Tennis Related - Off Court Serious Issues

[mmmm8]

Ok. Step one.
What do you do with tournaments that do not pay equal money, WITHIN the separate tours? ATP 250's do not pay all the same. Do you homogenize those too?

Yes. It makes no sense why points are the same but prize money is different.

Of course, this may put some markets at a disadvantage because purchasing power may not be the same in, say, Morocco or Colombia as in Doha or California. But there are ways around that - for example, ITF can hold the global purse for prize money and contributions vary by tournament but prize money is averaged out.

Tournaments will get around this with appearance money, but that already happens, but at least it can guarantee a level base.

[mmmm8]

Ticket sales are only a portion (sometimes small to moderate) of tournament revenue.

[Deuce]

Ticket sales are only a portion (sometimes small to moderate) of tournament revenue.

Ticket sales, product sales (concessions - food, drink, tennis items) - which is obviously directly related to the number of ticket sales, TV advertizing revenue, which is determined by number of people viewing (even if it's an estimate)...
Even direct sponsorships of tournaments is related to how many fans buy tickets and watch on TV - the fewer asses in the seats and watching on TV, the less interested that sponsors would be to advertize, whether it's TV commercials, or tournament site advertizing.
It seems then that the tournament revenue is largely tied to the number of fans (live and TV) in many ways. So, the fewer fans who watch (both live and on TV), the less revenue the tournament receives, no?

Therefore, tying the number of fans (live and TV viewership) to the prize money is essentially the same as tying a percentage of the tournament revenue to the prize money.
It seems to me that would be the most fair way to proceed with this issue.

[JTContinental]

This type of passive aggressive dunking on allies is why I have grown to hate Twitter. Tell him yourself instead of subtweeting for likes.

[Deuce]

I just read Denis' article on the gender gap/equal pay for the first time.
In all honesty, I deliberately didn't read it at first because, hey - it's Denis, who is not exactly the most mature player on the tour. Not so long ago, he was saying that it's not worth playing tournaments that don't pay big, and he was 'rapping' on the court after wins . His match behaviour has been petulant, as well.
I figured that this 'position' on equal pay was likely just something he was doing to impress his girlfriend (she's a pro tennis player, as well).
But then, on a whim, I decided to read the article...

It's not Pulitzer Prize winning writing - it's rather disjointed and immature in spots... but it is worth reading. I encourage people to read it. He goes off on tangents here and there, but they are insightful tangents that give you an idea of his path to the pros.
Tennis Canada - which likes to take credit for ALL Canadian tennis talent, regardless of whether they actually played a significant role in the development of certain players or not - doesn't come off looking very good in the article.

In any case, Denis seems to be - gulp - maturing. He has a steady woman in his life - and that presence often helps a man to mature.
He did a good thing in writing this article, and it deserves to be read.

Here's the direct link to it...

Denis Shapovalov on Equal Pay in Tennis...

.

[mmmm8]

Ticket sales are only a portion (sometimes small to moderate) of tournament revenue.

Ticket sales, product sales (concessions - food, drink, tennis items) - which is obviously directly related to the number of ticket sales, TV advertizing revenue, which is determined by number of people viewing (even if it's an estimate)...
Even direct sponsorships of tournaments is related to how many fans buy tickets and watch on TV - the fewer asses in the seats and watching on TV, the less interested that sponsors would be to advertize, whether it's TV commercials, or tournament site advertizing.
It seems then that the tournament revenue is largely tied to the number of fans (live and TV) in many ways. So, the fewer fans who watch (both live and on TV), the less revenue the tournament receives, no?

Therefore, tying the number of fans (live and TV viewership) to the prize money is essentially the same as tying a percentage of the tournament revenue to the prize money.
It seems to me that would be the most fair way to proceed with this issue.

As much as 85% of tournament revenue - for a tournament that's a huge fan draw, like the US Open - comes from sponsorships. Of course, that is connected to fan interest, but that interest might not be driven primarily by players - could be location, lack of other sporting events in the area, good tournament director, some exec being a tennis fan, etc.

To be honest, I also just don't see how fan appeal should determine prize winnings. The player's actual job is to play matches and fulfill media responsibilities. They get merit increases if they win because that's how you objectively prove you are good at the job. There is nothing that says they should be doing any of it with flair, or while looking good, or being funny, or being from the host country, etc. That's what helps build fan appeal and that's evaluated in appearance fees and individual sponsorships.

Prize money, imho, should only be tied to results.

[Suliso]

It's all a noble idea, but who is going to pay is the question? I think Ti-amie is right that the only feasible way would be a full merger of both tours.

I wonder is PGA and LPGA also looking at it? I suspect prize money differences are even bigger there.

