Djokovic vs ATP

[Denis]

Yes, I alluded to that earlier too, the fact that the GS actually seek to promote tennis. But I don't know how all of that is done, how much money there is and where it goes.

So we are all speculating because of lack of information. I guess it is in no-one's interest of those involved to disclose all of that, unfortunately.

 

[Federberg]

^ 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.

I suspect any sort of players union move would be more focused on ATP tournaments rather than ITF, that’s where the bulk of tournaments are after all. And the atp would be as good a venue for advocacy against the itf as any

 

[brokenshoelace]

Seems like a case of "first world problems" to me, but in fairness, we don't know what Novak is asking for specifically and the article makes it sound a little vague so who knows.

 

[Federberg]

Seems like a case of "first world problems" to me, but in fairness, we don't know what Novak is asking for specifically and the article makes it sound a little vague so who knows.

Apparently he denied a lot of the news in his post match press conference. All very mysterious

 

[Denis]

Apparently he denied a lot of the news in his post match press conference. All very mysterious

Kevin A was saying the intention was to get more for the 150-200 range players.

 

[Federberg]

Kevin A was saying the intention was to get more for the 150-200 range players.

That's good. I applaud that!

 

[Denis]

That's good. I applaud that!

Could be spin of course. It could be only one factor. Who knows! But yeah that sounds good, the more people can live of tennis the better. It's fun to do!

 

[Mastoor]

Actually, the journo who first wrote about this said that he thought Federer was against this, but he also called Novak greedy because he thought Novak asked for more money for himself, which proved not to be true entirely. No one knows what other players think because so far all of them refuse to talk about it.

 

[Federberg]

Actually, the journo who first wrote about this said that he thought Federer was against this, but he also called Novak greedy because he thought Novak asked for more money for himself, which proved not to be true entirely. No one knows what other players think because so far all of them refuse to talk about it.

I think I mentioned about Roger...

 

[Busted]

I saw this story on Tennis.com and had to laugh. Djokovic, at the end of his career, will be the top prize money earner by far. He benefitted from Federer and others on the player council pushing for bigger prize money in 2011 and 2012. So really, I just can't with him and his union. If I thought this was just about the lower-ranked players it wouldn't bother me so much. But the reality is - the big money goes to the finalist and winner - and that's only ever going to be handful of guys - Djokovic being one of them.

Also, the stuff about Djokovic not wanting the women to be paid the same? I'd have loved to have seen Andy Murray's reaction to that. Somehow I doubt Federer would be too thrilled with that idea either.

To me the real irony here is that Djokovic is stirring up the hornet's nest and he only has 2-3 years left on tour. He says he wants to play until his late 30s but no way is his body going to hold up.

One last thing - somebody needs to tell these tennis players they're NOT golf. At least in golf anybody can get hot at any time and win a tournament or a Slam. When a sport has been so dominated by 3-4 guys like tennis has? Seems to me like they're shooting themselves in the foot to start a union. They should be glad it's not merit-based pay increases like some employers have because most of these players would NEVER get a raise.

 

[Federberg]

I think it's perfectly valid for the players to set up their own union. It makes no sense to me for them to be part of a union with the tournament owners who have an opposing interest to them. If Novak explicitly talked about getting higher pay than women then that was politically naive. All he had to focus on was focusing on players interests, the rest would take care of itself. For the record, if men (right now) are commanding higher commercial interest then I don't see why they shouldn't be paid more. It seems anti-feminist to me for the women to depend on the men to get them higher prize money.

 

[Busted]

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.

I don't disagree about the ATP having a conflict of interest, but a union seems a little OTT. What else is that they'd like the union to do for them other than get them more prize money? Do they want to they want the union to also act as medical provider and/or pension fund? Those are a couple of typical functions of unions that could be harder to implement because tennis is an international sport. Laws are different in every country and some countries don't recognize unions. On the surface it may sound like a good idea, but underneath it would be really complicated to enforce.

 

[Busted]

Kevin A was saying the intention was to get more for the 150-200 range players.

Which is fine...except the bottom line is how do you do that without making the Slams and Masters tourneys provide prize money for the challenger events? Provide more prize money for the qualifying rounds? Unless they change the structure of tournaments - the number of players in each draw - how do they increase income for more players? Do they limit the number of tournaments a player can enter so that more guys have chance to make main draws at more events? And if they do that, then shouldn't they overhaul the points system, too? Basically I think it's more complicated than, "Hey, everybody. If you want to make more money - let's start a union!"

 

[Busted]

I think it's perfectly valid for the players to set up their own union. It makes no sense to me for them to be part of a union with the tournament owners who have an opposing interest to them. If Novak explicitly talked about getting higher pay than women then that was politically naive. All he had to focus on was focusing on players interests, the rest would take care of itself. For the record, if men (right now) are commanding higher commercial interest then I don't see why they shouldn't be paid more. It seems anti-feminist to me for the women to depend on the men to get them higher prize money.

Djokovic has said before that he doesn't think the women should be paid the same as the men at joint events because the men draw more spectators. He's not the only guy to have said that. And no Goran wasn't there cheerleading...

