Djokovic vs ATP

[Federberg]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ears-of-players-revolt-over-pay-after-meeting

Interesting intervention from Novak. Apparently after a players meeting with the ATP, he asked ATP officials to leave and proceeded to talk about players setting up a union for players. This would be a break away from the ATP which is supposed to advocate for both players and tournaments. Some of the other issues he's concerned about are moving away from equal prize money as he feels that men subsidise women. Apparently Federer is not really a supporter of this.....

I have to say, I'm with Novak regarding breaking away from the ATP. It's always struck me as odd that the ATP represents both players and tournaments which you would think would often be in natural conflict. I'm a bit wary of the whole equal prize money thing purely in terms of what's going on in society right now. But if men get their own union, they would be free to advocate their own compensation and the tournaments would have to negotiate with them on purely commercial terms. If they try to impose their own politics on what the men should earn then that's on them. Very interesting! He must have been stewing about this while he's been away. My only hope is that this isn't being done to boost pay at the top, but the lower ranks...

Thoughts?

 

[Denis]

Hmm the article is not giving us much other than it seems to be more directed towards getting the top 100-200 players more money. Isn't the issue with the slams? Dont they have like a 90% profit margin or something?

What they could also do is make tennis freely accessible on the internet, instead of hagging over prize money Its really annoying they put some random -ova playing another random -enko on Eurosport while I just want to watch a competitive mens match.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am strongly in favor of players forming a separate union. There is definitely a huge conflict of interest with ATP allegedly trying to advocate both player's interests and tourney's interests.

I think money is not really so much of a problem for the players. Even for the low end players things have improved substantially on the monetary front (provided you are in top 100).

The main thing players would probably do is to cut down the number of mandatory tournaments from the current level of 12 (4 GS + 8 Masters) to something like 10 (4GS + 4 mandatory masters + any two out of other non-mandatory masters) to reduce the wear and tear and the injury issues spreading like plague in the circuit.

 

[Denis]

I am strongly in favor of players forming a separate union. There is definitely a huge conflict of interest with ATP allegedly trying to advocate
both player's interests and tourney's interests.

I think money is not really so much of a problem for the players. Even for the low end players things have improved substantially on the monetary front (provided you are in top 100).

The main thing players would probably do is to cut down the number of mandatory tournaments from the current level of 12 (4 GS + 8 Masters) to something like 10 (4GS + 4 mandatory masters + any two out of other non-mandatory masters) to reduce the wear and tear and the injury issues spreading like plague in the circuit.

Good point. There are exceptions though and Novak qualifies for them, he can drop quite a few of these events.

I don't really care what they do: the ATP/players will do what is in their interest which is making money out of my pocket as a spectator. At least the GS organisers have some kind of commitment to promoting tennis.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think they should make Rome (a master immediately preceding RG), Cincy (a master immediately preceding USO), IW (a master tourney that usually wins the best master tourney award as voted by players) and Shanghai (to promote game in Asia) mandatory.

Then all players should be required to play in any two (their choice) of the other five masters ( Miami, Monte Carlo, Madrid, Canada and Bercy).

They should reduce the number of tournaments counted for ranking to 15 from the current 18 (4GS + 4 Mandatory Masters + 2 Optional Masters + Best five from the rest).

This may alleviate the injury issue little bit.

Since I am not suggesting shortening the calendar or eliminating any tournament, the tournaments should be happy as well.

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not sure reducing the number of mandatory tournaments is going to do that much to alleviate injuries. Players were taking on far more tournaments back in the day. Perhaps they should accelerate the waivers players get though. That way it allows the young up and coming players to take up more of the space the top guys vacate. Problem is, a lot of these guys are going to keep playing as much as possible because they want to get the money or chase ranking points, or both..

 

[Fiero425]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ears-of-players-revolt-over-pay-after-meeting

Interesting intervention from Novak. Apparently after a players meeting with the ATP, he asked ATP officials to leave and proceeded to talk about players setting up a union for players. This would be a break away from the ATP which is supposed to advocate for both players and tournaments. Some of the other issues he's concerned about are moving away from equal prize money as he feels that men subsidise women. Apparently Federer is not really a supporter of this.....

