Sunday, January 31, 2010
Seeding in Grand Slams
New attendance records were set (653,860, up 8%) , and As a moral if not economic boost for us locals, Tennis Australia (governing body for Tennis in this nation), in conjunction with the Victorian State Government, announced a plan for a $363 million AUD redevelopment and extension of Melbourne Park, the home of the Australian Open since 1988.
However, some newspaper and radio coverage in Melbourne has suggested the Open was a bit lacklustre this year.
Rising attendances (a new record of 653,820, up 8% on 2009) and record day-night crowds on the Wed and Sat of the first week would suggest otherwise, but I agree that 'the feel, the vibe, the atmosphere' was lacking until we reached the finals. Perhaps this was caused by the bad weather at the start of the Open - rain instead of the usual stifling heat was an unusual start to the tournament? Maybe the slightly later start than in years gone by (a week later than iat the start of the 2000s) means more Melburnians are back into work mode after the Christmas break? Maybe the local broadcaster, the Seven Network, did an awful job? (They have been almost universally whacked for a shocking telecast this year.) Perhaps attendance growth can be explained by the great missing variable of sports economics research - (the compounding effect of) marketing/advertising expenditure?
So, (a) if we could measure 'enthusiasm', (b) has the seeding of 32 players (up from of the 16 seeds prior to 2001) influenced this variable, (c) how? And (d) if attendance is rising, does it really matter, or will there be a lagged detrimental impact upon attendance?
Julio del Corral addressed some related issues in the Dec 2009 J Sports Eco, suggesting a significant reduction of competitive balance in men's Grand Slam tennis (but not for the women) since the 32 seeds were introduced. Check it out.
Labels: Competitive Balance, tennis
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Wimbledon Eschews the Labour Theory of Value
The All England Club has gradually reduced the pay gap over the years, but held out against equal prizes as a matter of principle.The important question is not who works harder or who has what opportunities to earn extra income from other matches. Instead, the important question is who is expected to generate how much revenue. And judging from the ratings and attendance, it appears that a three-game women's tournament generates at least as much revenue as a five-game men's tournament. If so, it makes sense that the women's prize money would be at least as large as the men's prize money.
[Club Chairman (sic), Tom] Phillips had cited surveys showing that men give better value than the women. The men play best-of-five set matches, while the women play best of three. Also, the women make more money overall because they also play in doubles, while the top men usually play only singles.
"It just doesn't seem right to us that the lady players could play in three events and could take away significantly more than the men's champion who battles away through these best-of-five matches," Phillips said last year. "We don't see it as an equal rights issue."
What puzzles me, though, is why these grand slams do not extract more rent from the contenders.
Last year, men's champion Roger Federer received $1.170 million and women's winner Amelie Mauresmo got $1.117 million.Would the top talent really give Wimbledon a miss if the prize money were "only" $1 million?
The answer, presumably, has to do with entry conditions. If Wimbledon offered only $500,000 as the top prize, how long would it take for some other tournament to emerge, claiming a position as one of the top four grand slam tournaments? Possibly Dubai?
Labels: discrimination, sex, tennis, Wimbledon
