Tennis Forum banner

Katie Boulter makes hasty French Open getaway after picking up controversial pay pack

8K views 77 replies 48 participants last post by  Monzanator 
#1 ·
Katie Boulter’s visit to Roland Garros ended in a sharp getaway on Friday, as the British No. 2 declined the opportunity to answer questions about her controversial £20,323 pay packet.

Having watched her friend and Fed Cup team-mate Katie Swan lose in the final round of qualifying, Boulter left Court 12 at maximum speed – surprisingly fast, in fact, for a woman who is understood to be suffering from a spinal stress fracture. She swept past reporters with a hasty “Sorry!” instead of stopping to explain why she had allowed her name to appear in Friday’s French Open draw

MORE HERE: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2019/05/24/katie-boulter-makes-hasty-french-open-getaway-picking-controversial/?fbclid=IwAR2YJcVQZtt6jaoSl5ktce4LweS5_9A70DKyEpq_L5P9alGlGnPIHhupysk
 
#5 ·
Well, considering she has 13 wins over those in the top 110 (just to support the argument a bit ;)) in less than 12 months, despite only playing 6 events since October, I'd say there would be far worse players to have made the top 100, but each to their own.

As for the article. It's morally not great, same with Giorgi, but if those are the rules, then she has done nothing wrong. She has made less than £100k this year, so a £20k windfall for that level of player, same with every player in that ranking range, is certainly not to sniffed at.

They should change the rules (again) to allow everyone who made the slam entry list 5 weeks prior to get half the prize money, that they earned for being ranked high enough, if they withdrew anytime in that 5 week period. This way, more players would get the chance to play (Bondar in quals, Voegele in main draw) and slams can certainly afford to pay out a few extra £20k's out - if they can't, simply knock off £1k for every R1 loser and that would build a pot of £128k (or £2k to generate £256k) which they could use especially for these type of situations.
 
#32 ·
I guess i don't understand the current rule then, because i thought that as long as Boulter was ELIGIBLE to play MD, that she could pull out citing her injury, and she didn't actually have to appear in the draw to get half the 1R money... Steffi Voegele got ripped off, no question, as did the girl who missed out on playing qualifying.
 
#8 ·
Her Tweet was a bit cringe though saying how she was hoping to make it, when in reality she knew for a while she wouldn't be playing. She should have said nothing there.

She's also not helped, in this situation, by being a leading player in a big tennis nation with a notorious widespread press always looking for a controversial story and were quick to report her injury was more serious than expected a month ago. Had it have been someone like say Lapko or Jorovic then I don't think it would have got the general coverage it has.
 
#10 ·
Right, she withdrew from Surbiton already, so no way did she think she could play the FO.

I think she got some advice from someone to do this, probably her coach. But I know I would find it difficult to turn down an opportunity for £20,323... And it's not like she's taking the money from needy children..the Grand Slam tournaments are loaded.

The British press are such vultures... the way they make passive aggressive comments about her walking quickly when she has a spinal injury.. TBh, I would do the exact same thing, just walk past them quickly and not engage. :lol:
 
#9 ·
In such cases like this next player from list should make MD - no matter if she plays or not play qualifications. And no matter when she lost in those quali.

Voegele was 1st alternate and she should have made MD. Even if she lost in 1st of quali.
 
#12 ·
Let's also not forget Giorgi, she seems to have avoided most of the criticism. She's not played since Miami, had very little chance of playing here, but also conveniently withdrew late enough to collect her £20k windfall - the likes of Allertova would have been in the main draw had Camila also withdrawn a little earlier, and while this rule is still in existence, it will continue to be exploited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobito
#16 ·
There is no evidence that Giorgi went to Paris to collect 50% of the 1R prize money.

To be on spot and to be examined by an independent doctor is a mandatory requirement for the new rule to apply. Of course we do not know about the medical examination, but is well documented that Boulter was in Paris.

Also Berdich was in Paris, so the rule applies, but again there is no evidence for the Parisian presence of Raonic or Kyrgios.
 
