My goodness that second paragraph is right on the mark.

In comparison to team players, tennis stars are way underpaid! But I thinks that's all related to the amount of people who actually watch tennis.
First?

Great post, Pete! I like this part, particularly:

[I think an even better measure of the earnings issue is to analyze the typical fan experience - the amount athletes earn is directly related to the amount they bring in by way of ticket revenues and the relative value of the fan experience. Here, too, I think tennis has a lot to be proud about.]

IMO, a Tennis player doesn't have the privilege to sit back and relax on his/her laurels during a smaller stretch of a season. He/she competes well right through the season - if not, the others will catch up (or overtake). So, they deserve what they earn.

calling Davydenko "the obscure" is wrong in my view... it makes you think (and feel) like he in fact WAS involved in the whole betting scandal.

Spot on Pete! Took the words right out of my mouth. Liked the bit about the cost of producing a tennis player, it's down to the family to bare all the costs.

Navratilova has said for years that the ITF vastly underpays the players at majors. You have to make educated guesses at what the USTA makes for worldwide tv rights, attendance, luxury boxes, sponsors, and all the other revenus streams they have. And then, what do they pay the players? 96 of 128 are out by round 2. That's 75% making $35,000 or less while the USTA pockets tens of million$.
This happens at all majors.

Outstanding. But you already know that.

"Every now and then, an agent or player raises the issue of "profit-sharing", working on the premis that players are not getting a fair enough share of the pie at the Grand Slam events."

Mr. Bodo,

Interesting piece! I would suggest, however, that these players never--ever!--voice these complaints. Can you imagine the reaction should, say, Fed bitch about the paltry size of his USO paycheck? Hell, these cheapskate organizers reward a first-round loss with what is, for a typical middle class worker, two months worth of pay.

You made an interesting point, too, about the players' economic backgrounds. You mentioned the Williams sisters, but the person I had in mind was Jimbo Connors. Do you suppose that his rivalry with McEnroe had something to do with class resentments?

--Liron

My 2-cents:
Team sports is a bigger engine for a bigger market than tennis ever will. There's good economics in terms of participation and benefit for more people starting from youth. Tennis is mainly an individual sport and pursuit, and benefit is mostly "self-centered", not for a bigger "community". I think from a business point of view, team sports is a better model than tennis (with its many, many separate singles players, fans, and groups). Golf, seems to enjoy a better, unified marketing approach, I think compared to tennis. Tennis marketing seems a little irregular.

Thanks Pete.

I've always thought that tennis players were underpaid compared to most other sports. Plus the length of time and devotion of funds to produce a first class player is greater than that of 'team' sports players. There are however other atheletes in expensive to develop sports that that probably don't make much money comparatively: World class riders (equestrian) and figure skaters.

A U.S. Open grounds pass is without a doubt the best deal in pro sports. If you have the stamina, you can watch four or five full matches, or bits of dozens, for $52. That won't get you much more than a parking space at a pro football stadium.

Plus, compared with other pro sports, the world's best tennis players are relatively accessible. You're not going to chat with Federer, but you can watch top-50 talents practice from a few feet away on the outside courts.

Aside from compensation, one thing that has struck me about pro tennis is how much tougher it is to make it than in other sports.

The NBA has maybe 200-300 players. Until maybe 10 or 15 years ago, it was mostly Americans competing for one of the 300 spots, which promise a minimum wage that probably tops $1 million. In tennis, you're competing against the entire planet to be one of the 200 or so people who can actually earn a living on the pro tour.

Your odds of becoming a basketball pro are terrible. Your odds of becoming a struggling ATP journeyman are even worse.

But, as someone else noted, your second paragraph about fair pay is right on the money, so to speak.

Pete: when I worked for [insert name of large, legendary investment bank where traders ruled much of what went on] I should think that the number of people paid more than Andy Murray was in prize money last year ranked in the hundreds, easily - primarily in discretionary bonuses, of course. Those elevated levels don't apply to the majority of employees, but enough for it to be significant. Add to that the fact that a successful trader doesn't usually risk injury during a career, and has the potential for far greater longevity at the top...and that's without even going into the question of equity-based compensation and pensions. The turmoil at the current time will certainly leave less people in the industry earning huge amounts for some time to come, but that doesn't cancel out the good years.

