Tennis: the players struggling to break even | FT Scoreboard 

But if they're not good enough, they're not good enough.

@@t-bone7988 At the end of 2020 Emma Raducanu was ranked 343 in the world. Does that mean she wasn't good enough? The point is that if they can't make a living, maybe you'll never know if they were good enough or not.

@@joesinclair6191 No it means she was good enough to actually win. Maybe she had an extra boost of funds from people known to her who believed in talent when it was just a matter of time for her breakthrough. Which is what happened. I feel for the other lower ranked player if financial support really is there issue then. If you're good enough you'll make it eventually and get paid for it. Look at Duckworth, struggled year after year with the same injury and finally made his breakthrough this year top 50!

@@t-bone7988 They're all good enough or else they wouldn't be among the best in the world (not just their country, but the world!). Once players can compete at the professional level they should be making a living. Numerically, you can only have so many people in the top 20, top 100, etc. at a time. Other professional teams have players who mostly ride the bench but manage to make a good living. They don't make the same money as the superstar players, but should you have to be a superstar to make a living in your profession? I think being really good at what you do (for them, being among the best in the world) should be enough. The tennis associations (the seven stakeholders mentioned) should do better for these players. They're not charity cases... they grind to get where they are and should see some of the wealth of the profession.

@@ltrotter636 Agreed. The governing bodies need to do enough and ensure the lower ranked players can make a living. But try and convince the higher ranked players they should take a cut to fund the lesser talented players lifestyle etc. Tough gig

They also bring in $0 if they aren't in the top 500.

Constantine Validol That’s like comparing apples to elephants mate… For starters most jobs don’t, and can’t, have rankings for who’s best. Furthermore, there is a stark difference between how very few pro tennis players there are and how many people work in factories around the world for example. Plus there are other factors at play, namely the fact that pro sport is probably the profession with the largest amount of people groomed for the job outside of rich person’s son.

Proffesional sports dont provide anything of value outside entertainment, so its not so strange there are not as many spots to do them professionally. Compared to say nurseing.As that kind of job provides value whether you find it entertaining or not. I would also guess there are more people training to be professionals at most regular jobs then there are people training to be professional tennis players.

Tennis is long and thus boring for the majority. Sure some matches as GrandSlam semifinals and finals are cool, but nobody (except maybe some kids that play tennis) would want to watch of player 499 against player 500. And in my case and I think many others not even 25th against 28th. Why do the top players win over and over again? Cause the top 5 is a level higher than 5-10 and the top 10 is 2 levels higher than 10-20. From then on it's maybe more equal, but if you have players that are twice as good as others why watch the others ?

@@larswallin652 Not at all, sports is all about self improvement and inspiration. Entertainment is the least important part. Just look at Nadal win, it will inspire billions to challenge themselves to fulfill their dreams.

Which changes has he brought? Genuinely asking.

@@rhythmpatel5665 He is rooting for prize money coverage to the lower rank players as well...

I wonder how much of his prize money has been donated to lower ranked players

@@XAWoke I get it, but why were Federer and Nadal opposing him? I'm sure they don't mind lesser price money since money is not an issue for any of them.

it's exactly why i've advised him to leave all that and just concentrate on his game, collecting the prize money and give a fine f*ck about the lower ranked players. let federer and nadal fight for that, they are much more fair play and altruistic. of course they will.

Of course, playing a game for a living is a privilege not everyone can afford. No matter how much we try to play make believe, sports don't inherently have any value that translates to money. (and the same goes for any other part of the entertainment industry)

The PTPA thing Djokovic proposed is just incremental change. Tennis needs a revolution, not an incremental change. Tennis tournaments and Grand Slams hijacks the sports, and there is no pyramid system where the revenue from the top leagues (ATP WTA and GS) can flow down the lower tier leagues (ITF events). The international sport federation for tennis is ITF. WTA and ATP are American business organizations, which don't really care about players ranked outside 300. Grand Slams are organized by the four countries' tennis association and their revenue is not trickle down the ATP/WTA. ATP/WTA are corporations and their revenue is not tricked down to ITF. ITF is broke because their main revenue is Davis and Fed Cup, whose popularity is declining. Tennis is one of the few sports where the top tier league is not organized by the sports' international federations. For example, in football, FIFA organizes World Cup and the revenues are partly shared. There is obviously corruptions in FIFA, but not this fragmentation like in Tennis. Basically GS, ATP/WTA, and ITF are fighting with each other and there is no coherent worldwide youth promotion programme. Grand Slams keep their revenue in their own countries and promote youth programme in their own countries. Grand Slam give a tiny bit of money to ITF in the form of GS Grant, which basically asks ITF to select a few players to help them participate in Grand Slams. The merge of ATP and WTA won't help players who are competing in IFT circuit. PTPA won't help ITF either.

