The Prize money debate: A little historical perspective needed – By Matt Cronin

Written by: Staff on 20th December 2012

The Prize money debate: A little historical perspective needed - By Matt Cronin

epa02908269 A 9/11/01 logo is seen after being painted on the court inside Arthur Ashe Stadium as workers prepare the court for the first men's Seminfinal match between Novak Djokovic of Serbia and Roger Federer of Switzerland on the thirteenth day of the 2011 US Open Tennis Championship at the USTA National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows, New York, USA 10 September 2011. The US Open has been extended due to weather for the fourth year in a row and the men's final will now be played on 12 September 2011. EPA/JOHN G. MABANGLO |

By Matt Cronin

In 1968, when Arthur Ashe won the first-ever US Open the prize money for the men’s winner was $14,000, not a bad pay check at the time at it was the first year that prize money was even offered and it was not easy for the USTA to come up with $100,000 over all purse in the first place. On the women’s side, Virginia Wade collected a whopping $6,000 for her title run.

In 2013, the US Open will offer nearly $30 million in prize money. Officials have not decided how much will go to the winners as they are currently negotiating with the players about overall distribution, but it’s safe to say that it will not be less than the $1.9 million that the titlists earned in 2012.

Lets put this in perspective. Using a generous inflationary scale, $14,000 in 2012 would be worth about $98,000, as the 2012 dollar is worth about seven times more than it was in 1968. That’s means that 1968 prize money in 2013 terms would be $700,000.

Clearly then, tennis’ popularity and economic viability has advanced light years then – strictly by the numbers, more than 30 times.

So why all of sudden have the players (mostly the men) become up in arms about their so-called paltry share of the massive Grand Slam revenue pie? Perhaps because they have been convinced that they deserve more of the revenue stream even though all of the majors underwrite recreational tennis programs (which the ATP and WTA do not), or maybe because they don’t take into account how difficult and how long it took it took convince officials in the first place to allow pros to play with amateurs, and therefore begin the Open Era.

In fact, back in the early 1960s, the future of the game was at serious risk.

Jack Kramer, who is considered to be the godfather of men’s pro tennis, once ran a series of barnstorming pro tours. But in 1962, he took his promoter’s hat off, leaving it to others to see if they could make a profitable go of the pro tours, and maybe be able convince the International Tennis Federation to allow pro players to compete at the Grand Slams and other major tournaments.

Fewer and fewer folks were coming out to see the pros in makeshift arenas and fewer and fewer fans were turning their eyes to amateur tournaments, including the Grand Slams, as they were aware that the best of the pros weren’t matching up against the best of the amateurs.

“When Rod Laver turned pro on 1963, the interest in tennis had fallen so low that there was hardly any fanfare,” Kramer wrote in his book, “The Game.”

“Shamateurism” was still in place (where amateur tournaments would pay the players small wages under the table if at all), but it had lost its appeal to most standout players, as nearly every man who won a Slam or two and grew in popularity was turning pro in order to make a living (the women literally had nowhere to go).

“It was thoroughly rotten arrangement,” Kramer said. “Even at the time, everybody said it was rotten except for a few amateur officials who perpetuated it for their own amusement. In the shamateur days we were only athletic gigolos and the system was immoral and evil.”

Kramer, who won one Wimbledon and two US Open’s before turning pro and eventually taking over the tours, said he left the pro game because he was perceived as Public Enemy No. 1 and was being constantly being accused of ruining the sacrosanct amateur game. He was convinced by some of his friends in the sport, including French Tennis Federation chief Philippe Chatrier, that if he left, that there might be chance that the Grand Slams would budge.

That’s exactly what happened, but it did take six years, longer than Kramer and others had hoped for. The tide began to run in 1966, when Wimbledon chief Herman David approached Kramer, who was doing commentary for BBC at the time, and he told him that they were tired of putting on a second-class championship. The next summer, Wimbledon agreed to allow Kramer to put on an eight-man exhibition on the grounds that included popular pros Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad, among others. The event, which was televised by the BBC, turned out to be a huge hit, which was all the Wimbledon committee needed to know in order to push the ITF.

Chatrier got on board as did Australia’s Derek Hardwick, but the USTA was slow to bite on the concept, but after promoter Dave Dixon created a new pro tour in early 1968, with the “Handsome Eight” — including Wimbledon Champ John Newcombe, Tony Roche, Dennis Ralston, and Roger Taylor — the organization knew that almost all the amateur talent was gone and the writing was on the wall.