Um, one thing I was thinking about is this - some of us, me included, would pay a far larger amount of money to see the likes of Rafael Nadal play than we would lay down for Kolya the Obscure. I am, of course, pretty interested in seeing Andy Murray play; there's a list of others for whom I'll also gladly make time. The economics of it for the players seems to be that someone like Nadal gets an appearance fee in certain cases in order to turn up (Stuttgart, Rotterdam), and the likes of Kolya or someone even more obscure effectively benefits from that (does Kolya get appearance fees?). The fan doesn't get an option to choose who they see, though. To get round this, you need to be a knowledgeable fan, and to have time at your disposal.

I see, therefore, why the ATP experimented with the flawed round-robin idea - the problem being that although it was intended to be fan-friendly, it wasn't friendly to the spirit of the game itself.

But I don't know how tennis can get around the fact that if I bought a ticket to see Chelsea play at home at Stamford Bridge, I'd know what I was getting, but if I buy a ticket a few weeks in advance to watch tennis, I don't know the programme until the night before. Personally if I were running a tournament (say, Madrid next week) I'd want to advertise the fact that Rafael Nadal will play the first match during the Wednesday night session, and charge more for it accordingly. However, there's always the danger that something will happen to the star and he/she won't play (will Federer even be in Madrid nest week?), so I don't know what the real answer is.

I don't watch golf, which I find to be mind-blowingly tedious. In terms of what the individual tennis player does, of course, I'd rate Kolya's athletic ability and entertainment value far higher than that of any golfer - I think someone would need to pay me to waste any time on watching golf. So on that basis Kolya is underpaid. But as you note, the market doesn't seem to think that way. Collective tastes seem to rule more than individual skills.

I remember one or two impassioned posts from May, who used to post in TW, about the situation of Dudi Sela, who doesn't come from a wealthy background, and has struggled at times to cover all the costs involved in being a tennis pro, who doesn't get paid except by results. The pity is that those kind of economic choices being made by players within the top 100 (Sela is currently ranked 70) don't do anything to lure talent into the game. There are other ways to make a living. Slim pickings for those further down the hierarchy; the top few can live confortably or more than comfortably; only a smalll number are really in the position where they may never need to *work* again in terms of covering the costs of living, and much of that has to do with name marketability rather than pure tennis-related earnings.

I agree that players should "profit share" as you put it, Pete, at the grand slams. The players presence is what generates the money (crowds, endorsements). Only the ATP and WTA are in a position to force the hand of the GS tournaments to give the players more money (a proportional amount to the revenues), either through negotiation or boycott... altho hopefully we don't get a repeat of 1973...

Mr. Bodo, you earn your money. I have been a journalist for a little while, and I know how tough a job that is. I never liked that job because you cannot really give write what you think. If you do, you are no longer a journalist.

So, good job, mr. Bodo...I hope they pay you well.

I'm not sure about 'profit sharing' though not against it. I think for the players below the money prizes, that's a good idea. Also, some support in the way of grants to help players who are talented and show promise, but lack the funds to stay on the tour. As well as financial support at the junior level.

Far be it from me to estimate a player's worth; although your 'market analysis' does a pretty good job, Pete. When thinking about your question, though, I'd have to say that the entertainment value of players is more along the lines of what I'd judge, and even that falls along the lines of aesthetic qualities. I find Nadal and Federer equally entertaining, and I'm sure their pay reflects their general popularity and broad appeal. But how many people, as a whole, find the #'s 11-20 on tour equally entertaining, not to mention #'s 25 on down (I like Sela, actually!). Sports is entertainment, just like movies, fiction, gaming, etc. I love that you equate the fan experience with pay rate; but again, even the most vocal kads of this site rarely agree on the most entertaining aspects of the game and its players. Not to mention, at least in this country, how many team sports tennis has to compete against.