PTPA will just increase the problem with one more tennis organization and frequent clashes with other ones. As hard as it is for him to swallow, Novak is not Billie Jean king..............

​@@dt8101If a sport at a level attracts no audiences who pay to watch it, there should be no financial reward to the players. You earn what you kill. This is true for any professional sports.

People have to stop simping their favorite tennis players. Just because you like Djokovic shouldn't cloud your judgement whether the ideas they have are perfect. Serena can say something tomorrow and as much as I like her and look up to her husband, i doubt I'd agree with everything she'd say if, say she says that judging needs to be revamped, etc etc

@@FF18Cloud Did you watch King Richard and how they negotiate?

this 100%!! But is there much of a talent difference from the challenger vs the ATP tour? Thanasi is still playing challengers due to injuries plaguing his career but he's beaten a few top 10 guys including Roger

@@t-bone7988 When I say superstar level, I primarily mean rankings not so much talent. At the pro level, they all possess a mastery of technical skills (though everyone can improve on something). For example, when you look at the slams, you don't see a ton of upsets but the threat is always there and the superstar players know it. They do not take lower-ranked players for granted or they may find themselves exiting the tournament early. So, getting to the top... some of it boils down to opportunity and self-belief and the right support system, etc. (and those things coming together at once).

Agreed, upsets do happen tho and are on the rise

Tennis is an elitist sport where few minorities are welcome. If your family is rich and your have some talent then the chances of making it is greater than being talented but the family is poor. If you are not successful by your early twenties then you should just forget it and leave the dreams for the younger players.

The problem is there are thousands of players at this challenger level all over the world.

agreed. and who doesnt like a bit of tennis content

i love WTA, so any video about the girls is a autowatch but this video so good I subbed also 😉

That’s a great point. Tennis, just like acting, really doesn’t have much of a middle class.

That is really interesting

I would love that! I know a lot of Americans complain that the subscription tennis channel there preference mens matches over women's. Even if it was just the WTA it would help the sport enormously.

They have already, their channels are very popular and get a lot of views

In this day and age? It really shouldn't be a problem to promote anything. Maybe it's just that tennis is not as popular outside the really big events...period.

+1 I wonder if it’s a chicken or the egg thing. Is the “all or nothing” sponsorship/income model of tennis what fuels that type of behaviour (vs sports like soccer, or basketball) or vice versa?

@@christodang A big part is likely that it's a single player sport. Guessing teams have an easier time to split costs and streamline management.

I believe Djokovic came from a rich family. But not Serena, who grew up very poor. Not Leylah. Not Venus. Not Naomi Osaka. Not Shapovalov. Not Hsieh Su-Wei. Not Felix AA. Not Sharapova. Not Krejcikova… i think if their country has a big middle-class economy, and/or enough non-profit/govt program support, they thrive regardless.

@@blognewb If you're a top talent, sponsors, sports agencies or national federations can take care of you but the majority of the young players rely entirely on their families.

Most of the top players were coached by their parents, so that's a major cost taken care of!

You have to keep the subject in context. The U.S Open is one of the 4 Grand Slams which makes it one of the top 4 tournaments in the world as far as pay. It also has a draw of 128 while most tournaments have draws of 28 or 56 ( with byes incl ). Those are very difficult to get into unless your ranking is high enough. When you consider travel expenses like airfare and lodging and food it is a tough life unless you are a top 40 player. Team sports can include hundreds of players that make a very nice living while sports such as golf or tennis it's just you, unless you can afford a coach or trainer.

@@georgepotter9621 Show me a draw of 28 or 56. Draws are 32, 64 or 128 no matter if there are byes.

