ATP may boycott Australian Open 2013.

[GOAUS!]

Heard it on SEN first, they had some tennis commentator on saying how the players may walk out due not not getting a large enough precentage of the profit that the Aus Open makes. This article sums it up well http://www.10sballs.com/2012/08/24/atp-might-boycott-2013-australian-open-for-more-prize-money/.

Could this really happen? Moving it to Dubai? They're not going to get the crowds there, that's for sure.

 

[matt_897]

Can't find any articles about it in any major news sites. I'll take this as a rumour for now. Can't see it happening, if there is an issue it will be sorted out, the Australian Open is making too much money for soemthing like this to happen.

 

[BORK]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis...ian-open-boycott/story-fndkzym4-1226458484400 It has emerged.

 

[Selective Retention]

This looks like a pretty hollow threat on this occassion but realistically we are always going to be in the weakest position re retaining our slam.

We saw with the world cup bid what middle eastern oil money can achieve, even if it is to the detriment of the sport as a whole.

China is on the horizon as well.

 

[Slax]

Whilst everyone looks at what the top 10-20 players on the tour make the fact is for those below 50 it is a very tough existence. When you consider that you need to travel all aroundt he world and on top of that need to pay for a part time coach there really isn't a lot of money left it you don't get past the first couple of rounds, which is a problem if you are not seeded. I think they should go back to the players and say ok we're freezing the prizemoney for semi-finalists and finalists, but will increase the money for 1st & 2nd round losers. They either have to agree and say its a good move or look like complete twats.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

Case of the top players going into bat for the lesser lights. Last years' winners each pocketed 2.3M. The Australian Open paid out the most prizemoney last year of all the slams. If Federer and co are serious about looking after the lesser lights, rather than instigating a boycott of an event that has been very very good to him and his fellow top players, maybe get the round of 32s to each give back $1,000, round of 16s to give back 2k each, QFs to give back 4k each, SFs to give back 8k, the runner-up to give back 16k and the champion to give back 32K. That's 176K in total. So if you win the event, the most you can expect to repay is 47K from your 2.3M. The 176K collected will be pooled and distributed to the 64 first round losers, which averages out to $2,750 extra per first round loser. Will never happen of course, the top players are happy to go into bat for the lesser lights and fight for extra pay on their behalf, just as long as the money is not coming out of their pockets.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

Here's the article from TA about this, http://www.tennis.com.au/news/2012/08/27/australian-open-boycott-not-on (I'm not sure I've linked it correctly). There's also an interview with Todd Woodbridge and I like what he says, its not really the grand slams, its the other tournies, i.e. surely its a bit tight to be taking it out on AO? Although if you think of how often someone ranked between 100-200 actually plays ATP events, it is not that often. I remember when I was looking up a couple of results for Matosevic at challenger level and seeing that the first round loser of particular tournament was going to get about 700 euros. That's chicken feed, at least at a low level ATP tournie (and even WTA for that matter) you get a couple of grand. I.e. I think they should even have a look at these ITF level tournnies, after all, you still need "fodder" for the top players.

 

[Warsaw]

So we're getting the short end of the stick here, if this actually eventuates, because we're first cab off the rank?

Don't we offer the most in terms of prizemoney for the winners compared to the others Slams. Seems like the logical solution would be shave some off from the top.

 

[AM]

Storm in a teacup.

 

[hamohawk1]

i don't get it. number 80 in the world doesn't bring in the crowds and thus money to pay for the desired money. i get things are hard, but it is like any individual trying to obtain a decent paying job it jut isn't easy. and to reward somewhat of a mediocrity is a bit perplexing, notice a lot of individuals from different countries are now at the top echelons of tennis which never recieved the resources and such. maybe this will just stop some players from reaching their full potential

 

[matt_897]

Think about it, you still need these lower ranks to fill the tournaments, keep the competion going etc. It's the same in any of the major sports but they seem to be paid a lot more have more of their expenses covered and don't have to travel from country to country every week.