At major tournaments, how about a bloody lottery for all those awesome court side seats that seem always to be empty? Sure, the grounds pass is the best value in sports; but at some point, I will want to see that Nadal/Federer final up close and personal. I think tennis' best and most avid fans get the shaft in this regard.

Great article, btw.

SwissMaestro: Davydenko was nicknamed Kolya the Obscure long before the betting scandal by a TWer (pteniset, I think)who was/is a big fan of his.

I've said it before, and I guess that I'll repeat it: I think that the $46-$52 price that Pete referred to for Week 1 grounds passes to the USO (a little more for tickets that include day session matches in Ashe Stadium) is the best bargain in all sports -- in the USA, for sure.

The prices that I've heard about for a single Eagles and Sixers games in my home city, Philadelphia, far exceed one of those USO tickets which have allowed me, over the past 12 years, to see from 8 to 11 hours of tennis in one day.

With tennis players having to pay for their own coaches, travel etc, I often wonder how those players in the lower ranks are able to survive on the low 1st and 2nd round prize money awarded in most of the tournaments. Even if, four times a year, a player made the decent amount prize money that a first-round Slam player gets, it would still be a bit of a struggle to take care of all of the expenses (including living expenses away from home that aren't covered by the tourneys).

Heeellllooooooooo.....
But tennis is a "rich man's sport" only in one critical way: you need a lot of money to get into the game (in terms of developing a talented child).

not too sure I agree. tennis lessons are relatively cheap, free public ,well maintained courts are plentiful in the states. Once a child gets a feel and love for the game , he/she may end up on a high school tennis squad, and for the truly ambitious that will lead to collegiate tennis,and into the pro or challenger circuit.In the states there are still private golf clubs that do not allow folks who can't afford or fit the profile ,to join. Golf is an extremely high maintenance sport, greens have to be cared for and maintained, therefore even public golf courses are a pay to play , unlike numerous free tennis courts.
Tennis has always had the 'cool factor' .Borg,Agassi,Rafa, Venus, Serena,Conners,Guga and revolutionary personalities,King,Martina, Ashe,just to name a few.Theres not one golfer that I would consider cool, a barrier breaker or revolutionary personalitiy . In a lot of ways golf is a representative of one of the last bastions of segregation.
golf is the rich mans sport, rich men play the game, they own and operate the private clubs, networks and banks.There is always going to be TV coverage and perfectly cared for pristine golf courses in the most beautiful exclusive places in the world for old rich guys to play on.Look no further than todays headlines WORLDWIDE, rich men make the rules, break the rules and escape in golden parachutes.
as far as marketing tennis, Tennis is full of beautiful , sexy interesting personalities of all persuasions, theres no way golf can even compare. Tennis players are international and exotic, young and hot( and sometimes scantily clad). Tennis can also bring in the big ratings and large crowds . It's all about the power and who has it. Old rich guys have it and they like golf

Kenneth:

brilliant idea, a lottery for the courtside seats. Now that the market's gone bust, maybe some of those bankrupt godzilla corporations will relinquish their blocs of tickets.

Good day y'all.

Indeed, Tennis is a rich "white" (if I may add) man's game. The rich and often "white" countries have produced more great tennis players than any struggling or developing country. The US, UK, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany , France, Spain and Australia have constantly produced world class tennis players. In most recent times, China, Japan, S Korea, India, Israel and Thailand are slowly easing through the game. South Africa had good players too. Being an Asian myself, I must agree that respectable tennis training schools cost a lot lot more than just learning basketball in the streets. Tennis Clubs have often been open to the "can afford" as TC membership, training coaches,equipment, and even "ball boys" can be expensive. Yet, statistically speaking, more talent abound within the ranks of those living below the so-called 'middle class." That is why, there is a need for "sponsors". But sad to say ,in a country like mine, the LOVERS OF THE SPORT --the upper and middle class- would rather put money where money multiplies a hundredfold.