@@quentincrisp6933 The gist of the video is how hard it is for players outside the very top ones to make a living. The casual fan who sees a tournament has a 32 or 64 person draw probably ( in most cases ) assumes that is how many players are in the tournament. I was simply pointing out there are less players and therefore fewer people picking up a check when it is over. That is all. Look at the ABN tournament this week, you have the 54th ranked player in the world having to play in the qualies. The guy is the 54th best player and he can't even get direct acceptance into the main draw. It's a tough way to make a living.

Yup

I think because NBA have some of their cost subsidize by their home state. Similar to football and baseball. Tennis maybe not because its individual unlike team sports which represents their home state/city.

Where the hell is the rest of the money going? 😲😲

@@David-ej1ps Running the entire event, supporting smaller events financially and paying salaries of everyone involved.

@@David-ej1ps there are lots of people involved in tournaments. For example in 2022 Australian Open, there were 10000 people working behind the scene to make the tournament run efficiently. I imagine it’s a huge payroll. Besides I think Tennis Australia maybe funnel revenue earned from AO to smaller events, junior player development throughout the year.

Not to mention he spend about 4 millions doing charity and not bragging about it. He doesn’t care about militants faking be journalists.

Complete lie!!

Djokovic is a tosser.

It's not the top players fault...tennis tournament organizers take away 70% of the income and give 30% to everyone else including top players that's the problem

Interesting, I didn't know that. But can they do these activities whilst also competing at the highest level? It seems like it would have to be one or the other and I imagine they would rather push to win as much as they can.

Yes, however they can't do that and travel 41 weeks out of the year whilst on the circuit. They need to travel that much to keep in match fitness, keep their points and earn money.

Bro u break even at challengers Futures even club players play

If a sport at a level attracts no audiences who pay to watch it, there should be no financial reward to the players. You earn what you kill. This is true for any professional sports.

@@strongbrain3128 It is not financial at that level, it is for the ranking points so you could qualify for higher tier tournaments.

@@rcbrascan the subject is about sharing profits at lower rank levels. But low rank level matches attract no paying audiences, so no income for the players.

same here!

Team tennis does exist, but needs to be expanded dramatically

It's the same with combat sports where the headliner can make millions and Openers scrounge a few thousand.

@@sauljahboi5965 exactly. Only one guy at a time can get red panty night when he fights a headliner. Only so many fight s they can have at a time

For a sport as big as Tennis, it's surprising though. 1b fans and not even a few hundred players who can make a living. Making big money should be reserved for the top, obviously. But not losing money should be a given for at least the top 250, no?

Yep, that definitely needs to change.

Not sure the numbers massively add up. In theory, he shouldn't be having to buy rackets as they last a while (also being sponsored by Dunlop they should provide them for free). And stringing if it's done before every tournament, wouldn't add up to $12,000. Maybe if it was before every match and natural gut, then maybe, but that's not being particularly economical.

​@@KrayzListerine Clothing, shoes, accessories, travel, food. I think he meant all these even though he didn't mention them

Agree. If a sport at a level attracts no audiences who pay to watch it, there should be no financial reward to the players. You earn what you kill. This is true for any professional sports.

Agree. If a sport at a level attracts no audiences who pay to watch it, there should be no financial reward to the players. You earn what you kill. This is true for any professional sports.

Interesting. How UTR as an organization is able to fund the matches without financial incomes from audiences by arranging those matches? Cannot just grab money from the thin air.

Badminton is miles ahead of tennis in terms of sheer number of fans popularity but tennis is richer because of rich europe and america

@@VARMOT123 lol tennis is way more popular than badminton. Top tennis players regularly in top 50 Forbes richest athletes list. And Federer is always in top 5 or top 10. Badminton player don't even make into top 100 . Tennis way more popular than badminton

If a sport at a level attracts no audiences who pay to watch it, there should be no financial reward to the players. You earn what you kill. This is true for any professional sports.

Thank you. Accept that you are simply not good enough to make a "good" living. These people just can't deal with the reality that they wasted their entire childhood, adolescence and early adulthood on tennis with zero to show for it. Move on.

