Majors make a profit, a PROFIT of over $200 million each year. Letting the players struggling to earn a living a few rubles is tip money to the people running majors

 

For players that aren’t yet in the top 200 but in the grand slams qualifyings range... that’s what keeps their careers going for the most part so in my opinion it’s fair that the prize money should go up.

I was looking yesterday at Anca Todoni’s stats, 19 years old, will make her Slam debut this year and even though she became a top 200 player a few weeks ago her career prize money so far totals the grand sum of $60K after hustling a full year in the ITF circuit (mostly). That makes trying to sustain a pro career futile and something’s gotta give.

Paar’s situation is completely different as it was an obvious cash grab but if the rules allow it... she’s not the first and won’t be the last one either.

 

I should clarify that I find it good that prize-money go up for qualifying players but the increase shouldn’t be at the expense of doubles prize-money

 

Following what Tiley said after AO, I think GS believe that they are doing community service to even have doubles competition w/prize $.

RG only increased the first three rounds of doubles by 500 euros per team in comparison to last year, and no changes were made from QF onwards. They couldn't even round up to 600K for the winner's pot. Mixed had no prize $ increase at all. Sad.

They also didn't increase the Singles $ by much other than the Qualifying and second/third round. Seems like RG is lacking funds this year.

2.3m > 2.4m (4.35%)
1.15m > 1.2m (4.35%)
630K > 650K (3.17%)
400K > 415K (3.75%)
240K > 250K (4.17%)
142K > 158K (11.27%)
97K > 110K (13.40%)
69K > 73K (5.79%)
34K > 41K (20.59%)
22K > 28K (27.27%)
16K > 20K (25%)

Wheelchair got better increase than doubles (even Wheelchair doubles got better increases).

 

Almost none gives a fuck about doubles, get a grip. You can show pictures of Routliffe/Stefani/Perez/Melichar so top10 players in doubles to fans attending tournaments and 90% of them (probably more) couldn't tell who those players are.
$20k for 1st round in Slam qualifications is totally fine maybe even too less considering that we have only 4 Slams.

Kalashnikova so let's be honest irrelevant player even in doubles earned more money this year than Waltert or Vickery and almost same as P.Kudermetova or Gibson. I wouldn't call it fair.

 

What about taxes in France? How much does she actually get in her pocket, 10k €?

 

It's good that lower rounds pay better because it's a positive boost to younger, aspiring players. A payout like that can sometimes kickstart a career for someone who struggles for money.

I'm all for increasing prize money for "weaker players", even at the slight expense of prize money for the "top players". Also, Slams can afford it.

 

This is one of the best things in tennis right now as it allows the top 220 to make a much better living, whereas before the recent increases only the top 100 made a good living.

I wish slams weren't the be-all and end-all financially and that a lot of profits from the slams were redistributed to the ITF levels, so even 220 wasn't a hard limit.

But this is still such a good measure. More of this please and less absurdly expensive attempts to subsidise equal prize money at the 1000 and 500 levels. It can only improve the depth and quality of the tour.

 

Hmm YES to more money for doubles, but why don't we take it from the excessive totals given to finalists, winners, etc. in singles instead? The qualies players are often doing it tougher financially, and the players who are on their 2nd, 3rd slams already have millions stored away in offshore tax havens anyway (and will earn much more than the prize money in endorsements).

The players in the qualies today need support to become the top 100 players of tomorrow (who then work towards top 50, and so on). It's a whole food chain. Often being able to get that big sum from the qualies you shared, or NOT being able to get it, decides if they can continue their careers or not.

 

Excessive how? If a slam makes $200+ million the winner is making next to nothing…..

 

Doubles players are just failed singles players so it is fair. Most people go to watch singles not doubles.

 

Completely disagree, it's a different game for some (i.e. Erin) while complementary for others (i.e. Coco).

 

Qualies at Grand Slam now are mostly full except at the US Open

 

Just wanted to share my opinion on the subject and see if you guys agree with that.

I find it ridiculous that players make €20,000 losing in the qualies first round especially when doubles players playing all year on tour can only make €8,750 (€17,500 by team) if they lose in the doubles first round.

Back a few years ago, like in 2015 RG, first round losers in the qualies earned €3,000 while doubles first round losers bagged €4,500 (€9,000 by team). I think that is a fair distribution.

Also, players like Paar that didn’t play for more than a year (and did very occasionally play in 2022 and 2021) appear in the draw just to bag that cheque and go away (she lost 0-6, 1-6 in 45 minutes) while doubles specs would need two slams main draw to earn that. Given that singles players are also playing slams doubles events for extra money, they also need a nice ranking to be accepted in the main draw and thus need to work their ranking up beforehand which is costly… and here is the reward.

What do you think ? Is it right ?

Laura Paar, 35 y/o, lost her 12th straight match, going back to Jan 2021, in the FO qualies to Niemeier 6-0, 6=1.
Paar hasn't played in two years....she has ZERO points, and still gets into the FO qualies.
Her highest ranking#193..... but she did win the Dubrovnik 10K in 2012
What about the poor girls that are fighting ever week in the ITFs
Is it just the French being French???????
-
EDIT......Just noticed...Paar apparently was a last minute fill in, as Bjorklund withdrew.

 

She was somehow an Alt for the qualies draw with zero points to her name… how does that happen? Is it some sort of a wild card for the alternate list or what?

 

What do you think ? Is it right ?

Yes. Nobody cares about doubles for the sport value, people only ever watch it if their favourite player is playing.

Also, those players grind the ITFs whole year round just to get a place in the slam qualis, because that's the only place on tour they can actually make some money. So let them have it.

 

It‘s more like being among the 200 best tennis players on earth is finally rewarded more fairly.