got to put in my 2 cents , on some of this
I am not getting into golf and their prize money /cost
I don't know anything about it
I do not about tennis and its cost
and I can tell you , yellow fuzzy , that if you think high school tennis is cheap and the place to really learn how to be a pro tennis player - then you are mistaken
The high school we have in our area is one of the best - tennis wise - in the state. Numerous alumni from this high school district have gone on to play college level and even pro tennis . None of them that succeeded did so because of high school tennis. Not to knock the camaraderie or the competition - but , at least here in Southern California - that is complete hooey if you think that playing high school tennis for free is going to get you noticed at a higher level. Those kids who succeeded took / take hours and hours of private lessons- travel weekend after weekend to tournaments to get the best competition . That is not cheap.
Our high school coach - a wonderful , fun guy - does little more than take roll at team practices and turn in a lineup at the matches . As he is fielding a team of nationally ranked juniors - that is all he has to do , to win championships.

"I'd be curious to know how you all, having attended tennis events large and small, feel about the prices and quality of your experience."

I've been to the US Open, New Haven, Legg Mason, WTT and Davis Cup. Davis Cup is expensive but a very special treat and a whole lot of fun. I've never heard how much the players get for playing -- does anyone know?

The rest: absolutely a bargain. As others have said, the Open grounds pass is well worth the price, and early in the first week it's only another $5-10 to get into Ashe. (Of course the train to NY and the hotel add quite a bit but that's somewhat off topic.) Smaller tournaments are as little as $20 for many sessions. And the quality -- mixed of course, but that can be true from the first round of qualifying to the final as we all know.

As far as team events: In my area I can go see the NFL for a small fortune, or the NBA for nearly as much. But I can see some of the last place Baltimore Orioles games for as little as $8 on bargain night. And sometimes get an XL shirt or a bobblehead too!

and about the price
ok - Tennis tickets - good seats are expensive
ground passes not so much . I enjoy the bigger tournaments
Like IW -and it is worth it to me to pay a pretty penny for a good seat that allows me access to all the courts and assures that I have seat for the marquis players
I do not feel that way about smaller tournaments , like the LA event held in the summer
those tickets cost way too much - and I probably will be more careful purchasing them in the future

as for team sports - i have season tickets to see the USC Trojans - 4 tickets -6 games a year - cost me about $1000 , not the best seats in the house but I have a blast and I can see . I am sure I could pay more and get better seats if they were available.
My tickets to IW this year cost more than that for 2 tickets - but , I potentially get to see many more matches .
So - I guess I am happy with both

And Yay for:

a) AM having been a top player!
And gone over her illness!

B) Dinara! (I wouldn't have taken Moresamo anyhow)

C) Gonzo getting back in shape (I liked him in the Olympiad final)

Sorry for Ana I and Ernest though!

1. Regarding ticket prices: I wholeheartedly agree, tennis tickets are one of the greatest bargains in sport, if not the cream of the crop. However, the "convenience fees" charged through online ticketing, and the additional fees charged for the "convenience" of being able to print your tickets on your own printer at home, make a mockery of the advertised ticket "cost".

Buy tickets for the US Open online, as many (most?) do, and you pay a convenience fee *per ticket* for the privilege. Want to print the ticket yourself, at home? You get charged extra for that, too, while Ticketmaster saves the cost of add'l employees mailing you the tix, and postage. Oh, you say you'll get them at Will Call? You'd better not be buying them for anyone else, because you have to bring photo id and the same credit card that was used to purchase the tickets.

If the USTA, which according to a Gene Scott column of at least 10 years ago earned $60M from the Open, really wants to promote the game, they'd tell Ticketmaster to forego these usurious charges for the rights to the world's largest ticketed sporting event. Conversely, the USTA could absorb those charges itself, but I ain't holding my breath.

Ticketmaster has every right to make money. It's making money, being a monopoly AND insulting me that gets my dander up.

