Why There's Nothing Wrong with Big Prize-Money Disparities in Tennis

Professional tennis has an elitist problem.

At least that's what some would like you to think.

As prize money climbs to all-time highs, so have grumblings about disparities. There's talk of a growing gap between the haves and have-nots. Earnings for the best overshadow the crumbs left for the rest. The relationship between top-ranked and lower-ranked players is akin to that of medieval lords and peasants.

This chatter about prize-money disparity is a bunch of nonsense. Worse, it’s gaining momentum and developing into a movement without a cause. 

Recent articles published by Tennis.com, Grantland, FiveThirtyEight, the BBC and other media outlets, addressed this growing “inequity” that looms over the sport.

On the surface, it seems true. Top players are making more money than ever. Many players on secondary tours barely make enough money to get by. 

However, dig deeper. What you will find is an open and equitable system with minor issues and no serious problem.

The disparity in prize money has more to do with players who refuse to give up on their dreams, than it does with inequitable pay. Compensation for tennis players is about as fair as it gets in professional sports. Prize money is announced prior to tournaments and dished out according to place finished.

When Serena Williams lost her opening match at the 2012 French Open, she received the same amount as all other first-round losers. Had she received an early-round bounce bonus, that would have been inequitable. 

Whether a Grand Slam or a minor tournament, the pay structure for ATP and WTA tournaments remains the same. The last player standing takes home the biggest check. The further you advance, the bigger your check gets.

The Grand Slams offer the most money. Of course there are obstacles to qualifying for Slams or getting one of those wild cards divvied out to the chosen few. Those are competition, not compensation issues. 

Darron Cummings/Associated Press

The ATP recently announced a significant long-term prize-money increase. Overall compensation is expected to rise to $135 million by 2018. The biggest increase will come at the Masters 1000 level, where prize money is set to increase by 11 percent. Meanwhile, prize money will increase by only three percent at the 250 level.

Tournaments at the 250 level are slightly above those at Challenger events on the ATP Tour. Challenger and Futures Tour events are similar to minor league baseball.

Someone in the minor leagues is considered a professional baseball player just like players in the MLB. Whether through lack of luck, effort or talent, the minor leaguer has yet to achieve the status of the major leaguer. Like the minor leaguer, a tennis player on the Futures Tour collects less money along with more stories about the hardships of chasing a dream. 

That's just the way it works. The minor leaguer may get a shot, just like the qualifier. This perceived gap between the haves and have-nots in tennis is the natural process of cream rising to the top. 

However, some journalists have decided to depict tennis as some sort of cast system of the elite standing on the backs of the downtrodden. In a Grantland article, "The Future is Bleak,"  published in February, 2014, Paul Wachter writes that "of all the professional sports, tennis is the cruelest to its none stars."

He paints this sad picture of two ATP players, Evan King and Jason Jung, respectively ranked No. 590 and No. 379 at the time. Wachter compares their meager earnings to that of fellow former Michigan athlete Trey Burke of the Utah Jazz.

Ridiculous. 

First, NBA players have a union and a collective bargaining agreement with the league. Second, the NBA is a team sport. Third, the ATP and WTA are tours, similar to the LPGA and PGA.

Besides, Burke was the ninth player drafted in 2013. He was considered one of the top rookies, not the 200th-best. The NBA draft has two rounds and includes 60 players. The 200th-best rookie in 2013 is most likely not in the NBA. 

Burke's salary and status are more closely relatable to that of Eugenie Bouchard, who made her professional debut in 2013. Bouchard, who made it to the semifinals in three Grand Slams in 2014, has earned $3,726,035 in her short career. Burke reportedly earns about $2.4 million a year. 

Alexander Hassenstein/Getty Images

Touring is costly. Coaches, physical therapists and trainers don't come cheap. However, playing on tour is a career choice similar to ones made by others. There are career actors giving brilliant performances at playhouses all over the world. Many feel fortunate to walk away with $300 to $500 a week. It would be nice if actors at the Portland Playhouse could earn as much as two-time Academy Award winners Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks.

But they don't. 

Last month, tennis writer Steve Tignor drew contrast between the high-life on the International Premier Tennis League compared to the low points of being on the ITF's Futures Tour. The Tennis.com article, "The Jet Set, and the No-Net Set," featured pictures of top players, including Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, Tomas Berdych and Gael Monfils, smiling as they posed for selfies.