If a sport at a level attracts no audiences who pay to watch it, there should be no financial reward to the players. You earn what you kill. This is true for any professional sports.

*sensational future voice

LoL your comment is hilarious 😋😋😋

I think he meant it's a prelude to the bigger pro tours akin to minor league baseball in the US

I like you idea

You need to pay decent amount of money to find a good computer server to serve the live stream of tennis plays to many viewers.

@@strongbrain3128 seems to me all the footage available on youtube is low quality. Maybe they'd gain an audience by releasing some matches or highlights in HD (doesn't have to be live).

@@user-go8oj4dl4w chicken and egg problem. Who foots the bill to have high quality recordings of games in the first place? The viewership of unknown players is very low, and not worth to pay for.

@@strongbrain3128 I don't think that's the reason as the quality of footage they release on RU-vid is much worse than you would get from a budget camera phone. I think they already have good footage but there's some other reason they don't release it. Perhaps I can pay to watch it in HD somewhere or there's some licensing deal they have which means they have keep it such low quality on YT.

@@user-go8oj4dl4w You have to pay for the resources who will handle the recordings and process videos. This costs money with no good returns. It is simply economics calculation.

Billie Jean King is keen on teams too!

That’s a really good point about team vs individual sports

Also even a smaller team is able to bring in a lot of extra revenue via merch, sponsorships, etc. But 200 individual players wouldn't be able to do the same. You also get this neat geography mechanic where people feel represented by their city's team even when all the players basically come from other places in the country or around the world. Teams are a really well optimized machines to generate revenue in sports.

@@christodang Thank you

Another point is that team sports are often geographically based. They have their own stadia and play almost all their home games there. Travel and expenses are therefore limited to going to your own local stadium and playing there for half of your games. Even relatively minority sports that maybe get 4-6 thousand to a game will pay professionals and function because of the nature of this dynamic. Most sports are locally geographical not world based as well. For example, Rugby League is a different sport the Rugby Union and much less well known. It is far less popular that tennis and not in the top ten most popular world sports. In fact there are only two domestic leagues which are major league and fully Pro in the world. They are the UK and Australia. Yes some pro teams from other countries play in those leagues too. But look at those leagues! In the UK for example the team St Helens might get 15,000 to home games every week. Play 14 or 15 home games a year and have a TV deal and the money will just flow in. Rugby league appears to have more pro players than tennis who are making a living from just playing but they only need to make their money in one town per team.

If youre westerners badminton doesnt pay much mainly because its still not that popular in the west but in asia its really big.

@@harukrentz435 yup.

In Asia usually the national badminton federation will pay for the national players salary, training, accomodation. Once they made it big they can play as independent and earn money from private sponsors.

I don't think it's appropriate to compare Tennis with Badminton, Tennis is an individual tournament while Badminton they play full for a country where their system has several tournaments using a team system. Tennis players when on tour use their own money for plane tickets, hotels/inns, and other things, while Badminton is financed by their country such as plane tickets, hotels, and so on. Then Badminton has the biggest dominance in Asia, while Tennis is one of the most popular sports in the world, so I think it's natural that Tennis players have more prize money and earn a lot of money than Badminton, judging from the statistics.

@@davesinaga46 badminton is so underrated, it's a fun sport.

Trickle down economics doesn't work but tennis prizes have nothing to do with prof of that. It's scary to me that someone can even find correlation there and that there are people who are upvoting your comment. This is close to "Lemon is yellow, so Sun is hot." levels of nonsensical comment.

?

@@brkus2665 look at that profile picture, he spends more time at gym than at the library.

100 ranked tennis player make 450k dollars in prize money and some more in endorsement

@@rishbahpandey8697 I don't think so.

@@K4R3N it is statistics. Your thinking doesn't matter

And governing bodies are often mafias (cf Fifa or UEFA...)

You don’t even know what you’re talking about. If they were rich, or at least, if they come from a rich family, then they don’t need to “reduce” Costs eating oats in the room in a somewhere lost location in the world.

Are you a chess player? Is there money to be made?

@@mchl_morris Thanks Mario. I made the tennis film for the FT. My knowledge of chess pay is limited to Queen's Gambit, but I'm sure you're right and it would be interesting to look further. All best