2. My apologies for bringing up equal pay for men and women players, but I've always maintained that the fairest equation as a test for this idea would be to figure out who sells more tickets (in currency) and more advertising. After all, that's what generates the prize money.

I have no idea how to measure such a thing, and even less confidence that it can be done, but it'd settle the equal pay question as fairly as it could ever be settled. (It would make the decision based on how much revenue the players generated, and not on some Quality Of Play scale, nor on the length of matches.)

3. As implied by someone above, what's forgotten in comparing tennis players' (or golfers') income to that of the team sports is that the tennis players pay for their own transportation, lodging and food. I love the Phillies, but Jimmy and Chase aren't handing over the ol' AmEx card at hotel check-in when they're on the road.

4.The idea of profit sharing for the players is interesting, but only insofar as they're willing to share the downside as well as the upside. Profit sharing usually offers lower guarantees in return for a piece of a (hopefully) successful enterprise. Are players ready to take lower prizes and bet on the financial success of their tournaments?

One particularly irritating thing (at least about the USO) is that they don't publish which portion of the draw will play until the night before. So, you have to guess and buy. Last year I paid $80 to see Fed, but they moved his match to Sat, because he was playing Isner. I got Robredo-Fish instead, all 5 sets of it. This year $95, but I got Djokovic-Cilic instead. Nice match and all, but when I can afford only one session, I want to know who I'm seeing.

skip, Regarding the equal pay thingie, some writer (I forget who) compared the prize money between Tier I and II tournaments on the ATP and WTA. His claim (I have not checked) was that the WTA prizes were significantly lower. However, he also suggested (rightly imo) that a differentiation in Slams would cause more bad publicity than any perceivable advantages. I guess the point is -- if you want to see the market forces at work, the ATP and WTA slams should be conducted separately.

Ah, profit sharing. Would that be correlated with how far you go in the draw, or how popular you are? Sharapova crashing out in the first round might have put more butts in the seats than Kuzzie, bless her heart, going all the way to the final. But how would you know? I assume it would go by draw.

It's the vagaries of tennis pay that are the problem, I think. I don't know how much Nadal makes (and I won't get into the women's #1, which changes week to week right now), but I've seen many estimates on Federer and Sharapova well over $20 million -- Fed may be up to $30 with the new Nike and Jura deals. OK, fine. Decently paid.

It's the Kolyas who are the dilemma, so underpaid. Or, in some cases, the players who come from wee countries which might work somewhat to their advantage (big fish, small pond) or disadvantage (little in the pond, of less interest in the major markets). I don't think it's as easy as saying that endorsements are totally separate, because it's the game that gets them those endorsements. Then there are appearance fees... In other words, I have no answer either.

Btw, Pete, unless you separated out Leander Paes' doubles earnings, I imagine the gulf is even wider at that level.

I have to say while tennis is not exactly "rich man" sport, it is DEFINITELY NOT for the average working family.

We are average small business owner with mid-6-figure income. My 15-year-old son picks up tennis less than 3 years ago and he falls in love with the sport. He plays for enjoyment and we have no aspirations for college scholarship or whatsoever; I just support my son for a very health pastime.

With 1st person experience I can tell you, even with such low level of involvement, it is not cheap. The "club" we join cost only $50 per month. My son takes private 1-hour lesson 3 times a week at $60 per hour, so weekly is $180. I have a friend who strings my son's racquet for free, and one set of Luxillon hybrid with Babolat natural gut is about $27. WITHOUT taken account of racquets, clothes, shoes, monthly expenses is between $850-$900. Realistically it is closer to $1000. I doubt how easy it would be for parents to shell out US$1,000 a month just for a "hobby".

For the one who mentioned high school sports, I can tell you it doesnt do much to develop the player. Boys' tennis is spring sports, they dont start practise till February, and by May, it is all over. School "coaches" arent really coaches, they are usually teachers who know a little something about the sport and most of them dont actually do coaching. They just arrange some simple conditioning and have kids play against each other. While it does let the kids play bit more for free, most kids dont get better because of playing at school. Dont forget, you have to be good enough to make the team, which means all the development i.e. money spent, is done out of the school system, and, paid for by the parents.

