Wimbledon Announces 40% Rise In Prize Money, Players React Favorably

“1rst round losers at @Wimbledon will pocket 23.500 £ in 2013. Borg, for his 5th consecutive win, got 20.000 in 1980.”

https://twitter.com/YCochennec/status/326731829472272384

Note that £20k in 1980 = £70k in 2013.

April 23rd, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Hope it doesn’t mean a 40% hike in the cost of tickets.

April 23rd, 2013 at 2:47 pm

It seems all the majors have responded favorably to players’ demands. The players involved in the negotiations deserve credit for handling it well and not taking unreasonable or extreme positions.

April 23rd, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Wow, the master plan shows a drawing of what Wimbledon 2019 will look like (including the new No. 1 court roof and Henman Hill):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIjlrSaCIAAFIiT.jpg:large

April 23rd, 2013 at 3:31 pm

It is about time I won Wimbledon.

April 23rd, 2013 at 5:52 pm

@ theDA

Somehow I don’t think by 2019 that area will be called “Henman Hill” any longer. Maybe “_ _ _ _ _ _ Mound or Meadow” ;-)

April 23rd, 2013 at 7:00 pm

I thought the name had already been changed?

April 23rd, 2013 at 7:19 pm

@ jane

Many have changed the name but there is a sizeable contingent of diehard Henman fans who insist it should remain unchanged. I think after last year it’s indisputable what it should be called.

April 23rd, 2013 at 7:27 pm

I think it needs to be changed too racquet; did Henman even make a final? He certainly didn’t win Olympic gold there. Anyhow, some people resist change in all its forms.

April 23rd, 2013 at 7:34 pm

I hope there is an across the board increase for all the players who participate in this tournament rather than just for the winner and loser.

April 24th, 2013 at 12:46 am

I think the prize is already a ridiculous amount of money as it is,its most likely that one of the top players will be one of the ones to walk away with the trophy anyway,another case of the already rich getting even richer,agree with Michael in that there should be an increase in the earlier rounds for the lesser ranked players and wilcards etc etc,my two cents.

April 24th, 2013 at 5:56 am

It is across the board. 1st, 2nd and 3rd round will get over 60% increases.

April 24th, 2013 at 9:41 am

Murray will win Wimbledon, perhaps this year. He is the main favorite.

April 24th, 2013 at 11:06 am

But why such a large increase all at once???? I agree w/ Alison (rich getting richer) but happy about the first round increase.

April 24th, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Steve 27 been a Brit,i would love Murray to win Wimbledon,his game seems well suited to playing on grass too,i dont think there would be a dry eye in the house,although the irony is at the FO hes under less pressure as hes never really done that well there,would love Rafa to get that record of 9 consecutive years with a GS,go Muzza,go Rafa,go get a GS this year.

April 24th, 2013 at 12:50 pm

Cena thankyou,the prize money is already ridiculously too much,but im glad about the earlier rounds getting more money,one of the top players are most likely a shoo for the title anyway,why not donate the money to charity or one of those foundations that these top players support JMO.

April 24th, 2013 at 1:05 pm

how much is the cost of a ticket in Wimbledon, lets talk qf, sf or finals?

April 24th, 2013 at 6:39 pm

I know that amount of money is and looks ridiculous, but the point is how much money is generated thanks to players. If that amount of money is ridicilous thanks to them then they rigthfully deserve their ridicilous share. That is how it works today in corporate world. Just to compare Borg and £20.000 is not right since we don’t know how much money was generated in those days, sponsors were or were not interested in tennis etc. etc. just look at bonuses corporate people get, look at the fees of certain actors, singers… If tennis players are given that much money then you can be sure they generate much more and that somebody else is quite happy to pay them that money, for a reason.
When I go to AO and know that around 700.000 people goes through the gates every year, makes you think if they drink only one beer, by only one bratwurst, by only one shirt from merchandise shops, plus tickets, TV rights and mayor sponsors, that is lot lot of money. The reason is … tennis players, they want to enjoy their games and party .
Pay peanuts, and you get monkeys;)

April 24th, 2013 at 9:46 pm

“buy” not “by”, “major” not “mayor” and few more spelling mistake but you get what I want to say?

April 24th, 2013 at 9:53 pm

Agree with Michael and alison. The players who need the increase are the low ranked, not top guys who win so much, as alison says the rich getting richer.

April 24th, 2013 at 10:33 pm

Alison and Ricky,

That is what Roger has been fighting for as President of the Players Association. I think his efforts are slowly paying off. Those second round and third round losers should be compensated well as they sacrifice their life for the Sport. Their amount of hard work is no less than the Top. Only thing is that success eludes them for some reason – may be for lower talent. The prize money for the winner and loser is insance and more particularly what is outrageous is the prize money is equal for both male and female players.

April 25th, 2013 at 12:43 am

Indeed, Federer has been negotiating to get the prize money for the early-round losers raised significantly. He understands what’s needed for the health of the sport as a whole.

A 60% increase is the difference between having to live in a cardboard box and being able to make a modest living.

Without these increases for lower-ranked players, the Grand Slams would become more boring as it would be tougher to attract a diverse field of players. Yes, watching the superstars is always fun but you need a larger cast of players to make the matches interesting.

April 25th, 2013 at 8:37 pm

^^ true

April 25th, 2013 at 10:00 pm