I have to say, I'm with Novak regarding breaking away from the ATP. It's always struck me as odd that the ATP represents both players and tournaments which you would think would often be in natural conflict. I'm a bit wary of the whole equal prize money thing purely in terms of what's going on in society right now. But if men get their own union, they would be free to advocate their own compensation and the tournaments would have to negotiate with them on purely commercial terms. If they try to impose their own politics on what the men should earn then that's on them. Very interesting! He must have been stewing about this while he's been away. My only hope is that this isn't being done to boost pay at the top, but the lower ranks...

Thoughts?

Male tennis stars threaten to sit out next year's Australian Open after ATP meeting taken over by Novak Djokovic

• A potential boycott of next year's Australian Open was discussed this week
• Novak Djokovic proposed at the meeting a body to represent players' interests
• One suggestion was to allocate more tournament prize money to players

By Mike Dickson for the Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 17:30 EST, 15 January 2018 | UPDATED: 17:30 EST, 15 January 2018

- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-5272275/Male-tennis-stars-threaten-sit-Australian-Open.html -

This is a joke right? OMG, I can sorta understand getting a bigger slice of the pie if the profits have exceeded the prize money raise, but to go backwards demanding the men get more than the ladies is antiquated! I see why they feel that way since the masses go to see the men and the matches more competitive and long, but it's still something that should be kept to themselves, not showing obvious greed after receiving so much to play a sport! It's a shame if this is a serious option to actually boycott! The only one that made sense was at Wimbledon in '73 and you see how they didn't buckle! I'd tell the AO to say "go ahead; BOYCOTT!" We can have a new set of winners rather than the "same ol', same ol'!" :cuckoo:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think the boycott situation is exaggerated by daily mail and the players are not seriously thinking about boycott.

Equality of men and women should only mean equal opportunity and not necessarily equal pay. So, I would say
there is claim to the guys argument that ATP is kind of subsidizing WTA right now.

 

[Federberg]

I suspect that if players have a union it would take a more robust stance when negotiating with tournaments. I actually think the women should consider doing the same. It’s always struck me as odd that both the wta and atp look after the interests of both owners and players. Inevitably pay differences will emerge but it’s entirely possible that women at some future time could command higher prizes than men. It should be a function of what the market wants

 

[Denis]

I suspect that if players have a union it would take a more robust stance when negotiating with tournaments. I actually think the women should consider doing the same. It’s always struck me as odd that both the wta and atp look after the interests of both owners and players. Inevitably pay differences will emerge but it’s entirely possible that women at some future time could command higher prizes than men. It should be a function of what the market wants

The market does not exist, it is a construction in your mind. What does the 'market' think of intellectual property rights? For instance, broadcasting rights? Or is that something that is determined by politicians?

 

[Federberg]

The market does not exist, it is a construction in your mind. What does the 'market' think of intellectual property rights? For instance, broadcasting rights? Or is that something that is determined by politicians?

That’s a very odd response. I’m not quite sure how to answer something like that which is so obviously wrong? Are you dismissing the market on philosophical grounds?

 

[Denis]

That’s a very odd response. I’m not quite sure how to answer something like that which is so obviously wrong? Are you dismissing the market on philosophical grounds?

What is wrong? That the market is a social construction? It doesn't factually exist, you should know that.

 

[Federberg]

What is wrong? That the market is a social construction? It doesn't factually exist, you should know that.

It’s a construct based on commercial reality. Perhaps I’m missing the point you’re trying to make? You have players, tournaments, broadcasters and audiences (both live and on tv). There is the product, tennis matches, and the consumer. What makes you think it doesn’t exist? Do you really believe this sub-component of the entertainment industry where the top guys earn millions doesn’t exist? Surely not. So I can only surmise you’re looking at this not as commerce but as a socio-political argument? Please explain

 

[Denis]

It’s a construct based on commercial reality. Perhaps I’m missing the point you’re trying to make? You have players, tournaments, broadcasters and audiences (both live and on tv). There is the product, tennis matches, and the consumer. What makes you think it doesn’t exist? Do you really believe this sub-component of the entertainment industry where the top guys earn millions doesn’t exist? Surely not. So I can only surmise you’re looking at this not as commerce but as a socio-political argument? Please explain

If you ask an alien what he sees when he sees the earth, he will see a lot of people gathering around a field with a net in the middle where two people are hitting a ball at each other with a racket. However, he will not see a 'market' because it does not exist as an object. It is something that humans have constructed in their mind to organise ourselves.

