Just watched match of aussi open in which british tennis player Dan Evans (ranked 66th in the world)wins $220,000 for progressing to the 4th round. Crazy considering Tola ran 2:04 to win $200,000. Is there a little something wrong here?
Just watched match of aussi open in which british tennis player Dan Evans (ranked 66th in the world)wins $220,000 for progressing to the 4th round. Crazy considering Tola ran 2:04 to win $200,000. Is there a little something wrong here?
cnc16 wrote:
Just watched match of aussi open in which british tennis player Dan Evans (ranked 66th in the world)wins $220,000 for progressing to the 4th round. Crazy considering Tola ran 2:04 to win $200,000. Is there a little something wrong here?
On one hand it does seem crazy, but logically millions are watching the tennis live, they had 47,800 yesterday paying exorbitant amounts to watch in the stands (at least A$56 for a poor man's distant seat whilst most cost over A$120) and the cost of being good at tennis is very high (good coaching costs up several hundred thousand dollars per year) whereas running is quite simple, just buy a Lydiard or Daniels book and go.
cnc16 wrote:
Just watched match of aussi open in which british tennis player Dan Evans (ranked 66th in the world)wins $220,000 for progressing to the 4th round. Crazy considering Tola ran 2:04 to win $200,000. Is there a little something wrong here?
Nothing wrong with it really. Tennis is just a better marketed sport even though it is much less competitive globally than distance running. I don't watch it all as I find really boring these days post Mcenroe, Borg, Edburg era.
What does seem wrong is that Dan Evans is paid nothing compared to Serena Williams even though he is likely a much better tennis player. It just does not make sense to have a profession where someone who is less competent in that profession is paid so much more than someone who is more competent. But maybe marketing also has something to do with this.
Distance running would paradoxically improve if it was made amateur again (less drug use, less corrupt federations, managers/coaches etc).
What do you mean by "make it Amateur''?
He's played four matches and is getting 220K and you think that's unfair to Tola? That's at least 10 hours out in a lot worse heat than Tola experienced. I wouldn't push this issue too hard.
Not all sports are made equal.
In Ethiopia 200k will get you a palace with a lot left over still. In the US it will get you a fringe level property.
marketing wrote:
cnc16 wrote:Just watched match of aussi open in which british tennis player Dan Evans (ranked 66th in the world)wins $220,000 for progressing to the 4th round. Crazy considering Tola ran 2:04 to win $200,000. Is there a little something wrong here?
Nothing wrong with it really. Tennis is just a better marketed sport even though it is much less competitive globally than distance running. I don't watch it all as I find really boring these days post Mcenroe, Borg, Edburg era.
What does seem wrong is that Dan Evans is paid nothing compared to Serena Williams even though he is likely a much better tennis player. It just does not make sense to have a profession where someone who is less competent in that profession is paid so much more than someone who is more competent. But maybe marketing also has something to do with this.
Distance running would paradoxically improve if it was made amateur again (less drug use, less corrupt federations, managers/coaches etc).
Way more people are interested in Serena Williams than in whatever guy you mentioned.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
whereas running is quite simple, just buy a Lydiard or Daniels book and go.
Surely there is a tennis equivalent of Daniels out there somewhere.
Maybe running would be taken more seriously (and being more money in) if it's participants actually showed some kind of appreciation for the training that goes into it, rather than saying "I wonder if Tola is using McMillan or Hansons for his marathon training?"
cnc16 wrote:
Just watched match of aussi open in which british tennis player Dan Evans (ranked 66th in the world)wins $220,000 for progressing to the 4th round. Crazy considering Tola ran 2:04 to win $200,000. Is there a little something wrong here?
Nothing wrong at all.
You just showed why he's highly paid. You and millions of others watched a sporting event involving the chap for 3 hours . I'd be shocked if more than 2,000 people in the US watched Dubai live.
To be honest, even though I was really into it and watching Dubai, I wasn't looking at the tv at all as there is nothing to see for the first half of a marathon. All I really need to do is hear the announcers and get the splits.
Meanwhile, yesterday, I spent a half hour watching highlights of the Djokovic upset. It was riveting. In running, the 110th best marathoner doesn't beat the #1 ranked marathoner. In tennis, upsets, are more possible. People like sports with random results. It's the ultimate reality tv.
In the NFL, the best team doesn't always win due to turnovers and randomness (holding call, dropped pass,e tc). In football (soccer), same thing as goals can be random. In running, it's much more predictable.
Aussie Open
Prize Money by round
Rd1 $50.000
Rd 2 $80,000
Rd 3 $130.000
Rd 4 $ 220,000
QF $440,000
SF $ 900,000
F $1,900,000 Runner Up
$ 3,700,000 Winner
There's not as much money in distance running fandom, dumb dumb. Just look at the threads started yesterday for support of that point.
Q Rater wrote:
Way more people are interested in Serena Williams than in whatever guy you mentioned.
100000% this. Abso-frickin'-lutely.
rojo wrote:
In running, the 110th best marathoner doesn't beat the #1 ranked marathoner. In tennis, upsets, are more possible. People like sports with random results. It's the ultimate reality tv.
In the NFL, the best team doesn't always win due to turnovers and randomness (holding call, dropped pass,e tc). In football (soccer), same thing as goals can be random. In running, it's much more predictable.
Interesting point, but I wonder whether that analysis is quite correct. I think you're right that having #110 in the world beat #1 in the world happens in tennis and many other sports, but not in running. But does that really reflect intrinsic randomness of the sport, or just the depth of the field? A five-set tennis match is an awful lot of balls hit and points scored, and I would think most of the randomness would average out. And running is not without its random elements too. Perhaps a more correct analysis is that the #110 guy and the #1 guy in tennis are much closer in ability than the #110 and #1 in running.
20$ for 2.5 hours of coverage. Do you think tennis fans would pay $40 to watch 5 hours of the event?
Kvothe wrote:
20$ for 2.5 hours of coverage. Do you think tennis fans would pay $40 to watch 5 hours of the event?
No, they wouldn't, and they wouldn't have to because more people watch and so professional tennis tournaments and networks are able to negotiate more favorable advertising and coverage deals.