Wimbledon 2013

[djarvik]

They should earn as much as they can earn. There should not be a limit, or perceived limit of how much they "should" make. That is the key. If you don't support the activity - do not participate. Do not go to matches, do not watch TV, do not buy Nike etc... Consumer is in total control of how much money they make, and the fact they make so much only reinforces the consequential fact that people are willing to pay to be entertained, that much. My only problem is the structure of reimbursement. It is crazily uneven. I am not saying they all have to make more, I am saying the winners should make less if favor of more equal distribution of funds. Not to say that the winner should get same as 1st round exit of course

Rob is right, our dollar is our voting ticket. I follow this philosophy in life ALL THE TIME. I will pay more for stuff, just so I can choose where that dollar goes, to whom. I stopped buying food at US Open years ago, I just don't think its fair what they charge and I rather spend more at a restaurant there, where I can be properly served and seated then on stupid fast food. Surprisingly, the restaurant is NOT over priced. Just your normal mid level pricing you can find in most of them.

But the food court there is PACKED. ALL THE TIME! There are courts behind the food court and on the side of it, when I want to get there, I have to go all around the food court, no way to go through, tons on lines people with food etc...

So the price of food goes up every year...


Viera, I still don't think 133k is enough to live comfortably for a tennis player. US tennis player. Depends on where he lives, there are Taxes to deal with. Tickets to go to Europe are expensive. Hotels here in US are not cheap either. Food, house - mortgage, real-estate taxes, gas, car, car insurance, life insurance, house insurance....and the list goes on.

If you are a student and getting this much with no mortgage - then yeah, even though you will pay 40% in taxes, you will still have a nice amount left to live NICELY on and your expenses are minimal at that age. But for me, a family of 3 living in New York, it would be rather tight. It would not be all bad of course, but tight. I have a mortgage about 3.5k a month for my condo + 400/m maintenance. That's 49k a year just for that.

It is totally depends on where you live and what you perceive as comfort.

[djarvik]

If you were head of the tennis players how would you approach this? Would 40% be okay with you? Would 10% be ok?

If I were head of the tennis players, I would fight for 99%. If I were head of the tournaments, I would fight for 99%. Either way, it would be my job to get as much as possible, so that's what I would do. And no matter which side you are on, whatever you get is 100% fair. Why? Because if you don't like it, you can go get another job. If you choose to accept 1%, then that's your problem.

What number do I think is really fair? I guess, each person getting the same share of the revenue that they are responsible for generating. Even then, though, you'd probably have to give a little extra to some people. The guys ranked 500-1000 probably earn way more than they generate - but if they didn't exist, the whole tour would fall apart and no one would make anything. So, again, I say it comes down to what people are willing to accept.

Thanks you Rob, nicely put.

[Cro Morgan]

Grigor lost ....

Off topic!

[VillaJ100]

Janowitz serving epic bombs

[Ali-Iqb93]

F*** you Stackhovsky & F*** you Steve darcis

Ruined this whole wimbledon all for nothing

[BrushedBigJJ]

If you were head of the tennis players how would you approach this? Would 40% be okay with you? Would 10% be ok?

If I were head of the tennis players, I would fight for 99%. If I were head of the tournaments, I would fight for 99%. Either way, it would be my job to get as much as possible, so that's what I would do. And no matter which side you are on, whatever you get is 100% fair. Why? Because if you don't like it, you can go get another job. If you choose to accept 1%, then that's your problem.

What number do I think is really fair? I guess, each person getting the same share of the revenue that they are responsible for generating. Even then, though, you'd probably have to give a little extra to some people. The guys ranked 500-1000 probably earn way more than they generate - but if they didn't exist, the whole tour would fall apart and no one would make anything. So, again, I say it comes down to what people are willing to accept.

Well said. In our capatilistic world where the rich are always fine, I like how in sports the players can get a fair share of the money coming in. If its a huge pot of money and they get rich, some complain but I won't. In our world most workers don't have the negotiating leverage of sports players and they have to take whatever the "rich guy" feels like giving. Depending on your country/city your "choice" to move jobs varies.

[BrushedBigJJ]

F*** you Stackhovsky & F*** you Steve darcis

Ruined this whole wimbledon all for nothing

You can still root for your boy Murray.

[Ali-Iqb93]

I ll root for Del Porto,if he loses then Murray

[Corbon]

Jano's game is seriously on. He has like a +35 aggregate against a very solid Almagro.

Average first serve speed over 130 mph

Edit: Wins in straight sets, might be the best performance by any player so far.

[VillaJ100]

On this he will beat Murray, no question. You can't defend against that.

[Corbon]

If you were head of the tennis players how would you approach this? Would 40% be okay with you? Would 10% be ok?

If I were head of the tennis players, I would fight for 99%. If I were head of the tournaments, I would fight for 99%. Either way, it would be my job to get as much as possible, so that's what I would do. And no matter which side you are on, whatever you get is 100% fair. Why? Because if you don't like it, you can go get another job. If you choose to accept 1%, then that's your problem.

What number do I think is really fair? I guess, each person getting the same share of the revenue that they are responsible for generating. Even then, though, you'd probably have to give a little extra to some people. The guys ranked 500-1000 probably earn way more than they generate - but if they didn't exist, the whole tour would fall apart and no one would make anything. So, again, I say it comes down to what people are willing to accept.

Well said. In our capatilistic world where the rich are always fine, I like how in sports the players can get a fair share of the money coming in. If its a huge pot of money and they get rich, some complain but I won't. In our world most workers don't have the negotiating leverage of sports players and they have to take whatever the "rich guy" feels like giving. Depending on your country/city your "choice" to move jobs varies.

Tennis players as a unity are rather poorly organized because it's not a team sport. If they wanted to produce something like a lockout to push their demands, they would need to boycott the Slams. The problem isn't the sanctions that might hit them, it's the lower players who would step in and seize their chances. Something like French Open '74 where most (but not all) top players boycotted the tournament in support of Niki Pilic would never happen today with al the price money and points mumbo jumbo.

[Ali-Iqb93]

might be the best performance by any player so far.

Noo.. It was by federer in 1st round against hanescu

[Corbon]

Hanescu was weak though. Almagro played a decent game but ended up falling behind in set 2 and 3. Hit 15 aces in set 1 alone.

[Davey CaRnAgE]

On this he will beat Murray, no question. You can't defend against that.

Will he bollocks lol, get real!

Jerzy is good, but he isn't going to be beating Murray on Centre Court.

[Ali-Iqb93]

Murray is playing well.. He has got good chance this time..