After I get involved with tennis, I realize why the sports is no longer as popular, and it has shut out too many kids. As for compensation, considered how much investment it is for a tennis player, I dont care we are talking about harder-to-make-ends-meet Sela, "Kolya the Obscure", or multimillionaire Federer, they are all SERIOUSLY underpaid.

I remember clearly reading years back a comment by Kafelnikov that tennis players were paid less and Pete Sampras disagreeing with him.

great article again pete, yes i think tennis players are grossly underpaid to their other sporting counterpart,i am assuming we are also applying this,say,to the elite tennis players in relation to the elite sportsman in say the NBA,golf,baseball,football,soccer,where their salaries,plus endorsements are quite staggering to say the least.What price is a elite sportsman is worth these days?,are they being over paid?well one could argue this all night long.

it bring s me to a story,that kind of brought me back down to earth., at this years Australian Open,which i attended in the second week,they did a tv story on Tipsaercic, Tippy as i called him,it was the day before,he played Roger in that epic 5 set match,here he was,in a one bedroom hotel room,nothing flash,just basic,no frills affair,while his counterpart Roger,who always stays at Melbourne Crown Casino,in luxury,Tippy said the cost of travelling,coach,food,air fares,were so expensive,the ordinary player who is not,say in the top 20 in the world struggle to meet expensives,also realize,if you need massages,any additional things,while playing on tour,they have to be met.

I thought about that for a while,also he said.he wasn't afraid of having to play Roger at all,he was just going out there,to give it his best shot,well we all know,tippy nearly caused the upset of the tournament.Watching that epic game,his love and passion for the game of tennis,out weighed in his mind,how much money he was going to be paid for losing or winning,though in grand slam tennis,going out,even in the 1st round,to some,isnt a bad day at the office,so to speak.

The elite players in any sport,will always have the sponsership dollars,the endorsements of other companys,while the little battler,who plays every tournament,week in and week out battle to survive,its the ones with the passion for their sport,who survive.

I think they could be more done,in terms of helping these players, who start the sport,because it isnt cheap,even to get your racquet re-strung,these days you would have to carry 3 at least,maybe we could look at some type of incentitve scheme,say for the lower ranked players,i know at junior level,the different countries,have there own programs in place,players are compensated to some degree,just because you get your ranking high enough,to start playing on the atp tour,dosent mean you have made it,in terms of financial success at all,in some ways it gets harder.Maybe these players could be compensated in some way,so they dont get disheartened and be able to continue to play the game of tennis.

"Indeed, Tennis is a rich "white" (if I may add) man's game. The rich and often "white" countries have produced more great tennis players than any struggling or developing country. The US, UK, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany , France, Spain and Australia have constantly produced world class tennis players" (Ren)

Oh really...So what about these developing countries ?:

CZECH REPUBLIC = Martina Navratilova #1 (Most titles of all time !), Ivan Lendl #1 (8 Grand Slams), Hana Mandlikova #3 (4 Grand Slams), Jana Novotna #1 (Wimbledon 1998)

FORMER YUGOSLAVIA = Slovenian Mima Jausovec (Roland garros 1977), Hungarian Monica Seles #1 (9 Grand Slams)

CROATIA = Goran Ivanisevic #2 (Wimbledon 2001), Ivan Ljubicic #3 (Davis Cup 2005), Iva Majoli #4 (Roland Garros 1997), Mario Ancic #7 (Davis Cup 2005), Ivo karlovic #14, Marin Cilic #22.

SERBIA = Ana Ivanovic #1 (Roland Garros 2008), Novak Djokovic #3 (Australian Open 2008), Jelena Jankovic #1.

ROMANIA = Ilie Nastase #1 (2 Grand Slams)

ARGENTINA = Guillermo Vilas #2 (4 Grand Slams), Gabriela Sabatini #3 (US Open 1990), Gaston Gaudio #5 (Roland Garros 2004), David Nalbandian #3 (Masters Cup 2005), Juan Martin del Potro #9.

