* !Picby Pete Bodo*
The French Tennis Federation (FFT) is marching in step with the ATP gestalt these days. The organization has announced a significant, 7 percent increase in prize-money for the upcoming French Open. That brings the total purse up to $24.6 million, with the winners salting away $1.64 million — an increase of nearly 5 percent over last year — but far less of a bump than some of the early losers will get.
Much of the additional monies will be distributed to first-round losers, whose check will now jump from $19,700 to $23,670 — a 20 percent pay raise. Those of you who have gone for years without a raise in the wake of the economic meltdown, or who absorbed a pay cut (a common tactic used by many employers at the time) that has not yet been restored (when are they, ever?), may smile bitterly at this news.
Not Andy Murray. Showing true egalitarian sympathy, his reaction to prize-money hike (I assume he was familiar with the details) was to shower praise upon the FFT. He said, "It's great that the French Open have stepped up.''
I think it's great also, but I'm not sure the French officials will be putting the money in the most deserving pockets. Tennis is a performance-based game, kind of like working on commission on top of a modest base salary. You are rewarded not just for showing up and putting in your time, but for actually winning. Thus, I think the biggest raise should have gone to the second-round losers. They've demonstrated that they can win a match in a Grand Slam event. I feel this way for three reasons:
First, the more heavily you reward players for winning, the more competitive the game. And it follows that the more lavishly you reward the first-round losers the less incentive they will have to compete. Even under the current pay scale, the job of first-round loser at a major is nice work — if you can get it. Knowing that the portal to a great payday (given that the second round has just 32 losers, the additional payout would double) is surviving that first day will improve the overall level of play.
Second, I know full well that not everybody can be a Novak Djokovic or even a Frederico Gil. But how much should you earn if you can't get through a first-round match at a major? Given the perks (free accommodation chief among them), it's hard to imagine that, under the present pay structure, a first-round loser isn't walking away with at least $15,000. That's $60,000 a year, clear, at just four events — or some eight or 10 hours of work. If that sounds like slave wages, all I can say is cry me a river.
Third, a large number of players who lose in the first round also play doubles, which is a significant revenue stream that require no extra work or effort on the part of the player other than showing up at the courts in clean clothes and, preferably, a freshly strung racquet.
The French appear very progressive, and their plan is great public relations. The FFT has learned much in the decades since their beloved French Open was nearly rendered irrelevant for failure to keep up with the changing demands of the pro game. The man who saved the day was the administrator Philippe Chatrier, but that's a story best left for another time.
We've come very far from the old days, and the vision of Jack Kramer. That Hall-of-Fame champion and entrepreneur was the prime mover in the creation of the pro tour. His "Grand Prix" (which consisted of linked worldwide tournaments, with a year-end championship) eventually morphed into the ATP Tour. One battle Jack failed to win was over prize money. He thought the game would be better and the competition more intense if first-round losers didn't get any prize money at all.