Rules of Grand Slam Tennis prize money for winners - Time for a change

Grand Slam(GS) finals are very competitive. It’s not uncommon to see 2 players battle it out till the end when a small error by one of the players in a decisive stage results in a championship loss. In such situations, it’s hard to conclusively decide the better player considering that the match was so close.

Today all Grand Slams have a simple table for the prize amount disbursement. In Wimbledon, prize money for singles winners is GBP 2.35M. The runners-up get GBP 1.175M(half the winners prize). A simple structure to decide what a match-winner and match loser get makes sense till the semi-final stage of the tournament. The amounts being disbursed to players isn’t much. The focus of the players is to reach the last four stage and beyond and is less about the match money. While winning in the earlier rounds is a significant event, but it’s a tad less hearty given that there are many big steps yet to win the cup.

Should be there be a different way to decide the prize money in the finals and semifinals?

Let’s say a player had a very tough 5-setter semi-final A sample score of the match could be 6–4, 4–6, 6–6 (7–5), 6–6 (3–7), 6–4. Let’s say a similar situation occurs in the final. Don’t the players who lost these matches deserve a larger share of the prize money? After-all the gap between winner and loser was so narrow. The winning and losing player has made it through a rigorous journey to reach this stage of the tournament.

Proposed prize structure for the finals and semifinals:

Semifinals:

A victory in less than 5 sets, no change in current tournament money disbursement.

If the victory occurs in 5 sets, the semi-finalist loses 15% of his/her eventual prize money.

If the victory occurs in 5 sets with a tie-breaker in the last set, the semi-finalist loses 25% of his/her eventual prize money.

This deducted money adds to the prize money of the losing player.

Finals:

A victory in less than 5 sets, no change in current tournament money disbursement.

If the victory occurs in 5 sets, the champion winner loses 25% of his/her winners' prize money.

If the victory occurs in 5 sets with a tie-breaker in the last set, the finalist loses 40% of his/her winners' prize money.

This deducted money goes to the runners-up player.

So the runners-up prize money goes up if the person puts up a good fight and makes the match an entertaining spectacle.

What are the benefits of the proposed structure?

The expectation to see a tough match is high in the semis and finals. The viewership is much higher (both in-stadium and on TV/OTT). So there should be additional incentives to both players to play the best game ever. The existing incentive of reaching the finals/winning is good in many ways, but a prize structure to complement a tough/close match makes it nicer. It feels fair. Striving hard to win is essential but winning isn’t everything. This could give that extra mental push to players to stretch the match scores as it affects earnings.

It also gives the audience additional goal-posts to cheer for and get hooked during the game.

All games are designed to determine a single winner. In fact like in other games, in tennis GSs it’s a winner takes it all situation at the end of the game. The post-match interview, photoshoot, bigger cup, victory lap, etc. reflect that moment. The runners-up get sidelined quickly, and all the focus is put on the winner. While it’s hard to change or reduce the winner getting all the attention, at least the prize money could be divided more equitably depending on how dominant the winner was on that day.

Equal pay for Ladies and Gentlemen winners prize money

Isn’t it strange that the men and ladies winners get the same prize money amounts? The men’s matches being 5-setters are longer and tougher matches. In addition, the viewership, TV licensing rights and Advt. revenue are expected to be higher for men's matches than ladies matches.

Despite fundamental differences in the game and earnings they bring to the GS organisers, it’s unfair that women get paid the same as men. They should be paid less.

In the earlier rounds till “Round 4”, men and women can be paid the same match fees. The earlier rounds also have a purpose to encourage players to stay focussed on the game and aspire to become the next great player to win the tournament. The cost of training and preparing for the tournament is mostly the same for both genders. Given these considerations, equal pay for men and women is the right thing.

But for the finals and semifinals, it has to be somewhat discriminatory. It’s about winning, capitalism, glory, etc. It’s less about sustenance, encouragement and survival.

GS tennis is not about community, diversity, etc. It is about providing a platform that can determine the best of the world’s top tennis players. It’s about showcasing excellence with a big reward at the end of it. By keeping the women winners prize amount the same as the men, one is being partial to the fairer sex and discriminatory to the top male tennis players. Pay is usually ascertained by effort, skill and quality of output as perceived by the watching audience. By rationalising the pay under the garb of gender equality is a disservice to the game and the top players.