There should be no limitations in any type of level but also there should be no obligation. No.1 wants to play in some itf15k, let her play.

 

There should be no limitations in any type of level but also there should be no olbligation. No.1 wants to play in some itf15k, let her play.

All of these low level tournaments are subsidized and players lose money playing them anyway. Some regulation is justified here.

 

Tournaments with low prize funds are known to pay the stars "under the table" to encourage them to play. The WTA wants to force them to raise the prize money rather than to pay those informal incentives to chosen players. According to the current regulations a WTA250 tourney can accept additional Top 10 players to the draw if they increase the totality of the prize money by 250 thousand USD per player. Maybe the WTA should just relax this condition to e.g. 100 or 150 thousand?

 

Tournaments are also struggling financially, I doubt there are big appearance fees these days and this condition to increase the prize money is difficult to meet with no guaranteed ticket sales/ income.

 

The rule exists otherwise all of the top 10 would play Rabat.

 

Would they really?🤣🤣🤣
they are struggling to commit to 500s and 1000s, let alone MMs

 

Changing the rule would have almost no effect, most 250s haven't any top10. A better idea would be to add 4 byes in 250s (and remove them from 500s).

 

Then you have 4 of your top seeds playing (potentially) one less match. From a financial perspective that may not stack up. You want your top players on court as much as possible to bring in the crowds.

 

As we know, the top 10 is different every month, but I would like there to be an option for the WTA250 events to allow TWO current top 10 players at that time to play that event IF they wish.
Somewhere like Strasbourg for instance, just before a slam, potentially TWO top 10 players MAY want another hit before the French Open.

 

I think 2 top-10's total is a good start, the tournaments should decide how they want to use them across singles and doubles. It's not that much to tweaking the present rule, for instance Auckland has Gauff who is top-10 in singles and doubles so is likely to play both draws, so an additional top-10 could effectively give them 4 top-10's if they got Pegula as well - but then they are partners so that's a top-10 pair and 2 top-10 singles entries.

Might need negotiating with masters tournament on top-10 deliveries if they want more.

Tournament's like Seoul and Chennai don't need top-10's at the moment anyway. And there was an Asian (can't recall which one) tournament that had budgeted $750k for a WTA250 but never recall them having to dig into it for additional top-10's. They don't need it for Osaka nowadays anyway.

The WTA needs to focus on marketing and distribution more than anything else.

 

Both sides of the argument are compelling and there's no right answer. But special thanks to @Kerbicz for a great point and the top 10 regulations info. I agree let's reduce the prize money condition and see what happens first.

 

This rule is preventing to grow/develop. Tounaments should compete with each other, but you can't if there are such limitations. It's like in automotive market. So many regulations that it's almost impossible to make a new brand without huge investment at the start. And even then it will be extremely hard. Current 1000 events (and some 500s) needs to feel breath on their back from the rest. They need to know that if there will be better tournament, they will be replaced. Actually, it's more solution for cure the tour, than argument for erasing one stupid rule.

But i can't see the light. Organisation like WTA alongside big tournaments will prevent such ideas at all cost. They like it as it is and they like thier money.

 

allowing it doesn't ean every WTA 250 would have half the top 10 playing
I'm against restrictions
and also kinda against mandatories . Players should know what's best for them to play- if they struggle for a while, go gain confidence in lower events if needed ...
some weeks there aren't too many choices anyway and they'd still play the bigger ones most often than not because the money and prestige is bigger to play Rome than Istanbul for instance

 

I would lift all restrictions for 250s and 125s. Like a poster said above, it's not like most top players would storm those events anyway, so i don't think newbie pros would be more penalised about their development. But the WTA should schedule some more 250s per year. They promoted 125s a tad more lately.



I'll still keep two 1000s mandatory per year but yeah, too much mandatories just make it difficult for a newbie pro/journeywomen to turn around for a lower tourney when she lose a 1000 qualies.

No 500 should be mandatory for anyone ( elite semi-YECs for the elite already, those 500s are harder to win than 1000s ).

 

Why not?

All the tournaments can have all the players. They just need to limit the number of 250s that can go on the ranking.

Fulfilled all Top 10 duties: Max 3 250s.
Did not fulfill all Top 10 duties: Max 2 250s.

The rules are just excuses for top players. The top players simply don't show up to events that are not mandatory (250s, 500s). Even the mandatory ones are not getting full commitments from top players.

