I have what one might call a “working knowledge” of the points and money system of the WTA Tour. It’s kind of like somebody who can cook but couldn’t write out the recipe for somebody else and make that other person’s food turn out the same way.
I have an accurate sense of how difficult it is to break into the top 100 ranking-wise in singles or doubles, and how hard it is to really make a living at certain ranking levels but I couldn’t tell you how much you make exactly for losing first round in doubles in a 50K off the top of my head. For my position in this sport as a player it makes sense that I would have that working knowledge instead of just the book knowledge memorized of how many points and how much money you earn for each round in each kind of tournament—it’s a working knowledge based on experience.
What I have determined and come to find is that tennis is a very top-heavy sport in terms of reward. I will do my best to give you my recipe for “top-heavy women’s professional tennis.”
Currently, the top ranked player in the world Carolina Wozniacki has 7,680 points total counting towards her ranking, the 100th ranked player has 693 points, the 150th ranked player has 422 points, and the 300th ranked player has 159 points total. What do you notice? The points drop off dramatically the further down you go, right?
Basically, the points are allocated such that if you win only one round in certain WTA Tour tournaments you could make as many points for winning an entire ITF Circuit event. For example, you get 70 points from winning a 50K—in a WTA Tier II tournament you get 70 points from winning one round. But the WTA tournaments only have 32 size main draws (the main draws are where those points are, qualifying is more ITF-level point allocation).
So if there are two WTA tournaments going on in the world at one time that could take the top 64 players in the world and the rest have to make it through qualifying. And qualifying has mostly players ranked from 60-190 in the world on a consistent basis.
The WTA championships in Doha in the end of the year only invites the top 12 players in the world and has points way beyond any ITF level points. With the point system you could win two matches in a WTA tournament and earn as many points as you would get for winning two ITF Circuit tournaments, 10 matches (not counting qualifying) back to back in two weeks. That’s the equivalent of a Grand Slam in terms of matches and time period. I believe you play less than 10 matches if you win a Grand Slam actually.
Let’s add some salt now.
Player P ranked 200 in the world for about two years, ex-college player goes to the US Open Qualifying. She qualifies, winning three matches against girls ranked anywhere from 110-220 in the world. One of those players she beat had beaten Venus Williams 3 years previously at age 15 and then been suspended for doping for 2 years, just a little anecdote there to give you a sense of the level. Player P then wins her first round in the US Open Main Draw! And then, to top it all off, she beats the then-#1 ranked player in the world Ana Ivanovic to advance to the third round of the US Open. Wow, right? She’s made it you think, right?
After winning 5 matches at a Grand Slam (which by the way has the most points out of any tournament, qualifying included) she is only ranked about 165 in the world, going up about 35 spots. Whaaaat?! OK, OK, don’t panic- after last week’s explanation of the ranking system perhaps you can understand how that could happen-it’s all based on a 365 day playing calendar and they take your best 16 or so tournaments right?
Player P goes on that fall to win a 100K ITF Pro Circuit event and advances up to 120 or so in the world. She also gets to the finals of a 75K that same fall and finally her ranking is pushed up to 100 in the world. She goes main draw into the Australian Open the following January, wins a round and earns herself a world ranking of 80.
Finally she has “made it” one might say—she will be main draw in the Grand Slams with that ranking which is $16,000 each time you show up for singles, and she will be able to consistently play in WTA Tour events so her ranking will remain steady with consistent results. You see that it took consistently superb results at both WTA tournaments and ITF Circuit events for her to reach that 80 world ranking.
There are girls ranked 200 in the world (way outside of the realm of pop culture recognition) who have qualified for Grand Slams in the last year.
We can see that Player P got the big points and got to the third round of the US Open. She won, and almost won, two entire very large ITF Circuit events but that was really only the equivalent of one or two rounds in a WTA tournament—hence she was only 80 by the time she finished the Australian Open. If you’re winning those events you are ranked top 10 probably. Those ITF Circuit events she succeeded in were filled with players ranked anywhere from 80-200 in the world.
You have to have good success at the ITF level to get a ranking that puts you into the qualifying of WTA events and then you have to push through the qualifying of WTA events and succeed in the main draw. And then you have to consistently win in the WTA events. It is extremely hard to break through. Player P beat the #1 player in the world and she was still only ranked 165.
The point disparity makes sense in that you should always earn more at the top as a reward for performance and motivating factor, but the difference between the top 100 and top 200 players is minute and the cutoff for WTA tournaments doesn’t really honor that.
Time to turn up the burner to ¾ full heat.
Another aspect of “top heavy” is how hard the WTA makes it for players to break through to the top, and how much easier they have made it for those already at the top to remain there. Remember, the difference between the “top” and “bottom” to a player is the difference between making a handsome living or barely covering travel expenses and needing a sponsor to get by. This means everything to us players and is the most critical part of our profession.
