Tour in decline
Yama
In 1996, prize money purse at Challenger level events varied from $25 000 to $125 000.
Purses at regular Tour events varied from $300 000 to $1.1 million.
Super 9 events were from $1.75 to $2.3 million dollars. ATP Champs forked out $3.3 million.
Grand Slam purses varied from $3.18 million to $5.12 million, AO being the weakest and FO
wealthiest.
How are things in 2010?
Challengers go from $35 000 (or 30k euros) to $125 000.
Tour events (ATP 250 & 500) have purses between $355 000 to $2 million, though only few exceed $1.2mil.
Masters events range from �$2.22 to $3.645 million. Tour finals have the best purse at �$5million.
Grand Slams hand out $9.8 million (Wimbledon) to nearly 11 million (AO).
In 14 years, maximum prize money amount has grown:
110% at Grand Slam level
67% at season ending championships
58% at premier events
81% at highest tier regular Tour events (though 2-3 wealthiest events distort the percentage)
18% at lowest tier ATP events
0% at Challenger level.
Of course one should calculate the average purse size, that would probably be more favourable,
as quick glancing would seem to imply that nowadays there are less minimum amount of prize money
events today than 1996 - but that was only my impression, obviously not very scientific.
Nevertheless it's clear that lower level pro tennis is not only stale, it is actually in decline
as the paltry, if not non-existent increases in prize money have not kept up with inflation.
2% annual inflation ought to bring about 32% increase in 14 years, it is obvious that it hasn't
been happening, and I think inflation has been higher than that. It is well known that ATP
prize money levels have declined after 2001. What is missing from the calculation is Grand
Slam Cup and it's around $6 million purse, absence of it somewhat offsets increases in GS
prize money. But even that said, it is obvious that Grand Slams are doing much better than ATP.
Stark conclusion is that whilst pros at the top level have managed to keep their income stable
(or even increase it), at the lower levels things have been stale, and when you figure in
inflation, the purses have actually declined. This is not a good course.
Inglourious Basterd
Iceberg
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it's Dave who should be
saying something about this!
GOYLE
The surpressed economy is what happened. The housing market died and
homes are cheap now. Antiques, just about anything is cheaper now.
Tennis4Life
USTA should get a larger share of blame for this. Europe and rest of
the non-US countries have disproportionately higher number of > $100K
challengers, US has just about 1 or maybe 2 of them in the whole year.
They are constantly working towards raising the prize money in US Open
and Masters level tournaments and are not able to do the same towards
challenger/futures level tournaments. This shows that their focus is
not on building a support and development infrastructure for tennis in
the US but on pomposity and limelight. No wonder that their pipeline
is dry.
Tennis4Life
>
> - Show quoted text -
In year 2010, there are 22 challenger tournaments that have prize
money >= $100K.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Scores/Archive-Event-Calendar.aspx?t=4&y=2010
out of these, US has 1, only 1. Even puny Colombia has 2.
Europe + Northern Africa has the most with 11. Asia and South America
has 4 each.
Most of these non-US challengers have hospitality included but it's a
rarity in the US tournaments.
the points and prize money earned go hand in hand. players playing
mainly in the European tournaments will end up earning more points and
will rise up the rankings quicker than those playing in the US.
Yama
: USTA should get a larger share of blame for this. Europe and rest of
: the non-US countries have disproportionately higher number of > $100K
: challengers, US has just about 1 or maybe 2 of them in the whole year.
: They are constantly working towards raising the prize money in US Open
: and Masters level tournaments and are not able to do the same towards
: challenger/futures level tournaments. This shows that their focus is
: not on building a support and development infrastructure for tennis in
: the US but on pomposity and limelight. No wonder that their pipeline
: is dry.
Scuttlebutt amongst the European fans is that US Challenger tour has
noticeably lower standard of play than European events. If so, perhaps
this is something USTA ought to pay attention at?
Here is a small comparison between US Open and some other NA hardcourt
summer events: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/56102
US Open had revenue of around $220 million and profit of over 100 million.
Most successful ATP event, Montreal, made profit of 4 million USD.
It doesn't say whether the Montreal includes both ATP and WTA tournaments.
US Open had four times the prize money and over 20 times the profit! They
are getting pretty big return for that prize money compared to regular
Tour events. In the '70s, regular Tour events routinely put out more
money than the Slams.
Tennis4Life
those are pretty interesting numbers to say the least. what would it
take USTA to raise the standard of challenger/future circuit in the US
by ploughing back even 1% of the obscene profit they make from the US
Open?
just spreading $1 million over the prize money on the challenger/
futures circuit would go a long way raising the competition and
developing local talents.