 

Paar though rather isn't among them. xD But that's beyond the point overall.

 

Honestly I agree with what sounds like the most reasonable thing - take part of the prize money given to the winner and finalist and distribute them to either doubles or players in qualifying draw.

Because people who win grand slams are millionaires anyways and I doubt it would hurt their pockets if they earn let’s say 2.1 instead of 2.4 million for the title, whereas for the singles player in qualifying draw and doubles players even an increase of 2k per round usually means a lot.

But unfortunately I don’t think top players are willing to initiate something like that. Novak seems to be one of the rare players on top ready to give up part of his big prize money earnings to help lower ranked players.

 

Subtract inflation and taxes....it's not so great.

 

The problem is not money but PR in fact for this kind of girl. 🤫 Nowadays most people delay their come back in order to get a PR.

 

Funny, I was waiting for them to doubles qualifying at the grand slam events. They already do it on the ATP tour for some 500 or 1000 level events, so why not the GS. They should redistribute some of the cash at the top of the singles players payouts and give more to doubles. After all most club players usually play doubles as opposed to singles.

 

Funny, I was waiting for them to doubles qualifying at the grand slam events. They already do it on the ATP tour for some 500 or 1000 level events, so why not the GS.

WTA used to have doubles qualifying too, played in a super tie break the last day of singles qualifying.

 

I'm sorry but most of these doubles players should be grateful they get to play in a Grand Slam and make this amount of money. They are there as a side show and are being paid as such, and quite handsomly at that.

Even the skillful top 20 is full of girls who couldn't win a $10K in singles (Schuurs, Stefani, Krawczyk, Aoyama, Chan...), and as talented as they might be they are only good in a doubles court. The singles players who play doubles only do it for the extra cash. Doubles is meant as a side gig, not a day job.

 

I don’t think anyone has a problem acknowledging that.

We all know that those who are the best in the game (speaking of doubles here) are paid handsomely and it’s completely normal they can’t expect to be compared to singles player because their game is easier plus the interest in doubles is incomparable to singles.

The problem is that those who play R1/R2 and don’t go deep in the draw really struggle a lot. Their payday is barely enough for them to earn anything because the travel and accommodation expenses and food for the time being during competition cost like a half of their income or even more depending on where they travel from.

If doubles exist than even those who are only good enough to fill in the draw for the opening rounds should be able to at least earn something to live a decent life without having to worry about basic things. Otherwise just abolish the doubles for everyone. The solution is really to simply increase their prize money for at least 3-5k dollars for R1 appearance. It covers plane ticket and accommodation at least and then they can say they earned 5-6k euros at least (after tax deductions etc).

 

The lower ranked players deserve a decent pay day

 

This. Making Slam Q cut could make actually not losing money

 

Just wanted to share my opinion on the subject and see if you guys agree with that.

I find it ridiculous that players make €20,000 losing in the qualies first round especially when doubles players playing all year on tour can only make €8,750 (€17,500 by team) if they lose in the doubles first round.

Back a few years ago, like in 2015 RG, first round losers in the qualies earned €3,000 while doubles first round losers bagged €4,500 (€9,000 by team). I think that is a fair distribution.

Also, players like Paar that didn’t play for more than a year (and did very occasionally play in 2022 and 2021) appear in the draw just to bag that cheque and go away (she lost 0-6, 1-6 in 45 minutes) while doubles specs would need two slams main draw to earn that. Given that singles players are also playing slams doubles events for extra money, they also need a nice ranking to be accepted in the main draw and thus need to work their ranking up beforehand which is costly… and here is the reward.

What do you think ? Is it right ?

Why do you compare it with doubles players? Nobody in WTA cares for doubles, rarely do the fans care. I think the prize money in qualification is good, could be higher. Paar is an individual example that refers to the problem of protected ranking.

 

Just wanted to share my opinion on the subject and see if you guys agree with that.

I find it ridiculous that players make €20,000 losing in the qualies first round especially when doubles players playing all year on tour can only make €8,750 (€17,500 by team) if they lose in the doubles first round.

What do you think ? Is it right ?

Honestly, a top class doubles player is mostly not as good as these 150-250 singles players. If they were good enough at singles they would be ranked in that region. In the past Shvedova, Vania King, Mattek Sands, Hsieh, Krejikova (before she became a slam winner) and even Storm Hunter. They all showed it was easily possible to be a high ranked doubles player and maintain a ranking to get into at least singles qualies. If these doubles players want to earn this money they have the option of playing ITF singles in the weeks there is no doubles tournaments worth entering eg weeks where there is no 500+ tournament. They often choose to play 250 doubles tournaments which do not affect their ranking. That's the trade off they are making, and for players like Melichar, Sizikova, Schuurs the reason they don't play ITF singles is they aren't good enough at singles and they know that- they've found what works for them and their bank balance they choose that option without having to commit to slogging at ITFs.

 

It's the players at the other end of the tournament who are overpaid.

 

We all know that!

 

Looks at prize money for squash..... 😆 🤣 😂

 

I don’t think the debate should be as to whether the money ought to be distributed between doubles and qualifying, both could be given more from the winner/finalist payouts that have grown ridiculously high. I’m not even sure the doubles needs more, but if they are not going to grow the doubles payouts then stop using the singles rankings for doubles entries. If singles players don’t care about doubles, then they clearly don’t need the pay cheque either.

 

This is how world works. Random girl singing karaoke in your local club is not going to be paid the same as Beyonce.

 

i don't agree with OP and obviously talent in singles is stronger than doubles, but some tf'ers shouldn't pretend that it's a 1:1 conversion, that if you do well in singles you would automatically do well in doubles and vice versa. there are simply some players who would be better at doubles even if it was as fully packed with talent as singles simply because there are some skills that are more important in doubles and vice versa.