Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[meganfernandez]

Must be the soft heart that's keeping him away.

It could be the mom or his lawyers. That's sad, though. Did he even acknowledge it online? Did any tennis media?

With the social medial landscape before us, you'd expect something out there.

I guess there has been stuff, I just didn't see it and it appears the major tennis media hasn't reported it. Brenda posted a photo with the baby (just her hand), and her name is Mayla. Maybe there was more in German.

[meganfernandez]

Must be the soft heart that's keeping him away.

It could be the mom or his lawyers. That's sad, though. Did he even acknowledge it online? Did any tennis media?

Acknowledged by him? Definitely, but think most of it has been taken down. It's not amicable, looking like a custody or visitation fight is not out of the question. There are definitely lawyers involved here.

I meant did he acknowledge he birth. I didn't see anything on Instagram a month ago. I'm guessing he didn't, for custody or personal reasons, but I'm not drawing any further conclusions.

[ti-amie]

Jazz that is a great gif. I want that mug!

[JazzNU]

[ti-amie]

Fognini has a logo too. It's not bad.

[meganfernandez]

you guys following the convo about appearance fees and Caitlin Thompson calling for the future PTPA to ban them? Craig Shapiro says Fed doesn't get out of bed for $2 million and Rafa and Novak only slightly less.Caitlin's theory is that the appearance fees cut directly into prize money. I doubt it'st hat simple, moving money from one pot to another. If those stars don't play, those events wouldn't bring in the same amount from sponsors. Heck, they might bring in less and actually dilute the prize pool. That $2 mill for Roger doesn't just come in the door anyway without him and go into prize money - that's my guess. We just don't know. Sponsors are ponying up because they think Roger will be there and do a meet-and-greet with clients.

[ti-amie]

Look if Shapo won't get out of bed for chump change why should the players who really put butts in the seats?

It's a situation that really does need to be discussed in the open and not behind closed doors. I look at it this way. It's similar to an advance in the publishing world. If Stephen King says he's going to write a book, and Joe Blow says the same thing who is going to get a huge advance?

No matter how they hype the latest golfer if Tiger Woods is playing a tournament who has the biggest galley? Who gets the huge appearance fee?

[ponchi101]

This was talked about and dissected to the bone in the 80's, specially after the Vilas trial. All permutations were thought of and, in the end, after Vilas was suspended for 6 months because he openly said he had accepted an appearance fee, everybody and his lawyers accepted that this was completely unregulatable and therefore the players could do it.
Borg retired with a little under $4MM in OFFICIAL prize money. Everybody knew he made, as a minimum, twice of that in appearance fees.

[JazzNU]

Maybe the amounts have gotten a bit out of control, but these tournaments aren't paying out appearance fees because they think they can get the same number of butts in the seats and eyes on the screens without them. I'm sure many went that route and found the results lackluster and so they pony up the appearance fees and get a return on their investment. Bring it out in the open if you want, but unless the public changes their behavior, hard to see this going away.

And the idea that the appearance fee money is taking away from other players doesn't ring true for me at all. What that appearance fee brings you disappears without those players, so no need to extend that money to other players who aren't the same kind of draw.

I don't want to see the sport take a step back, but would kind of like to see all these 500 tournaments revert to 250 money to see how many players then have the same complaints about appearance fees when associated sponsor money dries up like the Sahara when there's no longer a guarantee of any big names playing.

[Deuce]

I think the top 10 players should break away from the ATP/WTA and form a Superleague, where they play only against each other. Appearance money would be distributed on a sliding scale, based on the cumulative decibel level of applause that each player received in his/her previous tournament.

There is no point in having the #5 player play against the #118 qualifier - the best players should play against the best players all the time...

[meganfernandez]

Are these appearance fees just for non-mandatory events? Not 1000s and Slams? you think women get them, or just very selectively like Serena and Osaka and maybe a top player at a small event in their home country/

[JazzNU]

Are these appearance fees just for non-mandatory events? Not 1000s and Slams? you think women get them, or just very selectively like Serena and Osaka and maybe a top player at a small event in their home country/

Not certain about which levels pay them out, though Doha and Dubai were rumored to be the highest at one point so I do think 1000s pay them out at times at least, but I don't think any slams do. But as for women, they absolutely get them and not just the very best of the best. The women are actually easier to identify who gets them many times. It's the ones who are doing the press for them. In non-covid times, fairly easy to identify the ones getting the biggest appearance fees even if you can't know all of them.

[ponchi101]

Appearance money is up to the tournament. It is not regulated in any manner.

[meganfernandez]

Appearance money is up to the tournament. It is not regulated in any manner.

doesn't mean players have to take it. for the super-wealthy players, it's a little shameless ... except they might not even care. They might be willing to play without fees. Maybe they do it for their agents and staff. They have a lot of mouths to feed. And maybe appearance fee funds some players' foundations.

[the Moz]

Your appearance fee is the prize money earned by winning matches in a tournament you entered.