CHILE = Marcelo Rios #1, Fernando Gonzalez #5, Nicolas Massu #9

BRAZIL = Gustavo Kuerten #1 (3 Grand Slams)

ECUADOR = Andres Gomez #4 (Roland garros 1990), Nicolas Lapentti #6

INDIA = Vijay Amritraj #16 (16 titles), Leander Paes/ Mahesh Bhupathi #1 doubles (4 Grand Slams)

By the way, since when Russia is a "rich" country and the UK a tennis powerhouse when it hasn't won a Grand Slam since Fred Perry in 1936 (lol !) Andy Murray is currently the only British man (Scottish) in the Top 150 and the highest woman is Anne Keothavong (Laotian) at #80...Finally, since when Arthur Ashe, Pancho Gonzales, the Williams sisters, Michael Chang, Zina Garrison, James Blake, Mary Joe Fernandez, Yannick Noah, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Gael Monfils, etc, are or were "rich white" men ?

Since you mentioned that you're "Asian", you really ought to know better than stereotyping tennis as a "rich white" sport and educate yourself a lot more about the ethnic background of its players as well as the economic status of their native countries...(ie: Atptennis.com,IMF World Economic Reports, etc.)

46 dollars for a grounds pass?! at Wimbledon that might get you a show court ticket (albeit court 2)

In one sense, the players are payed fairly. If they don't think they're getting a fair price, down tools, they won't. Plus, though it's true, it's not exactly the most important thing in the world, so it's hard to be sympathetic with them.

marian thanks for your "yay" most welcome,yes well i could have been jj and winning that Porshe,mmm,not fair, gee back in my day,before adam was a boy,thats what my daughter tells me sometimes,need to have a stern talk to her,i remember winning my first ever big tournament, it was at Rockdale Tennis Courts,thats where the great aussie Ken Rosewall played and trained,actually the courts were named after him,great one handed/ b/hand slice i remember,beautiful shot,anyway my prize was a pair of Dunlop Slazennger tennis shoes,wow,did i think,at the time,i was the ants pants!,the funny thing was i had a voucher to go to the factory,to pick up my prize,would you believe,i never,got there,for some reason,i cant recall,gee i bet jj would never forget to pick up her Porshe!

Heidi: "....than Kuzzie, bless her heart, going all the way to the final."

You forgot to add, "and losing."

*siiiigh*

Tennis is a very affordable sport to watch - I agree. I mean, I've definitely done baseball games cheaper ($10 tickets in the upper deck back when I was in college), but paying £50 (roughly $100) to sit in the front row and get hit by an Amelie Mauresmo shanked forehand? Totally worth every penny. ;)

Ali C, you should check back to see what that $10 bleacher seat in the upper deck now goes for - I think you'll be surprised!

Melissa and Ren: Spain's economic boom and relative 1st world prosperity is pretty recent. In the 1970's it was still only a "developing country" and before that, from the 1940's through the early 1960's, was simply POOR. Even miserably poor. The great Manuel Santana who won Wimbledon in the mid'6o's was something of a miracle because tennis was ONLY a rich man's sport in Spain then and there couldn't have been above a dozen tennis courts in the country. In fact,Santana was a child worker - a ball boy at an exclusive Madrid club. It wasn't an after school job;it was his job.
( Severiano Ballesteros in Golf has a similar story - as a teenager HE was a professional caddy who used to steal into the exclusive golf club at night and practice his swing. )

This is one of the reasons that Spaniards my age are so tickled pink by Rafa's success. We remember as if it were yesterday how we were the "poor man at the gate".

I find it amusing to find Spain included in the list of rich "white" countries which produce players. We began to have good players before we were prosperous.

It costs almost nothing to develop a promising baseball or football/soccer player, because there's an enormous public, taxpayer-funded infrastructure doing it, called "schools."
**********

Possibly the least-informed statement in human history.