 

Yessss let them play, if Kasatkina won 4 250s, it would still be 4 titles. And give the topn4 players byes so they have more motivation to play

 

Let them all play. The WTA is suffering. If six or eight of the top 10 want to play a 250 event, why not? It only draws in more attention. I am against restrictions because I believe the audience suffers, the players who need matches also are hindered. I say if they want to play, and they have the ranking to get into an event, let them in!

 

Let them play as many as they want. They already have 10 tournaments where they can count only slams and wta 1000

 

They already regulate how often top 10 players can play in 250’s anyway, why prevent how many top 10 players play in a 250?

Oh wait, they would all flock to Auckland and then completely ignore everything else. Got it now!

 

They already regulate how often top 10 players can play in 250’s anyway, why prevent how many top 10 players play in a 250?

Oh wait, they would all flock to Auckland and then completely ignore everything else. Got it now!

And this is bad how?

 

The problem is that tournaments know it's just a few stars that really pull in the general public, such as Serena and Maria back in the day. If a promoter has a budget of a million dollars, which do you think will look for attractive? #1. Offer up all the money as the official prize money and hope the top stars come. #2. Offer up $250,000 as the prize money, then sign contracts with Serena and Maria for them to come for $375K each. I think most promoters would've gone for #2 leading to many upper-level events downgrading to the 250 level. The current rule was designed to prevent that from happening, which I think is understandable.

 

Let them all play when and where they want with no restrictions. Tournaments need fans in the seats, bigger players bring more fans. Most top 10 players don’t want to play 250s so it’s highly unlikely u would see that many opt to play in the same tournament anyway. Get rid of byes all together. Anyone know how much of an investment is needed to put on a 250 event in the WTA or ATP? I’d be curious to find out.

 

Forget 250s
WTA needs to have some weeks with two 500s. ATP has had them for ever
WTA just cant do anything

 

Not like there's a demand for top 10 players to play these events which is maximum of 2 maybe 3 a year. Players like Iga, Ons, Jessie and Coco only played one 250 this year.

 

no, i think it's shortsighted to permit this and for most of you to be voting for this.

if they allow it, then all you TF-ers will complain even more about vulture top players.

Plus, the cultivation of lower tiers of talent will drop, and the viability of long-term veterans on the tour will also drop.

good job, you just killed the tour.

 

no, i think it's shortsighted to permit this and for most of you to be voting for this.

if they allow it, then all you TF-ers will complain even more about vulture top players.

Plus, the cultivation of lower tiers of talent will drop, and the viability of long-term veterans on the tour will also drop.

good job, you just killed the tour.

Only the dumb posters.

Plus it would make a minuscule difference in the amount of top 10 players participating in these events anyway so it would hardly have any bearing on the "cultivation" of talent for the lower ranks. For the record by adding so many 125k events these last couple of years the WTA is already doing a pretty decent job making climbing up the rankings a lot easing for those in the 250 to 100 range.

 

Let them play without restrictions and organise more tournaments, like the ATP does.

 

Tournaments should be fully open for all players. Aren't most of the 250s usually poorly attended anyway?

 

despite what I said previously, i do think it's possible releasing players from 250 restrictions might work for the wta tour but I don't see it now with the current complaints of vulturing and the lack of consistency from top players in general.

comparing wta to atp tour constantly is not always a great idea for thinking about changes to wta - they are two different sports almost with players who have drastically different needs and interests. 🤷

in atp, the top players want to be around and compete with the best all the time. in wta, you see some of that but not as much. you see top players taking less obligations when they can to relax more. for example, when was the last time we saw a barty or osaka like issue on atp. on atp it usually more manifests in the players getting rowdy and angry like Kyrgios and Paire. in wta they take a break. nothing wrong with that for individual players, just something to note when thinking about why these restrictions and barriers exist in the first place. even right now, i don't get the same sense of competition from the top players as I am getting on the atp tour. maybe if you bring some of that top level culture and personality back from 90s and 00s, you can release restrictions again.

 

They should clearly allow them, they are struggling to find locations at the moment and going to desperate decisions like upgrading clay events like Parma with their own money in October, so why not give tournaments hope they can secure top players and more motivation for holding 250s will come.

 

I think yes.


ATP has no such restrictions afaik.

 

Honestly, I don't know. The more top players play the best, the question is whether this would make them play less on the bit events.