Most of the top players participating in the inaugural IPTL short season, reportedly received $1 million, win or lose. Meanwhile, players on the Futures tour endured practice courts with cracks and torn nets. 

Outrageous optics for sure, however, those pictures represent tournament mismanagement instead of inequity in pay. Those conditions are unsuitable for recreational players. 

A few weeks ago, Carl Bialik wrote an article for ESPN's FiveThirtyEight titled "Tennis Has an Income Inequality Problem."

Similar to Wachter, Bialik described a bleak picture of life on tour for lower-ranked players. He quoted ITF's Director of Pro Tennis, Kris Dent, about efforts to increase compensation for players on the lesser tours.

According to Bialik, the ITF commissioned outside researchers to conduct a survey on players' income. The study surveyed 7,605 players and discovered that only six percent of women and five percent of men who responded said their prize money in their most recent year of professional play covered their expenses.

Clive Brunskill/Getty Images

More than 7,000 players? That's part of the problem. There are fewer than 2,000 players in the NFL. The NBA has fewer than 500. Considering how tennis television ratings stack up against the NBA and NFL, the ATP and WTA can't afford to make significant increases in pay for untelevised and unattended tournaments.

The issue is expenses. Tennis is an international sport played on various continents. Travel expenses make it difficult for younger players to remain on tour.

Dustin Brown, a journeyman currently ranked No. 98, used to live out of a van that he used to drive to small tournaments throughout Europe. Brown, 30, has been a pro since 2002 and has career earnings of $1,344, 996. The singles champions of the 2015 Australian Open will each earn $2,218,911.

The ITF, ATP and WTA could come up with better solutions for housing and meals. Even low-paid equity actors at regional theaters are allotted "actors housing," and stipends for food. The ITF's Dent is all for this. He believes covering the cost of food and housing would encourage players to enter more tournaments. 

However, Dent told Bialik that it's unrealistic to expect more prize money at small tournaments because the income is simply not there. 

“We need to look at how we reward players who are progressing, but start to make it harder for players who aren’t."

The ATP and WTA may also want to consider a touring card similar to the ones given to professional golfers. This would restrict the number of players competing in tournaments and separate the dreamers from the delusional.

It's ok if a 29-year-old player ranked outside the Top 500 wants to keep chasing a dream. But if he goes deep into debt trying to do it, is that a pay-disparity issue? 

June Squibb, 85, has been an actress most of her life. She did regional theatre, had small parts in everything from big budget movies to Independent films. She took bit parts on soap operas and even played in a CBS Schoolbreak Special in 1985.  

Finally, Squibb got her big break at 84. Last year she was nominated for best supporting actress for her role in the movie "Nebraska." Tickled by her new-found celebrity, Squibb made the rounds on talk shows and was featured in magazines everywhere. What a wonderful story for such as splendidly long career.

Like many tennis players you've never heard of, Squibb held onto her dream, practiced her craft and stayed in the game.

Yet she probably never expected Meryl Streep to take a pay cut. Acting, like professional tennis, is an entrepreneurial pursuit that takes time, talent, hard work and yes, a little luck. Those who rise to the top are well compensated. Those who languish near the bottom wait tables for extra income. 

Some, like Squibb, consider themselves lucky to be paid for doing what they love. Others, may see the seemingly never-ending struggle and low pay as unfair. 

Whether lower-ranked players view their careers as pursuing a dream or living a nightmare, is a matter of perspective and personal choices. Regardless, they are compensated based on achievement. 

Serena Williams, 33, has career earnings of slightly more than $63.5 million. That's more than any woman in the history of sports. Meanwhile, Melinda Czink, 32, who has been on tour nearly as long, has earned just over $1.5 million. Williams' record is 684-120. She's won 64 WTA titles, including 18 Grand Slams. Czink is 437-325. She has one WTA title. Williams' 64-to-1 title advantage seems to reflect the nearly $62 million earnings gap. 

Roger Federer, 33, has earned more than $88 million in prize money in his career. Michael Berrer, ranked No. 127, is a year older than Federer. He's earned a little more than $2.3 million in his entire career. Berrer's upset win over Rafael Nadal in Doha today, may have been the biggest of his career. He's never won an ATP title and his record is 78-126. Federer's career record is 996-227. He's won 82 ATP titles, including 17 Grand Slams. Again, the titles won reflect career earnings. 

Tennis has no prize-money inequity issue. The so-called disparities in pay are no more significant than the gaps in accomplishments.