Strike action at AO13?

I just read that bit from Murray's interview.

Q. There's been a lot of talk about the possible Australian Open boycott over the past couple of days. Is that something the players feel might be necessary?

ANDY MURRAY: Yeah, I mean, I think it came from the player meeting we had on Friday. The player meeting wasn't ‑ I don't know the word ‑ but when we went through the player meeting at the Aussie Open, it was pretty brutal. You know, everyone was speaking up. The whole tour was kind of together; they still are. There have been some changes made with regard to the Grand Slam prize money. But, yeah, I mean, the majority of the players want to see a change in the Grand Slams. You know, who knows what's going to happen. I mean, I hope it doesn't come down to that. I think that's bad for everybody, really.



Does anyone knows more about that?

I read that Nadal quit the players council cause Federer did not want to lead for the lower ranked players (unlike Nadal). However I also read that Fed is leading the fight and the boycott now.

A bit contradictory statements.

I read that players had a meeting just before USO and basically want more for the lower ranked players at early rounds.
Apparently, Wimbledon's the only slam that actually did something and increased prize money this year in that respect.
AO is allegedly the worst despite the highest prize money given to champions.
the players are irked but the fact that they only get a cut of 20% of the tournaments' profit.
If they could push the figure to 30% and spread it among the early rounds and qualifiers, that would be great.

Is it true that slams retain 80% of the profit and throw the 20% coin to the players? Strange really. Now wonder they could afford the "equal pay" to the Ladies.

I must say the money golfers make is considerably larger than tennis players despite the much tougher competition in the racquet sport.

Tenez wrote:Is it true that slams retain 80% of the profit and throw the 20% coin to the players? Strange really. Now wonder they could afford the "equal pay" to the Ladies.

I must say the money golfers make is considerably larger than tennis players despite the much tougher competition in the racquet sport.

I still find it strange, but there is no question that in the US golf is significantly more popular as a spectator sport than tennis.

I do not know if it is 80/20 but I seem to remember reading somewhere a few years back that tennis was paying a relatively small portion of money to the players. I think that comparison was against maybe US football or basketball, not against golf. Also, do not remember the detail so do not know if it was really an apples-to-apples comparison or if the comparison was a bit slanted just to create a good story.

Tenez wrote:I just read that bit from Murray's interview.

Q. There's been a lot of talk about the possible Australian Open boycott over the past couple of days. Is that something the players feel might be necessary?

Does anyone knows more about that?

I read that Nadal quit the players council cause Federer did not want to lead for the lower ranked players (unlike Nadal). However I also read that Fed is leading the fight and the boycott now.

A bit contradictory statements.

Actually, I don't think Fed did not want to lead for the lower ranked players as he is always there to defend them (unlike Nadal or even Murray at the time of the previous potential strike, where it was to defend themselves/the top "physical" players...), but he does not like to expose in public everything that is said inside the ATP council as he'd rather have the problems solved via negotiations a huis clos... As long as Fed does not say publicly the strike is happening, it is still a potential strike in the case where the AO does not share more of it's revenues with the players, especially for the first rounds eliminations...

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:Is it true that slams retain 80% of the profit and throw the 20% coin to the players? Strange really. Now wonder they could afford the "equal pay" to the Ladies.

I must say the money golfers make is considerably larger than tennis players despite the much tougher competition in the racquet sport.

I still find it strange, but there is no question that in the US golf is significantly more popular as a spectator sport than tennis.

Golf is a bit like F1. They force it upon us cause it addresses a wealthy segment of the population with a big buying power, or addresses everybody with a car (F1) as car manufacturers and other sponsors try to get us interested.

sphairistike wrote:Actually, I don't think Fed did not want to lead for the lower ranked players as he is always there to defend them (unlike Nadal or even Murray at the time of the previous potential strike, where it was to defend themselves/the top "physical" players...), but he does not like to expose in public everything that is said inside the ATP council as he'd rather have the problems solved via negotiations a huis clos... As long as Fed does not say publicly the strike is happening, it is still a potential strike in the case where the AO does not share more of it's revenues with the players, especially for the first rounds eliminations...

Yes I see more something like that though I can imagine Fed being also concerned for slams as they typically use that profit money to re-invest in their tennis federations (the FO and WImby certainly do). But then it creates an unfair advantage as players whom countries run slams tend to do better than the others....which ironically is not the case of Federer.

In any case it's unlike Federer to consider tennis only from the top players perspective. Be it for the shorter year or 2 year ranking, he was fighting for the lower ranked players against his own interest....unlike others....

I don't think it will go far enough for a real strike by the players. There will surely come out a plan. AO has seen huge rise in its viewer ship and perhaps the most among all Grand slams. Increase in prize money isn't much difficult solution to arrive.

Yes but this happens now when everybody feels economic pressure, even slams.

Tenez wrote:They force it upon us cause it addresses a wealthy segment of the population

I am not sure about that. I do not have any hard data but my impression has been that – in the US – the population playing and following tennis is more “elitist” than their golf counterparts. Playing a round or two of golf per week on public courses is not cost prohibitive for the majority of people and golf is quite popular across many segments of population. My feel is (though I could be wrong) that tennis is more skewed towards the wealthier segments.

I'd be surprised if golf was cheaper than playing tennis. It's certainly not the case here. I know golf has gone a long way since but just buying the equipment is probably twice as much as least. An hour of tennis a week on public courts is £5 (for 2 player as much as for 4) in London. Can Golf in the US beat that?

I imagine golf is more expensive than tennis. But - in the US - it is cheap enough that I do not think the cost has much impact on the demographic profile of golfing population. Of course, there is an exclusive private club segment of the golf world that is ultra expensive. But that is worlds apart from how most golfers here get to experience golf.

Tennis is really struggling in the US, especially as a spectator sport. A part of it is that there are no Americans at the very top of the sport - at least not in the men's tennis. But I do not think that is all there is to it. Even during the 90s when Americans were dominating the popularity was largely on decline.

Strike is a very public and suicidal move, IMVHO. A negotiated behind-the-doors settlement with a publicly visible difference in revenue sharing is a much better solution, for the players and rest of the industry that depends on Tennis as a sport.

Whether it is larger or smaller than Golf is irrelevant.

Agree on both counts. Everything else being equal, negotiated settlement much better than a strike for everyone involved. Agree, golf-vs-tennis is irrelevant for the main topic, but it piques my interest just because I find it so bizarre that golf can outdo tennis in popularity. What is it that golf does better than tennis? Or even outside of golf, why is tennis's popularity declining so dramatically in the US? Or maybe it is just the normal state for tennis and it only seems so bad to me because I am using the boom years of the 1980s as the measuring stick?