Tweet
ATP Rumor: Expanding Masters 1000s
UPDATE: Released. CEO letter and article at this link:
One source, not yet announced. ATP meeting agreed to expand existing Masters 1000s. Larger draws and 12 day events.
Also, profit sharing.
Now, IMHO this is potentially a big break through for players BUT reliance on "profits" not "net income" is rife with potential for conflict. If, say, Larry Ellison decides to invest more (or write off expenses more quickly, or put his wife on the payroll) "profits" go down.
That's why NFL and NBA collective bargaining agreements use net revenue.
Would be much harder with majors because they're run by not-for-profit orgs PLUS costs accrue to operator, eg. USTA for USO. NYC and the USTA fight over that on small sum of land use.
Stay tuned.
One source, not yet announced. ATP meeting agreed to expand existing Masters 1000s. Larger draws and 12 day events.
Also, profit sharing.
"Profit Sharing (PS) will be triggered and calculated as follows: if the Net Income before income taxes for the 9 events in aggregation,
using a 2-year average, is greater than Base Prize Money, 50% of the excess will be paid by tournaments to players.
For combined events, a % of the total Tournament Net Income before taxes will be used in the calculation, based off revenues attributed to the men’s event.
Profit Sharing will be paid to the players who participated in the related events at the end of the year and is not carried over to future years. Distribution will be determined on a participation and/or performance basis."
using a 2-year average, is greater than Base Prize Money, 50% of the excess will be paid by tournaments to players.
For combined events, a % of the total Tournament Net Income before taxes will be used in the calculation, based off revenues attributed to the men’s event.
Profit Sharing will be paid to the players who participated in the related events at the end of the year and is not carried over to future years. Distribution will be determined on a participation and/or performance basis."
Now, IMHO this is potentially a big break through for players BUT reliance on "profits" not "net income" is rife with potential for conflict. If, say, Larry Ellison decides to invest more (or write off expenses more quickly, or put his wife on the payroll) "profits" go down.
That's why NFL and NBA collective bargaining agreements use net revenue.
Would be much harder with majors because they're run by not-for-profit orgs PLUS costs accrue to operator, eg. USTA for USO. NYC and the USTA fight over that on small sum of land use.
Stay tuned.