Federer Threatens Strike Action At 2013 AO

This from todays Sunday Times (PPV but well worth it)

Roger Federer to lead players’ fight for improved prize money in majors

NEXT January’s Australian Open is facing a boycott by the world’s leading male players, who are fighting for a bigger percentage of Grand Slam revenues to be paid in prize money.

At the top of the agenda at a mandatory meeting for all ATP world tour players in New York last night was the growing pressure to stage a mass boycott of the Australian Open, which, by virtue of both finance and geography, is the least strong of the four majors.

There are rumours that the ATP is considering staging an alternative event, almost certainly in Dubai, if moves are not made to give the players a higher percentage of tournament revenue, which currently stands below 20%. The biggest issue is not the prizes on offer to the winners — this year Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer all picked up record prize cheques for their respective wins in the Australian Open, the French Open and Wimbledon — but the pay for losers in the initial rounds.

On average, first-round losers at this year’s three Grand Slam events received £14,100 each with the Australian Open being the least lucrative (£13,683). First-round losers at the US Open will be given about £14,550.

Earlier this year the issue caused a split between Federer, the long-term president of the ATP players’ council, and his deputy, Nadal. The Spaniard became so frustrated by Federer’s intransigence to support any action that he resigned from his position.

Federer is crucial to the whole issue because he has a good relationship with all four majors and up to now has always respected their eminence in the game. Now, however, the Swiss is finally to end his nation’s tradition of neutrality and lead the fight.

I'd be surprised if a boycott could successfully be carried out. Are the players who can go deep into the tournament, and are happy with their prize money, really going to sacrifice the chance for a title, ranking points and money?

And let's say the top ten agree to boycott the event. That means that suddenly numbers 11 to 20 have a great chance to win a slam! Could they resist that?

It could only work if every single player agrees to boycott the event. I just can't see that happening.

Nice to see Fed supporting the 'little people', he always gives you something to be proud of. This wasn't the issue that caused a split between Nadal and Fed, I don't know where they got that from.

Hmmm where is raiders when you need him. I seem to recall Murray wrongly being painted a strike instigator on here and a lot of poison painted about him. Now Fed is a hero for a similar stance. Wonder what that poster thinks of this. No doubt he his in full support of Federer.

Whose interests was Murray striking for back then? You always see attacks on Murray.

Murray wasn't striking but others painted him as that. Here is the thread:-

https://www.606v2.com/t14465-murray-s-strike-talk?foe

Thanks for reminding me I'd forgotten what Murray was striking over. This has nothing to do with that though. The only thing in common is a strike. This one is a noble cause as he's doing it for others' benefit whereas Murray's was only for the benefit of the 'golden era' players and thus really just whining.

Though as you said he wasn't really leading any strikes just then, he was just pointing out what might happen and everyone else just ran with it. Nevertheless it has nothing to do with this.

Yes of course it would be a noble cause wouldn't it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmmm where is raiders when you need him. I seem to recall Murray wrongly being painted a strike instigator on here and a lot of poison painted about him. Now Fed is a hero for a similar stance. Wonder what that poster thinks of this. No doubt he his in full support of Federer.

A few things:

1. Raiders has long stopped posting on this forum. I guess you may not have realised this but many posters like Tenez, NiTB, Raiders no longer post here. Some left voluntarily while some were banned (at around the same time).

2. If you have read the reports of this particular strike online in last few days, you might have read that the only reason this wasn't being talked about for a long time was Federer. He is still perceived to be the best draw for any tournament (according to tournament organisers, not me), so it was necessary to have his support for this cause. He was neutral for a long time. In fact, this was the reason for apparent bitterness between him and Nadal. So, he is not someone who is the instigator. He has to take a stand as a member of ATP player council.

Just to say as well I don't see much difference here:-

Murray was out to look after the health of the players by calling for less mandatory tournaments and seems now he has a point what with Del Potro injury scarred and Nadal now a long-term injury victim. Have a look at that thread and Murray was slaughtered for his remarks.

Here Federer is looking out for the wealth of the players wanting a bigger cut in prize money from the Grand Slam revenues with talk of boycotts. Already it is clear that Federer is a hero for this. I'm puzzled.

I believe Roger is right by the way about calling for greater prize money just as Murray was right with what he was calling for. In both cases it wasn't a lot to ask but reading the reactions from posters on both topics really opens your eyes to poster bias.

Sorry Craig, but JMDP was hurt by his style and Nadal by a congenital deformation. In fact the players are remarkably injury-free on the whole, so we can scratch that idea.

Was Murray striking or not, make up your mind. Either way it was only for the benefit of the top players. Nadal is a victim of his own style of play, the same style that brought him so much success but I don't want to go into that. Murray's 'strike' was from the stance that the top players are above the game. It's ridiculous to suggest that they need anyone to look out for their health; they can change their playing style, manage their schedules better or just plain lose more often. I don't understand why there is this need to win everything.