The point being, all of that money going back and forth is the result of politicians making laws (also social constructs), it does not by and in itself exist. One of the key determinants why so much money goes to tennis is because we have decided to make laws that force people to pay to watch matches on tv for instance. That is not 'the market', but a bunch of politicians deciding to invent ip laws, among other things.

 

[mrzz]

@Denis, the "market" here is basically the consumers. Tournaments have direct interaction with the consumers, as they sell tickets, and also indirect relation with the consumers, as they sell TV rights, while TV sells advertising time which companies find their way to evaluate how much they should pay for. So on on hand is quite straightforward supply and demand, on the other is a long list of chained economical events, but still with concrete existence. In the end, earns more the one who have something more people want to see (and/or allow themselves to pay more for it). That's the "market" working.

 

[Denis]

@Denis, the "market" here is basically the consumers. Tournaments have direct interaction with the consumers, as they sell tickets, and also indirect relation with the consumers, as they sell TV rights, while TV sells advertising time which companies find their way to evaluate how much they should pay for. So on on hand is quite straightforward supply and demand, on the other is a long list of chained economical events, but still with concrete existence. In the end, earns more the one who have something more people want to see (and/or allow themselves to pay more for it). That's the "market" working.

I know the 'logic' of the market very well. But that does not mean its not a social construct. It's still all a product the imagination of human beings, a very effective one, because it allows us to organise ourselves. The overarching point though is that the market itself does not have an existence of its own, its just us making that stuff up.

 

[Federberg]

I know the 'logic' of the market very well. But that does not mean its not a social construct. It's still all a product the imagination of human beings, a very effective one, because it allows us to organise ourselves. The overarching point though is that the market itself does not have an existence of its own, its just us making that stuff up.

Sounds to me like you’re acknowledging the existence of the market. Of course it wouldn’t exist without the desire of humans to give it life. It obviously wouldn’t exist independently of us, but that doesn’t invalidate it’s reality

 

[mrzz]

I know the 'logic' of the market very well. But that does not mean its not a social construct. It's still all a product the imagination of human beings, a very effective one, because it allows us to organise ourselves. The overarching point though is that the market itself does not have an existence of its own, its just us making that stuff up.

..hmmm. That is a long discussion. I would use "concept within the science of economics" rather than "social construct", but I get your point, even if I do not agree with it (we could open another thread to discuss it). In the end, people interact with each other (in large scales), prices go up and down, things actually happen, and we need to give a name to it -- so we call it "market".

Anyway, back to the point, I guess we agree that people are willing to pay more to watch ATP matches than WTA ones, and that justifies part of the Djokovic argument. About players and tournaments, I am not so sure of it in principle (I see the apparent conflict, but there are arguments about it), but anyway I do not know the inner dynamic there so I refrain from judging it...

 

[Denis]

..hmmm. That is a long discussion. I would use "concept within the science of economics" rather than "social construct", but I get your point, even if I do not agree with it (we could open another thread to discuss it). In the end, people interact with each other (in large scales), prices go up and down, things actually happen, and we need to give a name to it -- so we call it "market".

Anyway, back to the point, I guess we agree that people are willing to pay more to watch ATP matches than WTA ones, and that justifies part of the Djokovic argument. About players and tournaments, I am not so sure of it in principle (I see the apparent conflict, but there are arguments about it), but anyway I do not know the inner dynamic there so I refrain from judging it...

Yes, agreed, it would be nice to know the proft/prize money ratio. I think with the slams its actually really out of proportion. All the news outlets are reporting that the slams are increasing the prize money so they suggest its weird to ask for an increase in prize money. But if lets say they are making 200 million profit, then only giving 10 million to the players, I can see why you would not be happy as a player.

 

[britbox]

^ I doubt any of the slams make anything like those numbers profit-wise, but I know Wimbledon largely invest back into the grass roots of the sport via the LTA... so if Djokovic is advocating a much larger share for the men then it'll probably have a knock on effect at grass roots level.... although, the article isn't specific about what he's proposing so I won't jump to any conclusions.