No Nadal in Argentina

[Fiero425]

The problem is being unable to play is not all that cut and right. It would
vary with the amount at stake. The reports during all these times after AO
was certainly promising and it did not quite indicate a sheer inability.
I guess the appearance fee was probably not a million dollars, may be it
was only about 250,00 dollars and so it was not worth playing with
less than 100% fitness.

I wish there was some rule which would make all these apperance fees
given to players public.

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.

I think they shouldn't get any appearance fees personally unless they're trying to bring tennis to Siberia or outer Mongolia. These guys get paid enough as it is given they usually go deep in most tournaments and get tons from sponsorship.

I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

You talking about Nadal? Wasn't it last year that he and a couple other players told Queens to "buzz off" due to an entertainment tax on their prize winnings? My memory's going, but will try to look it up! Just behind the scene gossip but sure it happened recently! :blush:

Nah, I didn't actually mean him even if it sounds that way, I just kept on with the Halle and Wimbledon example seeing as the players generally feel they need to play a grass tune up prior to Wimbledon (besides Novak who never does) but yeah he played Halle last year for tax reasons. But aside from that, if they're going to play anyway, why pay them. And all the top guys feel they deserve fees so Nadal is no more greedy than the rest of them.

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa snubs Queen's Club tournament after accepting £750k payday in Halle
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2047957/Rafael-Nadal-snubs-Queens-Club-tournament.html#ixzz2shyHUaW8

Oct. 11, 2011

Gerry Weber’s cash has lured Rafael Nadal away from his traditional Wimbledon warm-up at Queen’s Club next year.
Sportsmail understands that Nadal has accepted around £750,000 to play in the Gerry Weber Open at Halle, missing the AEGON Championships, staged immediately after the French Open.
Chris Kermode, tournament director of the London event, admitted: ‘Rafa will not be with us next year.

 

[Moxie]

^ If they paid Rafa to come to Halle, since he was disinclined to pay the UK tax, anyway, then they're dumb.

 

[isabelle]

Ferrer accepted Buenos Aires's WC to replace Nadal

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have nothing against appearance fee. If a tournament is willing to burn the cash,
let them do so. If a player could demand whatever he wants and gets away with it,
let him go as well. After all it is free market economy.

However, I am of the opinion that there should be a full disclosure of these
appearance fee business and there should be transparency.

 

[Moxie]

I have nothing against appearance fee. If a tournament is willing to burn the cash,
let them do so. If a player could demand whatever he wants and gets away with it,
let him go as well. After all it is free market economy.

However, I am of the opinion that there should be a full disclosure of these
appearance fee business and there should be transparency.

I'm for transparency in many things, particularly where they involve public policy, and when our funds (as taxpayers, for example,) are involved. However, if we agree that there's nothing nefarious about appearance fees, I don't see how it serves us for appearance fees to be made public. Would we enjoy a tournament less if the top players seemed to show up for $$ rather than the love of the game? (IMO, no.) Would we think less of a tournament if players only go because they're paid big fees? (Maybe.) I'm happy to hear your argument, but it's not clear to me why we need to know specifics on fees.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I have nothing against appearance fee. If a tournament is willing to burn the cash,
let them do so. If a player could demand whatever he wants and gets away with it,
let him go as well. After all it is free market economy.

However, I am of the opinion that there should be a full disclosure of these
appearance fee business and there should be transparency.

I'm for transparency in many things, particularly where they involve public policy, and when our funds (as taxpayers, for example,) are involved. However, if we agree that there's nothing nefarious about appearance fees, I don't see how it serves us for appearance fees to be made public. Would we enjoy a tournament less if the top players seemed to show up for $$ rather than the love of the game? (IMO, no.) Would we think less of a tournament if players only go because they're paid big fees? (Maybe.) I'm happy to hear your argument, but it's not clear to me why we need to know specifics on fees.

No, it would not change anything from the fan's perspective as you see. But, that is not
my point.

If it becomes open, there will not be any shady practices and deals and it would really
become a true free market economy. Transparency would make sure that neither players
not tournaments play games (no, I am not talking about tennis games).

To make it understandable, if you were to buy a house or car and one of the
conditions is that you should never reveal to anyone how much you paid and the
seller also would never reveal to anyone how much he got, how would it look like?
Do you think it would be good for the economy, innovation and productivity?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ferrer accepted Buenos Aires's WC to replace Nadal

May be Rafa gave 25% of his appearance fee to Ferru along with a promise of one set in
the next match they play and asked him to go there to substitute for him.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sometimes appearance fees are revealed, but I'm not sure what that would change. I agree with what Kieran says: if he doesn't feel fit, he shouldn't play.


