-
-
I have mixed feelings. There's a lot of money in a few events -- witness the Laver Cup coming to San Francisco selling its "Hospitality" packages, which basically comprise a good seat plus food in a plush setting, for $30,000.
On the other hand, there is no business case for professional tennis to provide extended support for, nor is there much of a market for, tennis players outside say the top 100. PTPA types like to cite the number of or percentage of players that make a good living in the NFL or on the PGA. But pro tennis is not the NFL, nor is it even similar to golf ( where you need players who aren't Tiger Woods or Scottie Scheffler or Nelly Korda to pass by the grandstand hole or fill time on TV instead of watching Tiger etc walk the fairways.}
Heavy Topspin by Jeff Sackman has a good piece, The Tensions of Exhibition Tennis, that touches on the economics of tennis being driven solely by people wanting to watch the very top players, and how exhibition tennis, and in particular Saudi money, continues to threaten today's equilibrium. .
Pro tennis makes efforts to better subsidize lower ranked players. Witness: ATP Challenger Tour prize money soars to record $28.5m for 2025, rising 135% since 2022. An interesting model is the US Open, where they're turned the early rounds with free admission into a bit of a business by creating a fair-like atmosphere.
But, ultimately, in all the major sports it is either "Up or out", i.e. most anyone that is lower ranked, in the minor leagues in baseball or G leagues for the NBA, makes a subsistence wage and either makes the bigs and cashes in or eaves. There is no model I know of for players who don't attract revenue from sponsors nor sell seats to be guaranteed a long term income.
It's a bit like complaining about "after all I invested in piano lessons now I can't make a living." Very few people are good enough to make a living doing something they love, whether it is playing piano or tennis. Since the days of Laver and Pancho barnstorming, the business model has been selling the top players.
Sackman:
It didn’t take long before the business model became clear. A pro tour could support four athletes: Two big names (preferably rivals), plus two more who could play a warm-up match, then later join their colleagues for doubles. The tour did best when one of the headliners was a recent Wimbledon champion. It wasn’t unusual for the newly-minted titlist at the All-England Club to sign a contract within days of collecting his trophy.
Attempts to broaden the base of professional tennis usually failed–or, at least, didn’t become any more than another quickie tour stop. To fill out a proper tournament field, promoters had to invite retired champions and teaching pros. The would-be pro “majors” had an appeal not unlike a senior tour event, giving fans a chance to see, say, Don Budge far past his prime.
~~~~
Six Kings aside, we’re still far from the peak era of exhibition tennis, when Borg and Ivan Lendl played one-nighters for well-heeled fans around the globe. The ATP has steadily tweaked its rules–no exhibitions that clash with bigger tour events, for instance–while upping its own prize money.
~~~
The biggest immediate danger to the existing structure of pro tennis is Saudi money. The nation’s Public Investment Fund basically blew up golf, poaching stars for a rival tour and leaving the sport fractured.
#Last edited by jimlosaltos; 12-14-2024, 12:36 PM. -
A very engaging video and an eye-opener. It's a story I've heard a few times before. I met a guy who spent 8 years in the 200s (he hired a coach unlike Karue) and made a loss of $700,000. Madness!Originally posted by stroke View PostStottyComment
Tweet
Comment