So Quick, tell me what that means - and let's leave out the stuff about summer camp for football or basketball, gas for driving to games, athletic shoes. They're small potatoes compared, say, to paying for court-time indoors in the winter, or coaching fees. How about those two new cans of balls you need every time you set foot on a court, or the cost of the twice-weekly stringing? Anyway, I'm curious to see your logic

Tennis players and any other professional athlete is neither over paid nor underpaid. They are in the market-place and they sell themselves and their trade at the market price.

One of my children is in a highly technical sport which demands years of specialised ,expert training almost from infancy and upwards to 48-60 hrs training hrs a week. There is no economic pay-off for the hours and years invested in reaching the top 10 because it is not a sport that is consumed by the masses or the media(which feed off each other). That is what I would call an "underpaid" (for the effort and investment)sportsperson.

About the only thing wrong with the term "kolya the obscure" is the truthiness of it. But, I think this is Pete's point.

Posted by rg.nadal (Congrats Jelena!) 10/09/2008 @ 1:22 AM
"I remember clearly reading years back a comment by Kafelnikov that tennis players were paid less and Pete Sampras disagreeing with him."

Yeah I remember that too, and i think it was Todd Martin who said, in response to Kafelnikov's comment, that every sports&entertainment star is overpaid.

nicky d in da house! lol

I've always assumed that, in a way, the players were involved in profit-sharing -- in the literal sense of the word -- since the amount of prizemoney available to them is determined by how mcuh their game is able to make fans buy tickets, and to make companies want to pay to be sponsors (on court and on TV) etc.

But, in the broader sense of the word ("profit sharing"), I hope that, in addition to being willing, as one poster said, to share in the losses as well as the profits of the tourneys, the players realize that some of the profit from the tourneys must be spent on developing and promoting the game -- activities from which players benefit and activities whose value to the future of the sport I hope the players are not too selfish to recognize and support.

Now, if the players feel that the LTA or the USTA or other bodies that share the profits are not spending enough on such activities while they are paying the players relatively small percentages of the total profit, I could understand any player's claim of being underpaid. If not, I don't expect to hear any "we're underpaid" complaints.

Gabriela, I like your statement: "Tennis players and any other professional athlete is neither over paid nor underpaid. They are in the market-place and they sell themselves and their trade at the market price."

Tennis players are underpayed compared to in some other sports, e.g. soccer. But I think that it's more the disparity between the earnings of the top ten and the earnings of those ranked between 200 and 100 that is worrying. The winner of a Grand slam definitely, IMO, gets enough. After all they're going to make masses on advertising as well, having just won a slam. But those who take part in the qualifying should be payed more. I remember one player, who by chance made in into the main draw and drew Federer one year, didn't even have grass-court shoes, he had to borrow another player's. But TBH I'm much more worried about the pay of doctors, nurses, teachers, midwives ect., particularly in developing countries, than tennis players!

Oh and sorry to be so rude! Thanks Mr Bodo for a great article.

Young basketball or baseball players don't need much individual attention or special times and facilities like young tennis players do. That individual attention in a market is not free. Like playing a musical instrument, kids learn a little in school music education, but if one wants to really strengthen talent, one needs to pay the lessons amd the music school over time. That is a choice for parents. A lot of talented kids opt to not go into tennis, and instead go through school (even expensive and elite education) and later on have these normal jobs which pay little compared to what tennis players get. So if we think about it from our end, we should be complaining - wink, wink.

I think journalists are glaringly underpaid. Without their wisdom, we'd have to think (and write) for ourselves. And we all know, my friends, how that would go - see 'S' for Sarah Palin.

Pete, I'm not THAT old!

I haven't been to a game recently, but last time I went to Dodger Stadium (2007), I had great loge level seats for $40 each (way better than the upper deck). I saw the Nats play at RFK for $20...so it's not too bad.

Put it this way: I'm still willing to pay those prices on a limited basis. NFL and NBA prices, I won't do. And once or twice a year for Wimbledon, definitely.