$43,000 goes to each 1st round LOSER (round of 128) at the U.S. Open tennis tournament

This reminds me of the meme I always see on Facebook that says something about "I think we should pay our military members millions instead of the men that throw around a football"

Its stupid. The nfl generates billions. The players get a slice of it. Why does everyone hate capitalism?

I was looking at the nba vs wnba salaries. The highest paid wnba player was less than the player minimum for the nba. The nba generates billions. The wnba barely turns a profit

Jimmy21 wrote:

This reminds me of the meme I always see on Facebook that says something about "I think we should pay our military members millions instead of the men that throw around a football"

Its stupid. The nfl generates billions. The players get a slice of it. Why does everyone hate capitalism?

I was looking at the nba vs wnba salaries. The highest paid wnba player was less than the player minimum for the nba. The nba generates billions. The wnba barely turns a profit

Military is a social program designed to help employ those with no skills. The military employs a few skilled ppl but those are a minority within the services. If we only employed elite warriors unemployment would rise several percent

It's called the "Jock Tax." Look it up.

"But someone has to be available to play Serena or Nadal or the other highly seeded players. Those first round matches generate way more public attention than any DL champ. That is why there is way more money available in tennis than in track. And as a bonus, every once in a while upsets happen"

But someone has to line up and race against Bolt or another top track athlete. I do not think individual time trials and solo record attempts would generate as much interest (one reason why field events are generally not as popular as races as they lack head to head visible competition and racing)

And every once in a while the top track athletes do lose in a competition.

There is way more money in tennis than in track but its not necessarily due to the popularity of the first round matches. There were a lot of preliminary rounds in events at the Olympics and it was difficult to locate coverage (tv or other)of the big stars cruising through those.

Consider this.... wrote:

I just think our kids deserve to be rewarded a little better. That's all.

So how much are you donating to them?

Put your butt in a seat at a track meet where you have to buy some tickets. Every meet that I have seen this year has acres of empty seats. Even track fans don't want to go to track meets. If every track meet were "standing room only" ... money would come flowing in. Money doesn't fall from the sky.

Consider this.... wrote:

I just think our kids deserve to be rewarded a little better. That's all.

Consider this.... wrote:

Lose in the round of 32, WIN $140,000.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/event_guide/prize_money.html

And the Diamond League gives only $40,000 to the winner of the entire series. Pitiful.

There one event.

The US Open has corporate sponsors including Chase, IBM, and Mercedes.

There is a thread on lrc about $5 singlets at walmart, with 25 responses.

You do the math.

The OP specifically brought up first round players, so that is what I responded to. But if you don't understand that first round matches at the US Open or other majors draw way more interest than any track event other than some sprints in the Olympics, then there is no reasoning with you.

the future wrote:

It is absurd that society has decided to reward sports people financially over the last 70 years or so when this was never really done in human history before this.

A way of solving this problem is to make all sports amateur again or to tax anyone earning money from sports very heavily and put this money into funding solutions to important problems such as healthcare research etc ...

Are you crazy? I would say for most of human history, sportsmen have been paid massive amounts. Those with the best armies, conquered those without. It was all about force. The sport of the time was war.

We need people spending money on frivolous things for the multiplier effect. When people don't spend, the economy tanks.

Seriously, imagine a world where a car or phone lasted forever. There would be no need to buy a new one, go to a repair shop etc. It wouldn't surprise me if in 100 years engineers are required to develop self-destructing inventions simply so people will have to buy a new one.

Large-scale ping-pong wrote:

Outside the top 100 (automatic majors qualification), it's pretty bleak on the pro tennis circuit(s).

Top 3 in track = top 100 in tennis = top 300 in basketball/football. Probably a fair comparison on market value.

Alan

I am an engineer. I have been in meetings at auto companies where decisions were made to make things out of lesser materials. These decisions were not necessarily based on current cost, but future revenue when those things break or wear out. Your 100 year future has been here for quite some time.

the future wrote:

A way of solving this problem is to make all sports amateur again

Huh? Most of Track and Field athletes are lucky to earn 10,000/yr.

Coach G wrote:

The fact of the matter is that track does not generate enough interest or revenue to pay the athletes much money. Compare what the US Open revenue is versus Diamond League and you have your answer.

You should check USATF's 990s. 10s of millions of dollars annually.

They spent 500,000 on consulting on how to get rid of flotrack and monetize their video rights.

Yes, planned obsolescence has been here for a while. Eventually, though, you want to replace things even those that are running just fine.

My 30 year old fridge for instance is out of style even though it keeps on ticking with no maintenance. Ugly color too.

Also, you get bored of driving the same car after 20 years.

pop_pop!_2.2.1 wrote:

Coach G wrote:

The fact of the matter is that track does not generate enough interest or revenue to pay the athletes much money. Compare what the US Open revenue is versus Diamond League and you have your answer.

You should check USATF's 990s. 10s of millions of dollars annually.

They spent 500,000 on consulting on how to get rid of flotrack and monetize their video rights.

It sounds like if USATF got their act together by marketing the athletes and the events, they could afford to give bigger prize money. Now would be the perfect time with some of the Olympic stars still on the minds of the viewers.

AnEngineerPerspective wrote:

I am an engineer. I have been in meetings at auto companies where decisions were made to make things out of lesser materials. These decisions were not necessarily based on current cost, but future revenue when those things break or wear out. Your 100 year future has been here for quite some time.

Houses too .

pop_pop!_2.2.1 wrote:

Coach G wrote:

The fact of the matter is that track does not generate enough interest or revenue to pay the athletes much money. Compare what the US Open revenue is versus Diamond League and you have your answer.

You should check USATF's 990s. 10s of millions of dollars annually.

They spent 500,000 on consulting on how to get rid of flotrack and monetize their video rights.

The village idiot chimes in. This is simply not true.

Society has some seriously whacked values. We are not willing to pay much for the teachers who are responsible for educating our society. We are willing to let banks and bankers take money from us for holding our money. We are willing to pay outrageous sums for "entertainment". But as others have said, that is capitalism.

The real problems come in the form of exploitation. NFL players have a union and have made sure they get a portion of the pie. T&F athletes have no such leverage. The apparel companies and federations (USATF) are in complete control of the revenue stream and the athletes are promised nothing of that. Just as the NCAA has exploited college football and basketball players, T&F is exploiting its athletes. The product is the athletes, but the athletes are not paid for their performances.

Imagine how well a bar would do if they were known for live music and told the bands they could put out a hat on the front of the stage, but they had to pay for their food, drinks, and electricity usage. How many bands would play there. T&F pretty much operates this way, but people are willing to run for nothing and even pay entry fees so someone else gets the cover charge.

True there is not as big a money stream as other sports, but other sports pay their athletes a portion.