Roger, if what I've read and interpreted is correct, is mostly looking out for the wealth of the lower ranked players so that they can make a more sustainable living out of this. Completely different scenarios. Yes other people were wrong to attack Murray because he wasn't striking in the first place or instigating anything but don't try to make out that his supposed cause for striking is as selfless as this.

break,

No I never said Murray was striking or going to strike though certain posters on 'that thread' ached, desired and craved to paint it that way. And no Murray was merely wanting to make less tournaments mandatory so how that was looking out for the top players only I will never know. Obviously, if he had got his way then what Fed is striving for here (more money for lesser players) would have came about in any case as they would have got further in tournaments had the big guns been resting etc.

Here is a decent report in the latest issues the players are unhappy with:-

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/men-threaten-australian-open-boycott/story-fnbe6xeb-1226458318191

I can't remember the exact details of what Murray was suggesting as I didn't take a whole lot of interest in it at the time anyway. The schedule the way it is has worked for years and the only thing that is different now is the players. To me it's saying the number of semis or better he can make in a year should be the number that is counted.

As for it achieving Fed's objective a different way, someone is always going to lose in the first round, infact half of the people entering the tournament will. They won't benefit from the absence of the top players.

Yeah Fed will probably make more money from this but really, a few 100k more here and there? It's not really the same to him as it is to someone struggling lower down as was the tone of the article that the top players are content with their prize money.

Anyhow the part that's most interesting in this for me is that Nadal apparently wanted this all along and Roger was what was stopping him? I doubt that though I guess I may be proven wrong.

Craig,the basic flaw in your argument about lesser ranked players scooping up the prize money in tournaments the top 4 won't rock up for is that these tournaments will be able to offer considerably less prize money because sponsorship will be less without the marquee names and people will pay less for their seats = less dosh to share out.

An argument that Federer understood only too well which is why he was neutral about the option to strike the first time it was mooted - if you hurt the tournaments, you hurt the sport.

The slams are a different matter because they are guaranteed huge audiences and sponsorship and it is not that they don't generate the income to share a little more amongst the rank and file.

Nadal left PC because he didn't have the support of the players for a 2 year ranking scheme which doesn't benefit anyone except the top 10, and he was prepared to give his support for the issue above in return for support from the lower ranked players for his pet project - it wasn't a good quid pro quo however!

I agree with Murdoch however - the players in the top twenty will see a chance without the big four, and they won't be striking along with the rest at AO. Jan Kordes, Wimbledon - anyone?

So Federer hasn't been directly quoted here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/9168264/Rafael-Nadal-resigns-as-ATP-players-body-vice-president-after-lack-of-movement-on-changes-to-ranking-system.html#

was going to edit my post above to include this link, but put it here instead

I thought it was more to do with that TP, though the 2 year ranking system was such a stupid idea that I don't think Rafa was surprised it didn't get approved and thus not the reason he quit either.

Yep, there was nothing altruistic about Rafas initiative. Recent events may even add context to that.

Is Federer really in favour of a strike? As someone above said, there are no quotes to support this.

I can see why those outside the top 10 would support a strike & play an alternative tournament - it's not like they have a serious chance to win the AO anyway. But I don't see anyone who does would be keen to sacrifice it to get more money for lower ranked players.

The make-up of the player council is interesting - I think Federer is the only top 10 player in there. So is he being outvoted by the likes of Simon & Stakhovsky?

Have just checked the Sunday Times and the article has been updated with a quote from Federer (PPV as I have said but well worth it)

Federer was reluctant to make any sweeping statement when questioned about the outcome of the meeting. “As long as I'm president of the player council it's always going to stay behind closed doors what exactly has been talked about,” said the world No 1.

But he admitted there were requests to elevate the meeting to mandatory status and admitted: “I thought it was a good. Obviously always going to be rumors flying, but I think we're on the right track for many things We are making sure everybody is on the same page and understanding the situation. There are obviously different processes in place right now, different things we're working on.”

Federer continued: “It's not only the Grand Slam issue, but many other issues always pending. We're working on these and trying to inform the players. Finally we really have engaged players, and I think that's a very good thing.”

I'm not sure this quote makes Federer's opinion much clearer...? He is very Swiss. It is easy to understand his popularity as it would be difficult to disagree with anything he said. I still laugh at Nadal's description of him "smelling of roses" as it is so appropriate...

The quote that the article uses of fed, has nothing to with the strike talk. During the Us open interviews session they basically asked him how the player meeting went. So he kinda told them. I doubt federer is pro-strike. Last year when being asked about it specifically, he refuted the idea.

The 2013 AO strike is Stakhovsky's idea, not Federer's.

Federer would prefer a negotiated settlement. If someone follows Stakh's Tweets, they can verify my assertion.

laverfan

Federer has refused to comment about what went on "behind closed doors" but the article indicates that the players are united. If it was Stakhovsky's idea then it looks like Federer is going along with it. Federer may not be the leader but it looks like he is following. Do you think he is easily lead?

People misunderstand the value and methods of diplomacy. Pretty much the more noise you hear from someone, the less effective and influential they are.

It's virtually an immutable law.

hawkeye wrote:Federer has refused to comment about what went on "behind closed doors" but the article indicates that the players are united.