As I said in another comment - I don't think a union is the answer. At least not by itself. It leads to other issues with the structure of the game and the tournaments. I do think it's bad form for someone entering the tail-end of their career to shit-stir though...

 

[Denis]

I saw this story on Tennis.com and had to laugh. Djokovic, at the end of his career, will be the top prize money earner by far. He benefitted from Federer and others on the player council pushing for bigger prize money in 2011 and 2012. So really, I just can't with him and his union. If I thought this was just about the lower-ranked players it wouldn't bother me so much. But the reality is - the big money goes to the finalist and winner - and that's only ever going to be handful of guys - Djokovic being one of them.

Also, the stuff about Djokovic not wanting the women to be paid the same? I'd have loved to have seen Andy Murray's reaction to that. Somehow I doubt Federer would be too thrilled with that idea either.

To me the real irony here is that Djokovic is stirring up the hornet's nest and he only has 2-3 years left on tour. He says he wants to play until his late 30s but no way is his body going to hold up.

One last thing - somebody needs to tell these tennis players they're NOT golf. At least in golf anybody can get hot at any time and win a tournament or a Slam. When a sport has been so dominated by 3-4 guys like tennis has? Seems to me like they're shooting themselves in the foot to start a union. They should be glad it's not merit-based pay increases like some employers have because most of these players would NEVER get a raise.

Lol you have literally no idea what you are talking about. Where you there at the meeting? You are literally full of it. At least we’re honest in speculating.

 

[Federberg]

Which is fine...except the bottom line is how do you do that without making the Slams and Masters tourneys provide prize money for the challenger events? Provide more prize money for the qualifying rounds? Unless they change the structure of tournaments - the number of players in each draw - how do they increase income for more players? Do they limit the number of tournaments a player can enter so that more guys have chance to make main draws at more events? And if they do that, then shouldn't they overhaul the points system, too? Basically I think it's more complicated than, "Hey, everybody. If you want to make more money - let's start a union!"

I think you're taking the word union a bit too literally

 

[Federberg]

Djokovic has said before that he doesn't think the women should be paid the same as the men at joint events because the men draw more spectators. He's not the only guy to have said that. And no Goran wasn't there cheerleading...

As I said in another comment - I don't think a union is the answer. At least not by itself. It leads to other issues with the structure of the game and the tournaments. I do think it's bad form for someone entering the tail-end of their career to shit-stir though...

As I said it was foolish of him (if it's true) to talk about that. Better to focus on the more politically palatable issue

 

[Federberg]

Djokovic has said before that he doesn't think the women should be paid the same as the men at joint events because the men draw more spectators. He's not the only guy to have said that. And no Goran wasn't there cheerleading...

As I said in another comment - I don't think a union is the answer. At least not by itself. It leads to other issues with the structure of the game and the tournaments. I do think it's bad form for someone entering the tail-end of their career to shit-stir though...

I don't get it. When exactly should players become more politically active. It makes perfect sense when he's acquired credibility and authority to advocate the way he feels. I respect the fact he's trying to leave the game better for other players. That's exactly what people like Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King did

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't disagree about the ATP having a conflict of interest, but a union seems a little OTT. What else is that they'd like the union to do for them other than get them more prize money? Do they want to they want the union to also act as medical provider and/or pension fund? Those are a couple of typical functions of unions that could be harder to implement because tennis is an international sport. Laws are different in every country and some countries don't recognize unions. On the surface it may sound like a good idea, but underneath it would be really complicated to enforce.

The union here is not so much for medical provider or pension fund (although they could also be discussed at some point). The primary purpose of the union (say, UTP union of tennis players) would be to negotiate with the tournaments (ATT, association of tennis tournament organizers) and the TOU (tennis organizing unit) for what they think are good for themselves. Of course all of these are fictitious entities as of now. UTP should worry only about tennis palyer's interests. ATT should worry only about tournament organizer's interests. TOU, should worry only about promoting the game of tennis and making rules related to conditions of contest, ranking, doping etc. With clear separation of concerns, there will be more integrity and no conlict of interest.

 

[Moxie]

The union here is not so much for medical provider or pension fund (although they could also be discussed at some point). The primary purpose of the union (say, UTP union of tennis players) would be to negotiate with the tournaments (ATT, association of tennis tournament organizers) and the TOU (tennis organizing unit) for what they think are good for themselves. Of course all of these are fictitious entities as of now. UTP should worry only about tennis palyer's interests. ATT should worry only about tournament organizer's interests. TOU, should worry only about promoting the game of tennis and making rules related to conditions of contest, ranking, doping etc. With clear separation of concerns, there will be more integrity and no conlict of interest.

This is smart and concise. One issue that has come up has been when tournaments make changes, like in surface, and players have had no say, which they've objected to. I also do think that spreading the wealth more is smart...something that I think Roger and Rafa got in place a bit, when they the players' spokespeople. And yes, why NOT some medical and pension help, when they can figure it out? Young people give up some of their education, often, and their time to start earlier in second careers, to tennis. Injuries hold up players and end young careers. It wouldn't be bad if there were a fund they could apply to for help. Everyone seems to be on board with ideas that keep the field full of talent and competitive. It costs a lot of money to be a professional tennis player.

One thing I would hope is that it would be one union, not one for men and one for women.