The WTA changed their ranking rules some years ago that made it harder for players to push through onto the WTA Tour. During my first exposures to pro tournaments (2003-2005) there were bonus points for beating players with certain rankings. I got double points for beating a top 500 player at a tournament in Los Gatos, CA when I was a junior at Stanford. They stripped away those bonus points for beating players with certain rankings. Whether I beat Serena Williams or somebody ranked 750, all that matters is the points from the round of the tournament we are playing.
The effect of that rule was to take away any accelerating factor for somebody trying to climb the rankings. Without that rule, no matter who you beat you’re going to have to grind to earn your ranking and nothing is going to happen very quickly. The rule was only a bonus for those who were at the top earning WTA-caliber points before the new rule came out- that new rule seems to cater to those certain players although the WTA argued that it wouldn’t make a difference to anybody.
Those players who were already earning points—WTA tournament level points—did not have to worry about what ranking player they lost to, or whether they themselves lost to somebody else with a lower ranking thereby catapulting that other person up in the rankings quickly anymore. These days the only thing that can accelerate your rise up is a good agent, some steady wildcards and a serious winning streak.
The WTA keeps putting new rules in place that make it easier for the top girls to maintain their top status and harder for the up and coming girls to push through. The very next thing that the WTA did after taking away bonus points was to take away points for qualifying in 25K ITF events and some first round loser points in 10K and 25K ITF events.
I used to earn 3 points if I won three rounds to qualify for a 25K. You know how many I get now? 1. And I used to get 1 point for losing first round in a 25K as a direct acceptance. You know how many I get now? 0. I also get 0 points for losing in the first round of a 10K, compared with 1 before. Now you may not think that would make much of a difference, but the point system doubled since then so what was once 3 is now 6. They have kept the 1 as 1, the real change was taking away points from qualifiers at 25K ITF events.
The level of 25K ITF events is essentially equal to that of 50K tournaments, but the points are not. I beat a good college player and then a player ranked 240 in the world to qualify and then lost first round in a 25K and got 1 whole point for my endeavors. If I had won that first round I would have gotten 8 points. 8 points for one match versus 1 point for two matches= top heavy.
Stir slowly and bring down to a simmer.
Qualifiers at 50K, 75K and 100K events also now get the same points. If you qualify it’s a whopping 6 points-even though the difference between a first round win in a 50K versus a 100K is 10 versus 18 points. And the qualifying for a 100K is much stronger than the qualifying of a 50K. Obviously they are rewarding the main draw players for success. But again, my argument is that the difference in level between the players in the main draw versus the qualifying does not warrant this difference in points--and on top of that I think that system skews the rankings.
As a quick refresher and comparison, on the men’s side they don’t get ANY points for qualifying, not even in a 100K event. However, the men have many more tournaments going on across the globe than the women at any given time so essentially they have more opportunity.
My coach from Seattle always tells me that the ATP was designed to support 150 professional athletes and the business model for the WTA Tour was originally designed for about 100. I think it’s time for a remodel. The game has changed and gotten deeper.
World Team Tennis and Club teams in Europe add to the economy of professional tennis, and they are good things in my mind especially for the support that they provide the lower ranked players who are still professionals and dang good. Money tournaments do the same thing (play for prize money but it is not WTA sanctioned) sometimes, unless it’s by invitation only and they only invite highly ranked players.
Take off the burner and let cool until it reaches a solid consistency.
The last aspect of the ‘top heavy’ recipe is the money differences between the top players and the lower ranked players, quite simply the money goes side by side along with the points. If you are top 10 you get appearance fees, not to mention you have the kind of fame that will win you big endorsement deals and people will pay you giant sums to play in exhibition matches. Top 50 is where the athletes earn really exorbitant amounts of money as well as save on traveling costs because they get more and more things for free while gaining a more celebrity status especially in their native country.
The difference between the lifestyles and earnings of the top 10 versus the rest of the top 100 players is like oil in a jar of water—they are in the same glass and one is right on top of the other but they don’t mix. The fame and glory goes to the best of the best, the top 10 are the oil in my example while the other 90 players are the water. Everybody is in the glass but one group is clearly above the rest in terms of earnings and fame.
How many top 10 players can a person off the street even name? It’s more like the best tennis players of each era—the number 1 players, the record-breakers, the prodigies and miracle-makers who get the real fame and money. Mostly from endorsements and exhibitions. If that isn’t an example of top-heavy reward then I don’t know what is.
Cut into desired shape and serve cold.
And there you have it folks: my own home-made recipe for “top heavy women’s professional tennis.”
Story
No comments:
Post a Comment