Anyway, Gilbert's thoughts made me look at the prize-money figures, and I was surprised. In 2006, Murray ended up no. 17, and earned $667,802 in prize-money. It's hard to rank workers and/or earners in other fields, but I'm pretty sure that the 17th best in almost any endeavor (records sold? bonds traded? surgeries performed?) in any year couldn't have made too much less, and in many cases probably earned a lot more.
Okay, I hear the objection some of you will raise: prize-money is just part - in some cases, the smallest part - of a tennis pro's income. That's true, but it's only marginally relevant. The endorsement and sponsorship field is perhaps the greatest example we have of market forces at work. At the peak of her career, someone who lacks "marketing appeal" (say, Svetlana Kuznetsova) is lucky to have clothing, racket and shoe contracts. Meanwhile, an Anna Kournikova, who never won a tournament, much less a Grand Slam event, rolled in cash.
And don't lump me in with the reflexive Kournikova bashers; nobody gets to be no. 8 with pouty lips or great legs - she got that ranking the old-fashioned way, by earning it in the most transparent and "just" way. Let's face it; with name recognition and "marketable" assets, any public figure can reap a potential bonanza. And let's not forget that when people toss around the salaries of players in team sports, they don't count ancillary income for them, either.
Nikolay Davydenko is another good, present-day example of the prejudice of the market place. Kolya the Obscure has always had trouble reeling in sponsors or endorsement checks. In fact, when he finally landed a clothing contract not too long ago, it was with an energetic, up-and-coming French firm called "Airness" (Michael Jordan, anyone?). A French friend tells me that Airness, specializes in "street" fashion, which makes Kolya's deal charming, in a wacky way - what's he going to do next, cut a rap album? Everybody say ho-o-o-o-h, emcee Nicky D, in da house!
If you were too lazy to click on the ESPN link, I made these comparison of tennis and golf:
This is a relevant comparison, because tennis and golf are both niche sports, and each of them has a potent demographic, appealing broadly to middle and upper-middle class fans and consumers (and a growing base of upwardly-mobile folks, especially immigrants). Both of them, though, are saddled with a reputation as a "rich man's sport", although I think tennis is more frequently and easily damned with that label.
It's too bad, because a quick check of the biographies of great tennis players demonstrates that almost all of them came from mainstream, relatively modest roots. And that's become even more noticeable in the present era, with players who could be called "economic recruits" flooding into the game from all over the world in a stream that shows no sign of abating.
But even in wealthy, western tennis nations, the driver in tennis development is not personal wealth; it's a family-based tradition in, or obsession with, the sport - sometimes precisely because it is perceived as a vehicle for upward mobility. In some ways, it's a funhouse articulation of "family values," with a few lucky, ambitious families hitting the jackpot with a talented kid every few years.
But tennis is a "rich man's sport" only in one critical way: you need a lot of money to get into the game (in terms of developing a talented child). Despite that, a remarkable number of people who are anything but rich seem to find ways to get the job done (see "W" for Williams). This has a bearing on the "underpaid/overpaid" argument in a significant way, especially when you compare tennis players to contracted athletes playing a team sport. It costs almost nothing to develop a promising baseball or football/soccer player, because there's an enormous public, taxpayer-funded infrastructure doing it, called "schools." The parents or sponsors of gifted young tennis players make an enormous up-front investment, and only a tiny percentage ever experience any payback.
When it comes to earning a paycheck, tennis players can stand tall. They earn every cent they make in prize-money, while salaried athletes in team sports have guaranteed incomes, and are much less directly accountable. Imagine if baseball were like tennis: a pitcher's salary would be determined on a weekly basis by his won-lost record, ERA, or record for saved games. A hitter would earn a modest amount one week, because he went 2-15, and get a big paycheck the next week for going 7-16. Nothing is more "just" than the simple, transparent link between a tennis player's performance and his official prize money. And this would be true if the tennis players earned roughly the same amount as teachers or pre-bailout hedge-fund managers.
I think an even better measure of the earnings issue is to analyze the typical fan experience - the amount athletes earn is directly related to the amount they bring in by way of ticket revenues and the relative value of the fan experience. Here, too, I think tennis has a lot to be proud about. As I wrote for ESPN, ticket prices in tennis are reasonable and often lower than for comparable events in other sports. I think it’s fair to compare the US Open to, say, the NFL or NBA playoffs (in degree of importance to fans, and within the sport) - or to extend an even more appropriate analogy, the Masters or British Open golf tournaments.
Remember, a grounds pass to the US Open costs just $46 to $52, and some regular seats are available for as little as $22. Plus, the qualifying event, which takes place on site, right before the tournament, and features many familiar names and upcoming stars, is absolutely free. That’s a deal that blows even minor-league baseball away, plus the tennis pros in qualifying are closer to the gold-standard top players. I'd be curious to know how you all, having attended tennis events large and small, feel about the prices and quality of your experience.
All of this helps explain why one undercurrent in the ongoing political in-fighting at the ATP is over player compensation. Every now and then, an agent or player raises the issue of "profit-sharing", working on the premise that players are not getting a fair enough share of the pie at the Grand Slam events. The substance of this post suggests that we shouldn't dismiss this as mere player "greed" - at least not if you accept the reality of market economics. But it does raise some other, complicated issues, having to do with the role of the national federations (which own and operate the Grand Slam events) in growing and promoting the game.
But that's a discussion for another time.