I don't really agree that there "shouldn't" be appearance fees. But the choice to offer them is up to the tournament. The different choice to players is whether that draws them to play. They need to make their own decisions about health and scheduling. However, as to the tournaments, top tier players don't just sell tickets, they draw TV exposure and ad revenue. If the tournament benefits, why shouldn't the player who is lining the coffers of, and increasing the profile of that tournament? I agree that the top guys already make loads of money, but it's basic capitalism. The price and value of goods and services exchanged is determined by the parties. I doubt appearance fees are paid to required events/top-tier tournaments, like Majors, MS1000s, YEC. However, where elite/top-10 players have choices to make, in 250s or 500s, I can understand why the tournament would want to incentivize them.

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

You talking about Nadal? Wasn't it last year that he and a couple other players told Queens to "buzz off" due to an entertainment tax on their prize winnings? My memory's going, but will try to look it up! Just behind the scene gossip but sure it happened recently! :blush:

Nah, I didn't actually mean him even if it sounds that way, I just kept on with the Halle and Wimbledon example seeing as the players generally feel they need to play a grass tune up prior to Wimbledon (besides Novak who never does) but yeah he played Halle last year for tax reasons. But aside from that, if they're going to play anyway, why pay them. And all the top guys feel they deserve fees so Nadal is no more greedy than the rest of them.

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa snubs Queen's Club tournament after accepting £750k payday in Halle
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2047957/Rafael-Nadal-snubs-Queens-Club-tournament.html#ixzz2shyHUaW8

Oct. 11, 2011

Gerry Weber’s cash has lured Rafael Nadal away from his traditional Wimbledon warm-up at Queen’s Club next year.
Sportsmail understands that Nadal has accepted around £750,000 to play in the Gerry Weber Open at Halle, missing the AEGON Championships, staged immediately after the French Open.
Chris Kermode, tournament director of the London event, admitted: ‘Rafa will not be with us next year.

By the way, to get the appearance fee don't they have to appear at least.
How come Nadal pocketed 750,000 pounds and did not show up in Halle? I really
doubt whether the organizers of a tournament would be stupid enough to pay
750,000 pounds to someone just for the promise of appearing. Does any one know
whether this really happened?

 

[Moxie]

I realize all the tv revenue, etc and a mickey mouse 250 that they never played before for a once off appearance fee is one thing, but when they demand them each year it's a bit much. For example, tune up events before slams, say Halle or Queens...the top players usually choose to use these as practice leading up to Wimbledon anyway so regardless of fees they're going to play. That's why it seems mad to pay them anything seeing as they're going to be there anyway. It's just greed. As I said, they're going to play them anyway as they're the only 2 options available for grass practice against decent opponents leading up to Wimbledon, so why pay them a cent. The tv revenue is already sorted seeing as they'll be playing regardless of fee, so actually, the tournament organizers are pissing their money down the drain. They'll sell loads of tickets and merchandise anyway without paying the players in question anything.

The only exception would be if someone played Queens all their career and then suddenly changed to Halle and felt they "deserved" a fee.

You talking about Nadal? Wasn't it last year that he and a couple other players told Queens to "buzz off" due to an entertainment tax on their prize winnings? My memory's going, but will try to look it up! Just behind the scene gossip but sure it happened recently! :blush:

Nah, I didn't actually mean him even if it sounds that way, I just kept on with the Halle and Wimbledon example seeing as the players generally feel they need to play a grass tune up prior to Wimbledon (besides Novak who never does) but yeah he played Halle last year for tax reasons. But aside from that, if they're going to play anyway, why pay them. And all the top guys feel they deserve fees so Nadal is no more greedy than the rest of them.

EXCLUSIVE: Rafa snubs Queen's Club tournament after accepting £750k payday in Halle
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2047957/Rafael-Nadal-snubs-Queens-Club-tournament.html#ixzz2shyHUaW8

Oct. 11, 2011

Gerry Weber’s cash has lured Rafael Nadal away from his traditional Wimbledon warm-up at Queen’s Club next year.
Sportsmail understands that Nadal has accepted around £750,000 to play in the Gerry Weber Open at Halle, missing the AEGON Championships, staged immediately after the French Open.
Chris Kermode, tournament director of the London event, admitted: ‘Rafa will not be with us next year.

By the way, to get the appearance fee don't they have to appear at least.
How come Nadal pocketed 750,000 pounds and did not show up in Halle? I really
doubt whether the organizers of a tournament would be stupid enough to pay
750,000 pounds to someone just for the promise of appearing. Does any one know
whether this really happened?

I think you mean they DO have to appear, at least. I read that article twice. I don't think they get the money if they don't show up. (It's an "appearance fee," after all.) I think you misread.

 

[Moxie]

I have nothing against appearance fee. If a tournament is willing to burn the cash,
let them do so. If a player could demand whatever he wants and gets away with it,
let him go as well. After all it is free market economy.

However, I am of the opinion that there should be a full disclosure of these
appearance fee business and there should be transparency.

I'm for transparency in many things, particularly where they involve public policy, and when our funds (as taxpayers, for example,) are involved. However, if we agree that there's nothing nefarious about appearance fees, I don't see how it serves us for appearance fees to be made public. Would we enjoy a tournament less if the top players seemed to show up for $$ rather than the love of the game? (IMO, no.) Would we think less of a tournament if players only go because they're paid big fees? (Maybe.) I'm happy to hear your argument, but it's not clear to me why we need to know specifics on fees.