#14 ·
Giorgi is just as bad, except for the fact that there weren't articles in the press several weeks ago saying she would pull out of RG. The Boulter articles must have come from the Boulter camp. If she had better PR sense, she would have put out a statement like: 'I am sorry to pull out of Nuremberg but I am really hoping to play at RG but in the end it is up to what the doctors say.' and not pulled out of Surbiton until she had also pulled out of RG. Then she would have covered herself, but this was messy.


And she cannot be surprised about the British press. Roland Garros is when the temporary tennis media that exists in Britain for May-July dusts off the cobwebs on its tennis 'knowledge' and starts to take up its seven week interest in tennis, so she would know that they would have their eyes on her. I imagine the Sun and the Mirror are probably going to preparing big features on 'Brit beauty Boulter' etc as we speak and have probably been interviewing her already.

But these two may not be the last - I will not be surprised if at least one more takes the $20k and hobbles into the sunset by tomorrow/Monday.
 
#18 ·
Giorgi is just as bad, except for the fact that there weren't articles in the press several weeks ago saying she would pull out of RG. The Boulter articles must have come from the Boulter camp. If she had better PR sense, she would have put out a statement like: 'I am sorry to pull out of Nuremberg but I am really hoping to play at RG but in the end it is up to what the doctors say.' and not pulled out of Surbiton until she had also pulled out of RG. Then she would have covered herself, but this was messy.
Pretty much this. It was a dumb move from her team to talk about how she's gonna miss RG a month ahead. They probably thought it's a nice stunt to highlight how she sacrificed her own career for the Fed Cup team but it's backfiring now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StephenUK
#27 ·
Giorgi had the sense to keep a low profile - she didn't drip stories to the press a month in advance, she withdrew before the draw, avoiding a "will she, won't she" situation, she didn't make a fake-sounding tweet about hoping to play, she didn't get photographed at Garros, or at Chelsea Flower Show or some equivalent.

In other words, she didn't exacerbate the situation to make her easy prey for a media desperate for any whiff of controversy.

Boulter withdrew from both Surbiton and Manchester on May 3, just around the time the story broke that she'd miss Garros and possibly Wimbledon.

I don't like this practice, and yes, it does impact other players, all the way down the line - the alternates, who could have played a different tournament or rested this week, the players who would have had a better seeding in qualies, the players who just missed qualies.

That said, I think everyone can understand the temptation, and the rules as they stand explicitly allow this. I think the media reaction is overly harsh, and probably came as a shock to Katie, who has been quite favourably treated up until now.
 
#28 ·
Independent doctor is not really an option. They are no fine black and white lines reagarding health. And even if there is conses about the state the player's body is in, it is realyl on the player to decide - once in while there would be condition one player would play with and another would not, some condition might be like it takes over na hour of play for the body part to be pressured to become a problem, a time, player might hope to decide a match already before having to dealing with the issue. Some might want to take precaution and be ready for next slam on more favourable surface, some want to play anyway as this is their farewell tournament etc

In the end, doctors can't tell a player she can't play, that could open a new can of worms as potentially abuseable and if somebody would be foudn unfit to play and would face repercusiions if withdrawing late, that would push some injured players to play in effort to show they are not misusing any rules.

I prefer the aforementioned idea of giving this Buzarnescu/Boulter money to players withdrawing in any time between cut off and q draw, perhaps maybe lessing the money for players withdrawing after q draw by 10% or something. To limit late withdrawals to mostly those unfortunate players getting injured/sick at the very last days before tournament or with reasonable hope to get better to be able to play but ultimately failing to do that. There always be player with genuinely day-to-day conditions and late injuries to withdraw late and those have to retain the security of having 50% money withotu being barred from playing by any new rules. The others should be positively motivated to withdraw in time.
 
#29 ·
There's not much wrong with what she did, a lot of people would do the same if they were in her position.
But it is how she still try to uphold her image as someone not trying to do what's she did was the most upsetting thing.
 
