Close Menu
    Daten

    [OC] Mit nur 17,5 % erhalten Tennisspieler im Vergleich zu allen anderen großen Sportarten den geringsten Anteil an den Gesamteinnahmen des Sports.


    [OC] Mit nur 17,5 % erhalten Tennisspieler im Vergleich zu allen anderen großen Sportarten den geringsten Anteil an den Gesamteinnahmen des Sports.

    Von frayedreality

    View 16 Comments

    16 Comments

    2. qchisq on

      I guess cycling isn’t considered “major” here, because holy shit, those guys get a pittance comparatively speaking

    4. spaceporter on

      I’d be interested to see a per capita slide for the same sports.

    7. navetzz on

      Team sports vs individual sports.

      In Team sports, teams pay more and more to get the best players.

      In tennis, the French open (for instance) has no incentive to pay the players more has all the best players already show up.

    8. Kimorin on

      is this comparing salary of all players as a percentage of revenue? if so doesn’t it make sense that sports that have matches between few ppl needs to spend less on players vs a sport that needs 2 teams to put on a match?

    9. BigMax on

      Interesting comparison though. There are far fewer players relatively, right?

      With the NFL for example, at any moment, 22 players are on the field, and each team has a roster of 53 players.

      So when two teams get together… that’s 106 athletes who need to be paid. It makes total sense that as a percentage of the money coming in, more players would mean more of the money has to go to them.

      In a tennis match, it’s 2 players. There are no subs, there’s no bench, there’s no other position. It’s 2 people.

    10. Bonoisapox on

      You should see professional mountain biking, even successful racers can partly self fund.

    11. fyo_karamo on

      If you list “tennis,” a unisex sport, then you should list other women’s and unisex sports for reference. UFC, LPGA, WNBA to name a few.

    12. Michael__Pemulis on

      Interesting. I know with MLB that this came up a lot during the most recent CBA negotiations because while MLB contracts have grown (& can be among the largest in American sports) the share of revenue that players receive overall had fallen over the past ~20 years.

      It is a situation where the top earners have continued to do better over time but the non-top earners have seen fewer opportunities than previously across the board. The ‘middle tier’ largely because teams are far less inclined to commit to longer free agent deals than they have been in the past (again unless the player is a ‘star’). The ‘lower tier’ because teams see those players as increasingly expendable in the first place. The number of players used in any given season has been steadily increasing as teams swap pitchers in & out of rosters constantly. So more ‘fringe’ guys get to MLB but are far less likely to have a career that is more than a cup of coffee.

      The league over this time period put measures in place to democratize revenue in order to protect teams that aren’t as lucrative. But those types of protections largely haven’t been extended to the players.

    13. DramaticSimple4315 on

      The consequence of several market dynamics:

      Team vs solo sports
      Unified leagues vs world tours
      Unions (big 4) vs non union
      Direct competition (european football) vs protected status (grand slams)
      Sharing of wealth (a substitute earns millions in BPL and the NBA) vs huge discrepeancy at the top (ie : tennis in the TOP100, perhaps even TOP50)

    16. jchall3 on

      Does “Men’s Golf” include LIV? Because I think LIV operates at a loss so it’s possible for those golfers it’s more than 100% of the share

    Leave A Reply