No, it would not change anything from the fan's perspective as you see. But, that is not
my point.

If it becomes open, there will not be any shady practices and deals and it would really
become a true free market economy. Transparency would make sure that neither players
not tournaments play games (no, I am not talking about tennis games).

To make it understandable, if you were to buy a house or car and one of the
conditions is that you should never reveal to anyone how much you paid and the
seller also would never reveal to anyone how much he got, how would it look like?
Do you think it would be good for the economy, innovation and productivity?

Frankly, I don't think your illustration is a good one. If I were to buy a house or car in a private sale, no one needs to know the terms. But no matter. As I bolded above, I think you still believe that appearance fees are "shady." I have no problem if you feel that way, but, as far as I'm concerned, you've yet to make a good case as to why. And I've even offered you options.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK. So, he did not pocket the 750,000 pounds without even showing up.

He could have done like Fed. Fed showed up in Gastad and lost diligently to
get his cow (and cash cow).

 

[Moxie]

OK. So, he did not pocket the 750,000 pounds without even showing up.

He could have done like Fed. Fed showed up in Gastad and lost diligently to
get his cow (and cash cow).

But then I really don't see your point. They're incentivized by a tournament to show up. That's a decision by the tournament. The players also make decisions about their own health and schedule. No one pays them if they don't show up. You're acting like you're incensed that there's even such a thing as an appearance pay-day, and now you're saying they should show up, just to collect it? I'm having a really hard time pegging your position here.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No, I was just joking (about Fed losing just to get the cow). As I said before, I have no
problem with appearance fee at all (except that I want it to be made public).

 

[Moxie]

Except you have yet to explain why making it public would benefit anyone.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Except you have yet to explain why making it public would benefit anyone.

For example, a tournament can say to Nadal saying I will give you
100,000 dollars appearance fee and that is what I gave to Fed last year
for playing in this. Nadal perhaps accepts it. He has no way of verifying
whether it is correct. Then he later finds out that they paid Fed 1000,000.
He might feel that had he known this he would have negotiated a better
price or probably would not have played. All of the above (fictitious
phenomena) will not happen if the appearance fee was made public.
I am not saying they should make it public while they are negotiating.
All I am saying is that once a deal has been finalized between the
player and the tournament, it should be made public.

Finally, there is also the issue of players paying taxes on this
amount. If things are kept secret, there is always the possibility
of tax evasion. Now, you might say that the tournament and the
player would be willing to disclose this to the government, but
not to fans.

But, I think fans have a right to know as they are in a sense
supporting the whole things. It is the fans who are making it
profitable for the tournaments and for the players. What is wrong
if they know if how "their money" is spent?

For example somebody principled might take the position
that I will never go to a tournament that pays appearance fees.
Right now such a person has no way of knowing exactly what
is going on.

 

[Front242]

There's no transparency at many things in life unfortunately and all you need look at is the dishonesty in workplaces where salaries are often negotiated with some people paid way more than they should be for doing the same job as someone else or people getting undue higher payrises because of favouritism. Because of this there's zero chance of appearance fees ever being made public. Different rules for different people. It's $h1t but it's sadly all a part of life.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

BTW, just for clarification, I am not saying everybody should be paid the same appearance
fee. Obviously, the bigger name and popularity you have, you will command more by
way of appearance fee. I see nothing wrong with it.

All I am saying is make it public, once the deal is finalized. I am not requiring uniformity.
Knowing that player X was paid $1000,000 appearance fee, player Y may still accept
$100,000 appearance fee as he may think he is not worth that much. As long as the
tournament and the player agree, it can be any amount. Once an agreement is reached,
it should be made public so that both players and tournaments can use them in
future negotiations.

 

[Moxie]

There's no transparency at many things in life unfortunately and all you need look at is the dishonesty in workplaces where salaries are often negotiated with some people paid way more than they should be for doing the same job as someone else or people getting undue higher payrises because of favouritism. Because of this there's zero chance of appearance fees ever being made public. Different rules for different people. It's $h1t but it's sadly all a part of life.

Too true..

 

[britbox]

I don't think they should have to disclose appearance fees - and if anything I think it would be more likely to create shady "under the table" deals rather than less.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think they should have to disclose appearance fees - and if anything I think it would be more likely to create shady "under the table" deals rather than less.

Interesting point, but I would say this is only a danger if there was an effort to "regulate" appearance fees, which seems impossible, or to forbid them, which then would drive them underground, as you suggest. Again, I don't see who benefits from knowing what the appearance fees are. But sometimes we DO know, and we know they're very high. We've understood that that is how Asia is building a significant swing, with the assistance of the ITF, which is putting higher-level tournaments there to increase presence in that (burgeoning) market. What is mysterious about any of that?