later rounds. Credit to the top 4 of the men's game for appreciating the importance of the wealth made by the Slams to be distributed fairly thoughout the whole tour. I really am sickened that this rich bitch doesn't see it that way though. Her pal Novak really does need to have a word with this girl and straighten her out.

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by SilverSlam

And you're all missing the point. She's saying she likes what AO has done by increasing the prize money, but NOT to people who lose in the first round, rather rewarding people who win.

And although there will be some cases where that is a little unfair, if a WC gets into the first round, and loses 6-1 6-1 and makes the same as a qualifier who's played three tough matches to get to the main draw, how is that fair?

She also says that the other slams need to raise the money, because they're not giving an appropriate amount compared to the revenue which they're receiving.

Exactly more for Sharapova, and fuck the lower ranks. What a sweetie.

[NashaMasha]

Originally Posted by aselto

That's one way of looking at it. The other is that 96 players are unseeded and have a chance of drawing Azarenka or Serenka in the first round. They have to calculate this risk in mind and the first round prize money has to be enough for, let's say, a #70 ranked player to be worth it to come to Australia and more than likely lose in the opening round, but with chances to have a good run like Giorgi at Wimbledon or Robson at US Open, or Rosol winning against Nadal. Grand Slams wouldn't be Grand Slams without such stories.

Now imagine if AO's draw had 40-50 direct acceptance players from Australia because only 70-80 international players fancied their chances to progress to the second round.

They still receive about 22000 USD for losing a match , it's not like anyone demands decrease of this reward.

For instance Cadantu lost 4 1Rounds at Slams and won about 100 000 USD for losing it 0-6 0-6 or 0-6 -1-6 , she won more on Slams this year than on all other tournaments , on which she was more successful

let's take Razzano, who won her 1R match against Serena and earned just 55% more than Cadantu. Is it fair?

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

This, winning a match should be rewarded more, including qulifiers , but not Cadantu-s losing 0-6. 0-6 in the 1 R and winning about 100 000 just for participation



Who has easy life on this forum? Who is paid in real life for not being successful? Tennis - is a professional sport, it's their work . If you are not successfil = you are fired.

22000 USD covers all expenses 1R losers bear for participation at Slams, it's not like they are underpaid ....

But 1R winners are underpaid , it's a really huge achivement for low ranked players, because they have to beat higher ranked or even seeded players to win just 59% more....

I hear you. But what is being done is putting and emphasis not just on 1st round losers, but 2nd and 3rd round losers. The prize money for all would increase at about the same rate. So it is not as if the difference between the amount won for losing in the first round and the amount won for losing in the 2nd will get smaller. It won't. In fact it will get a little bigger.

[NashaMasha]

.

So it is not as if the difference between the amount won for losing in the first round and the amount won for losing in the 2nd will get smaller. It won't. In fact it will get a little bigger.

still the winner of 1R will get just 55-59% more than loser.... And no way it's fair. Main increase of prize money should be for 1R and 2R winners

[marineblue]

Well,the players who lose in first rounds hardly ever draw many viewers and therefore their salary is equal to revenue that they can make for WTA, IMO. If a player spends most of the time playing ITF events and hardly ever makes the first rounds of WTA tour events they're probably not that good and do not have the potential to earn WTA money. Sharapova is quite right there.

[aselto]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

They still receive about 22000 USD for losing a match , it's not like anyone demands decrease of this reward.

For instance Cadantu lost 4 1Rounds at Slams and won about 100 000 USD for losing it 0-6 0-6 or 0-6 -1-6 , she won more on Slams this year than on all other tournaments , on which she was more successful

That's one extreme example. But on the other hand you might have a decent and in-form player ranked #40 or so that might draw Azarenka and lose R1 or she might reach R4 with a softer draw. In the end slams generate enough revenues to make sure players are well compensated just for arriving. It might seem that they're overcompensated in the first round, but that;s a reward for grinding at ITF/WTA International tournaments all other weeks of the year and being undercompensated.