They better be united. He has made it clear that he is unwilling to entertain premature Media discussions.

hawkeye wrote:If it was Stakhovsky's idea then it looks like Federer is going along with it.

Phil ‏@phil4321566
@Stako_tennis @bgtennisnation @justingimelstob @usopen You're right about a lot of things you say but this boycott is a joke mate.

Sergiy Stakhovsky ‏@Stako_tennis
@phil4321566 u see other option?

http://twitter.com/stako_tennis

hawkeye wrote:Federer may not be the leader but it looks like he is following. Do you think he is easily lead?

There will be a public announcement, rather than all this speculation, once a decision is reached.

Good on Roger this is a measure I have been supporting this move for many years. If you pay the midranking guys like crap eventually you will get mediocre play in life you generally get what you pay for.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I can't remember the exact details of what Murray was suggesting as I didn't take a whole lot of interest in it at the time anyway.

Then how on earth can you say (as you did earlier) that "Either way it was only for the benefit of the top players"?

socal1976 wrote:Good on Roger this is a measure I have been supporting this move for many years. If you pay the midranking guys like crap eventually you will get mediocre play in life you generally get what you pay for.

The 23 year old Donald Young has earned $1.3m in his Tennis career so far. His ranking has averaged around 90

Is this the "crap" pay you had in mind, socal

Wow, seems quite high. Although about half of it could be expenses, and still low compared to the 90th best player in some other sports.

Henman Bill wrote:Wow, seems quite high. Although about half of it could be expenses, and still low compared to the 90th best player in some other sports.

True. His expenses will be a significant part - but I think that tales of the lack of money in the lower ranks is greatly exaggerated, particularly when you take into account sponsorship

The only individual sport I can think that pays more is Golf, which vastly overpays it's players so it becomes like a mates club (i.e. lack of hunger when there is too much money) as illustrated by the daft decision to leave Harrington out when the Ryder Cup is taking place in the USA - where Harrington has done well recently

Anyway you get my point!!

banbrotam wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Wow, seems quite high. Although about half of it could be expenses, and still low compared to the 90th best player in some other sports.

True. His expenses will be a significant part - but I think that tales of the lack of money in the lower ranks is greatly exaggerated, particularly when you take into account sponsorship

The only individual sport I can think that pays more is Golf, which vastly overpays it's players so it becomes like a mates club (i.e. lack of hunger when there is too much money) as illustrated by the daft decision to leave Harrington out when the Ryder Cup is taking place in the USA - where Harrington has done well recently

Anyway you get my point!!

The players look at the money that they generate for the tournaments and want more of a share of it - which seems to me to be a fair enough attitude so long as there's enough to go around.

What strikes me as interesting about this debate is not the strike aspect of it, but how it is an illustration of the fact that Federer has consistently seen himself as a representative of all levels of the game and is apparently prepared to support players whose interests do not necessarily coincide with his because he recognises their importance to the wider game. What we saw of last year's row was that he seemed to be the only one at the very top prepared to take that stance against the two-year ranking and reducing the mandatory events.

barrystar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Wow, seems quite high. Although about half of it could be expenses, and still low compared to the 90th best player in some other sports.

True. His expenses will be a significant part - but I think that tales of the lack of money in the lower ranks is greatly exaggerated, particularly when you take into account sponsorship

The only individual sport I can think that pays more is Golf, which vastly overpays it's players so it becomes like a mates club (i.e. lack of hunger when there is too much money) as illustrated by the daft decision to leave Harrington out when the Ryder Cup is taking place in the USA - where Harrington has done well recently

Anyway you get my point!!

The players look at the money that they generate for the tournaments and want more of a share of it - which seems to me to be a fair enough attitude so long as there's enough to go around.

What strikes me as interesting about this debate is not the strike aspect of it, but how it is an illustration of the fact that Federer has consistently seen himself as a representative of all levels of the game and is apparently prepared to support players whose interests do not necessarily coincide with his because he recognises their importance to the wider game. What we saw of last year's row was that he seemed to be the only one at the very top prepared to take that stance against the two-year ranking and reducing the mandatory events.

I think it's disingenuous to Murray to imply that Fed is the only one who looks at things 'globally'. I actually think that he and Novak have far more of a grounded life and hence can relate to others better than Federer

What Roger has is status. Which let's be honest always carries far more weight no matter what the motivation is (and I do agree that Fed's is a noble one)

I'd be surprised if Andy and Roger disagree that mcuh on the subject, but both need to fight for more varied playing conditions as well

Well given their track records Federer is proven to look at things 'globally' whereas the jury is still out on Murray.

banbrotam wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I can't remember the exact details of what Murray was suggesting as I didn't take a whole lot of interest in it at the time anyway.

Then how on earth can you say (as you did earlier) that "Either way it was only for the benefit of the top players"?

Easy. I came to that conclusion at the time when I was more knowledgeable. The events weren't of enough interest to me to leave a lasting impression in my memory but I could still recall my conclusion which still stands now that my memory has been jogged.