But convincing many old school USTA officials and sections wasn’t easy. In came Judge Robert Kelleher, the U.S. Davis Cup Captain in 1962-63 and the USTA president from 1967-68. Kelleher eventually obtained American approval of Open tennis after an exhausting yearlong campaign.

“Tennis was very small then,” said Kelleher, who passed away in June 2012. ” Our annual budget was about $100,000 and that mirrored how popular the sport was.”

Kelleher felt that the success of the then US Championships was at risk and despised Shamateurism on principle, so he crisscrossed the country preaching the gospel of Open tennis.

” I wasn’t going to be president of a crooked organized organization,” Kelleher said. “And I did meet with resistance. There were those who wants to keep things the way it was, but I was determined we were moving in the right direction and that I had the principled argument.”

Kelleher won the day, but had a small problem: how would the USTA come up with the prize money for the US Open, which it didn’t have in its coffers.

“We were in a tough spot,” said Kelleher. “Then Alistair Martin (who succeeded Kelleher as president), came up to me and said, ‘Here’s check for the 100,000 for the prize money.’ He was so much in support of the Open that he was wiling to subsidize it out of his own pocket. Fortunately we didn’t have to because I found some sponsors. But the offer was incredibly generous.”

Convincing the last amateurs to accept the idea of Open tennis was another matter, but it wasn’t that difficult.

Charlie Pasarell, who until recently was one of the owners of the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells and has been one of the most influential board members of the ATP Tour, hadn’t gone pro yet, but threw his support behind Kelleher – not that he wouldn’t have stayed an amateur if Open tennis has failed.

“Every player supported it, but like a lot of other guys I would have played for nothing anyway. I played because I loved it. When Kelleher talked to me, I said Bob – you absolutely have to do it, you have our support. Whatever you need and now go and get it done. Arthur Ashe was also supportive. We just wanted to play against the best in the world.”

While tennis has seen plenty of substantial changes over the years, most of them pale in comparison to what occurred in 1968 — when Laver walked back onto the lawns of Wimbledon for the first time in six year and defeated Roche for the title, and favorite son Ashe took out Tom Okker in New York. The sport boomed in popularity as the best was facing the best and getting paid for it – just like it was always supposed to be.

“It was momentous, it was the brave new world of tennis,” Pasarell said.

Some 44 years later, Roger Federer is said to be making close to $60 million per year off the court, while Maria Sharapova is taking in around 25 million off court.

Clearly neither of them need prize money to survive, but No. 1 Federer did have a fine year on court and took in an additional $8.5 million, while No. 2 Sharapova earned another $6.5 Million.

Contrast that to the No. 50 ranked player Albert Ramos ($578,000) and Anabel Medina ($550,000), or the No. 100 ranked players Ivo Karlovic ($345,000) and Eleni Daniilidou ($252,000).

Federer is making 16 times the amount that amount that Ramos is just on court, and Sharapova is making 12 times what Medina is making while striking balls. They have left Karlovic and Daniilidou in the financial dust.

To many casual fans, hearing that players whom they have rarely heard of are making over a quarter of a million dollars for being the 100th best performer in a knockout sport doesn’t seem to be too bad.

But to the players who have spend so much of their income on travel, coaches and physios, sometimes it isn’t enough, especially to the bottom rung players who have no endorsements and must frequently book pricey last minute flights as they are unsure of whether they can leave and they don’t know if they will win or lose.

Currently, the male players are working on prize money redistribution where the lower ranked competitors would receive larger increases than the top guys do. The likes of Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic — two of the ATP’s respected leaders off court — appear to have bought into the idea, but the ATP administration itself is less than flexible: while it continues to press the Grand Slams for a greater share of their revenues, its own officials recently told the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells that it was not allowed to give greater increases to the lower rounds than it would to the higher ones as it has some type of unwritten rule about proportional increases. Interestingly, Indian Wells tournament director Ray Moore, who has been involved with the sport since the dawn of the Open Era, had never heard of it.

Regardless of who wins these intramural battles, the important thing for officials and players to understand is the same thing that Kramer and Kelleher were preaching “back in the day”: a divided sport could rapidly become an unpopular, less than profitbale sport.

There appears to be enough prize money to go around for everyone.

We will soon see who is able to conceive of and execute a long-term vision, and who is stuck in their ways that they refuse to move off their position due to shot term thinking and end up hurting the sport that is so dear to their heart.

Topics: Arthur Ashe, Atp, Ken Rosewall, Laver, Lew Hoad, Matt Cronin, Pancho Gonzalez, Sports, tennis historical events, Tennis News, tennis prize money, US Open, Usta, Virgina wade, Wta