Let Them Eat Cake
While the 150th best basketball, baseball, football or soccer player in the world is making a generous income, the 150th best tennis player in the world is about breaking even and just making enough money to pay for expenses, forget about being able to afford a home, car and health insurance.
Since tennis professionals average just a seven-year career, it's simply not a great job unless you are in the top five percent of success or you come from a country in which a ranking of 100 makes you a national star. You will likely retire from tennis with little money or formal education. Your job opportunities will be limited by your ability to be a successful “Tennis Entrepreneur.” We have great educational opportunities in this country. It's so good that tennis players from around the globe are flocking to play tennis at U.S. universities and it's difficult to imagine why most tennis players risk going "all in" to one day play in a stadium when they can use tennis to facilitate their education and buy the stadium.
Roger Federer might be able to purchase a stadium or two with $56 million in total earnings last year, with more of that money coming from endorsements than from prize money. The stars earn very well on the men's side and women tennis players hold seven of the top 10 spots as the highest paid female athletes in the world. The really big money goes to the one percent on the pro tour and the case can be made that the top stars are the reason why most fans watch. Perhaps the top players get paid what they deserve (as many of them are quick to say when the subject of greater prize money equality is discussed), and clearly, the USTA understands star value as the grand prize for singles this year at the U.S. Open is $3.3 million. The 64 first round losers at this year’s U.S. Open will split just $2.5 million and $39,500 will be split for the Round of 128. I'm not going to address prize money fairness here however. Instead, let's discuss expediency and the idea that U.S. professional tennis needs to be supported from the bottom up to give domestic players a chance to thrive.
Prize money inequity is just not going to help grow the game. Economists might explain this by saying that prize money at the top has diminishing marginal utility. Simply stated, the stars will play the U.S. Open if the grand prize is $1 million or $3 million, but several million dollars more in the qualifiers will help support many players’ expenses to give the tour a shot for a long time.
The great tennis boom of the 1970s resulted, in part, from macro social trends, notably the women's movement. Half of the population were free to pursue athletics and sports with less sexist stigma and many choose tennis, because of brave pioneers like Billie Jean King. Maybe it's time for another revolution at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center with the bold move to grow the sport by reducing money at the top to keep the top players hungrier and giving it to lower ranked players so they are less hungry (literally).
