General Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
That's a pretty good argument against handing out wild cards year after year to a player who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, Kieran, but that's about all. Most players have to earn their place in the tournament.
The figure that Stargazer refers to for winning one round at Wimbledon and then losing in the second round is £17750. Looks like a lot of money at first glance and to be honest, if someone offered me that for a 2 or 3 hours playing tennis I'd bite their hand off. But let's consider a few things.
1. A lot of the players who lose in the second round have come through qualifying. So it's not £17750 for winning one match, it's £17750 for winning four matches.
2. Subtract from that the player's travelling costs, accommodation and other expenses for themselves, their coach and any other staff (physios, hitting partners etc.) and the cost of shipping all their gear over. You also need to subtract the salaries of the coach etc. I've no idea what it all comes to but it won't be cheap.
3. Then consider that this is only one of four slams. The other tournaments pay only a fraction of the prize money. A first round loser in the WTA tour event in Auckland for example would get 1725 NZ dollars. I don't know what the exchange rate is, but I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't cover the kind of expenses listed above.
4. These player's families have often made huge sacrifices to cover the cost of getting them through the juniors and into the professional ranks.
5. Finally, most of these players will retire in their mid twenties with little more to offer a prospective employer than a good backhand down the line.
No, I'd say there's plenty of incentive for players to reach the third round and beyond.