#60 ·
EXACTLY. The low standards of some posters in this thread is astounding. Any player who earned their ranking can pull out anytime they want. No poster here knows the medical condition or situation surrounding these players health. You can make all the assumptions you want. You aren't out there playing and the scrubs you support need to improve their ranking and earn their spot PERIOD.:wink2:
 
#45 ·
That’s the UK press for you, pick up on this and kick one of our own when there’s plenty of other positive things in tennis they could be reporting on, our female No.2 no less (let’s be honest, most people here would take a flight to Paris to earn 20K? I certainly would!). They’d be crawling all over her again in a totally different way at the time Wimbledon rolls round if she were to play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pierre.
#37 ·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_French_Open#Prize_money

Look at that prize money:

2 x 2,300,000 Euro winners cheques
2 x 1,180,000 runners up
4 x 590,000 semi finals
etc. etc. etc.

42,661,000 Euro total prize money

Obscene prize funds and I think the FO is actually less than Wimbledon and certainly the US Open, so it'll be even more at those 2. I'm repeating myself, but they could easily set up an injury pot out of that to pay, in this case, Sharapova, Makarova, Boulter and Giorgi (and any equivalent male players) half of the money to avoid all of this. Voegele would have got in the draw, Bondar would have got into qualifying.

The slams are by far the most prestigious events so you're going to do everything in your power to play, but if you can't then you are encouraged (and benefited) to pull out as soon as you know to give others a chance (as RookiePundit said) and if there were any late genuine withdrawals, then LL spots could open up and it would be less of a farce.

If you've made the cut 5 weeks out, then you're guaranteed to be paid as a reward for getting your ranking that high so close to the draw. Seriously, what's stopping them doing that, surely that makes most sense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShimSham
#38 ·
What happened to Giorgi? She withdrew from the April 22 Istanbul.

The WTA Singles Draw PDF told "C. Giorgi (Injury TBC)" firstly.

The PDF was updated every day until the tournament finished but still did not tell what the injury was.



 

Attachments

#39 · (Edited)
People tends to forget the rationale of the rule.

Before this new rule, players clearly unfit to play were entering the slam, playing a few games of the first round and then retire, thus generating three effects:

- collecting the full 1R prize money
- depriving any other player from entering
- giving to the spectators, on site and on TV, a bad show

With the new rule the first effect is cut in half, the other two are totally avoided, since the player is anyway replaced by the next alternate or a LL.

Boulter and Berdich (if it will be the case even Giorgi, Raonic and Kyrgios) are not only using the rule, but they are using it in the only possible way.

It is not like the MTO, that can be used properly or even in an unfair way, this rule can be used ONLY in this way.

What we can perhaps blame to Boulter is to have given too much publicity to the fact, while for example Berdych has been much more discrete:

 
#41 ·
The idea that she is taking money away from somebody outside the Q cutoff is ludicrous. They have 52 weeks a year to get inside the top 195 (or whatever the exact number is) which means guaranteed entry into the qualifying draw. Anything lower than that, they’re depending on withdrawals and should be thankful if somebody does withdraw but that’s it.

I can’t believe we are still having this discussion after the rule change. Martic, Hercog and others showing up injured and retiring after 1 game were breaking the rules as every player is supposed to give their best effort, but it was still understandable considering the size of the paycheck. Boulter earned her spot and is not breaking a single rule and it’s not like she’s an established top 20 player with thousands in a savings account. She barely started breaking even last year and nobody can tell if she’ll fall back down or become a top 100 regular.

All of this is assuming that she had no chance of playing in the first place. Health is a spectrum and she should not have to withdraw 8 days before her potential match just so Barbara Haas can get into the Q draw.
 
#47 ·
Absolutely.

Players at the top of the MD Alternates list used to wait a week or so hoping for injured players to drop out so they take a place they hadn't actually earned.

Now they have to play the qualifying and win 2 rounds to be in with a shot of getting a lucky loser spot, a place they have earned.

Seems a better arrangement, ignoring any financial incentives to make it happen.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top