You might love Bernie Sanders or hate him, but he wouldn’t be the worst possible person to lead the sport of tennis.
Bernie would look at the arms race for cash at the two year-end championship tournaments in professional tennis and roll his eyes at the ascendancy of the 1 percent.
Look at this, via Russell Fuller of the BBC:
Farewell, London. You put on a great show, but Turin offers change and a huge increase in prize money (the $14m on offer in Shenzhen for the WTA Finals had not gone unnoticed) https://t.co/ruUgeZc8rV
— Russell Fuller (@russellcfuller) April 24, 2019
There’s an impolite term for this competition between the WTA Finals and the ATP Finals to see whose “size” is larger. The WTA came up with a $14 million prize pool for its move to Shenzhen. The ATP responded with $14.5 million.
If you read the full story from Mr. Fuller, which includes his analysis of the ATP Finals’ move to Turin, Italy, in 2021, you will note that the prize pool for the 2019 ATP Finals is $9 million.
Sure, prize pools do grow at tournaments — look at the majors, first and foremost — but can we at least honor the principle of incremental and not exponential growth? Or, if not that, can we at least make sure that if we are going to give $5.5 million more at the ATP Finals to a group of 24 players (8 singles, 16 doubles), we make sure to give $5.5 million more to the minor-leaguers who slave away on the challenger tours?
Between the WTA and ATP Finals — 16 singles players, 32 doubles players — a combined prize pot of $28.5 million will, in 2021, be split among 48 players.
I hasten to say that it’s not wrong that elite players get rewarded for being great. This is not something inherently wrong. It is, however, occurring against the backdrop of challenger players not getting enough to comfortably live on.
Again, love or hate Bernie Sanders, you know he would be focused on making sure the No. 300 tennis player in the world had enough to live on, as just compensation for his effort at being (on a global scale) relatively good at what he or she does.
Tennis should be interested in putting its money toward the players ranked 1,000 to 150 first.
Then, I’m sure we can have some money left over for the top 8 singles players and doubles teams on the two tours.
Allocation — the word simply doesn’t yet seem to be understood by the powers that be in tennis, at least not in a meaningfully applied sense.
The 99 percent continue to struggle. The 1 percent have it made in Shenzhen, London and — in 2021 — Turin.