[Suliso]

If it's not a same organization the fair pay argument doesn't apply anymore. If it did an employee in company X in NYC would be able to demand the same pay as another employee in company Y in Boston doing roughly the same job. That would be a very strange world indeed.

[ponchi101]

I will only add an example.
The Bogota ATP tournament disappeared. It was able to attract some fine players, and yet, it went bust because of financing.
The Bogota WTA tournament remains. A small stop in the tour, with some dedicated players (Cami, of course, Podoroska), and some solid financial backing.

It is a noble idea, but notice how it is not implemented in other sport (at league level; the recent equal pay for the US Women's soccer team vis-a-vis the men's is an example). The WNBA can only dream of that. The PGA and LPGA are cleanly separated. I believe that the sole exception is the track and field and athletics tour, where men and women compete at the same venue and get paid the same.

As above. It can only work if you have only one tour. Which would then market one unified package.

[mmmm8]

If it's not a same organization the fair pay argument doesn't apply anymore. If it did an employee in company X in NYC would be able to demand the same pay as another employee in company Y in Boston doing roughly the same job. That would be a very strange world indeed.

Your example above is strange for the US but very real for more centralized countries with strong national unions, like the Netherlands or France.

Of course, there is no regulation that can require this for cross-border operations, it would have to be a voluntary organizational policy.

[ponchi101]

Example of how difficult this would be.
On International Women's Day, ESPN L. America is showing a small promo for women's tennis, calling and using the hashtag #Ecualidad (#equality).
While they are showing Ivashka/Safiulin, and not a single WTA match.
Sigh.

[Deuce]

Ticket sales are only a portion (sometimes small to moderate) of tournament revenue.

Ticket sales, product sales (concessions - food, drink, tennis items) - which is obviously directly related to the number of ticket sales, TV advertizing revenue, which is determined by number of people viewing (even if it's an estimate)...
Even direct sponsorships of tournaments is related to how many fans buy tickets and watch on TV - the fewer asses in the seats and watching on TV, the less interested that sponsors would be to advertize, whether it's TV commercials, or tournament site advertizing.
It seems then that the tournament revenue is largely tied to the number of fans (live and TV) in many ways. So, the fewer fans who watch (both live and on TV), the less revenue the tournament receives, no?

Therefore, tying the number of fans (live and TV viewership) to the prize money is essentially the same as tying a percentage of the tournament revenue to the prize money.
It seems to me that would be the most fair way to proceed with this issue.

As much as 85% of tournament revenue - for a tournament that's a huge fan draw, like the US Open - comes from sponsorships. Of course, that is connected to fan interest, but that interest might not be driven primarily by players - could be location, lack of other sporting events in the area, good tournament director, some exec being a tennis fan, etc.

To be honest, I also just don't see how fan appeal should determine prize winnings. The player's actual job is to play matches and fulfill media responsibilities. They get merit increases if they win because that's how you objectively prove you are good at the job. There is nothing that says they should be doing any of it with flair, or while looking good, or being funny, or being from the host country, etc. That's what helps build fan appeal and that's evaluated in appearance fees and individual sponsorships.

Prize money, imho, should only be tied to results.

I'm simply saying that what drives fan interest the most should determine how the players are paid. Because pro tennis obviously doesn't exist without the fans.

Isn't that how most - if not all - companies function - with salaries directly tied to the company's income/profits?

I can see your point, but I'm not talking about "flair, or while looking good, or being funny, or being from the host country, etc." - I'm talking about the overall package - of which the most important part is the quality of the product, which is the element that most determines the number of people attracted to it.
The tournament directors and sponsors look at the number of fans. Most fans will be there to watch and appreciate the tennis. But honestly, the tournament directors and sponsors don't care if the fans are there to watch tennis or to show off their new hairstyle, as long as they are there.

I don't know about the U.S. Open, but I know that Tennis Canada's main income for the entire year comes from ticket sales from the 1000 level tournament that they host every year.
As fan support and sponsorships are the fuel that drive pro tennis, I think it's logical - and fair - to tie prize money to that.

[JazzNU]

Shapovalov wrote in the Player's Tribune about the gender pay gap in tennis. I haven't read it but wanted to share. Article link at the bottom.





https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts ... lov-tennis

[ponchi101]

We spoke about it a little bit; I think it was the OFFCOURT topic.
As I said there, the issue is how to achieve it. (Pay equality).

[Scoob]

Shapo is 100% correct. The pay should be equal. Players play the same game, with the same equipment, on the same court, between the same lines. The score is kept the same with the exception of some tournaments where Men play best 3 out of 5 sets and the women stick with the 2 out of 3 sets. Other than that the game is played practically the same. The Men may hit the ball harder most of the time, but still the games strategy is there whether you are a man or woman. Fans pay to see both play and as for myself I enjoy watching them equally and I also love the doubles game as well.