Tour de france prize money vs french open

[alancw3]

having been both a cyclist and tennis player i got to wondering about the prize money for both sports. am i missing something. 2016 tour de France total prize money was 2.3 million euros and 2017 french open total prize money is 36 million euros. tour lasts 26 days french open two weeks. what am i missing here? is it talent versus just being in share? just seems to be an inequity. or are the endorsements team sponsorships so much larger in cycling than tennis? it would seem to me that there would be a whole lot more expense involved to running a cycling team than a tennis player bring his entourage, coach, physical therapist and psychologist to a tournament.

[PepeM]

Tennis is way more popular.

[jumphigher]

Originally Posted by PepeM

Tennis is way more popular.

That's it in a nutshell.

I was actually just thinking about this same subject myself a couple of days ago, though. Bike racing is really underpaid compared to so many, not nearly as hard sports. Such is life though I guess..

[djg21]

There are some awesome curlers: some who are better at their sport than the best pro cyclists are at cycling. Why don't those curlers get paid comparable salaries to the top pro cyclists? Or to Tom Brady for that matter?

It's economics. There is more money in Tennis, and in particular the Grand Slam events, given TV contracts, advertising, etc. Only cyclists care about bicycle racing, and TV coverage of cycling doesn't capture near the audience that major tennis events do. Professional sports are ENTERTAINMENT businesses. Athletes are not paid because they are good at their sports per se, but rather because, by virtue of their talents, they generate interest in their sports and increase live ticket sales and TV ratings, thereby allowing the promoter/league to increase revenues. There just isn't the same interest or money in cycling that there is in Tennis or many other pro sports.

[PQJ]

Tennis players are better athletes and therefore deserve more $$.









Just kidding, of course. Prize $$ is a function of revenue brought in via advertising $$. Cycling, being a niche sport (even for an event like the Tour), is just not going to command the same kind of respect, dosh-wise, as tennis.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by jumphigher

That's it in a nutshell.

I was actually just thinking about this same subject myself a couple of days ago, though. Bike racing is really underpaid compared to so many, not nearly as hard sports. Such is life though I guess..

Compared to winning a major title in tennis or golf, cycling is comparatively easy. If thought about in the basest skill set requirement, cycling distills down to a raw VO2 max and a watts/kg attribute. And these qualities can be obtained and/or enhanced through proper medication.

There is no way to win a French Open in tennis or The Masters in golf through any application of a syringe.

[pjm]

Originally Posted by PQJ

Tennis players are better athletes and therefore deserve more $$.









Just kidding, of course. Prize $$ is a function of revenue brought in via advertising $$. Cycling, being a niche sport (even for an event like the Tour), is just not going to command the same kind of respect, dosh-wise, as tennis.

I actually think Roger Federer is one of the best athletes I've ever seen. Can't say that about any cyclist.

[R3awak3n]

if we compare tennis to say football (the real kind, thats played with your feet) it will be a similar situation. advertising pays the big bucks for sure. That said, the difference in the number is surprising, I did not know tennis was that popular.

[parco]

They charge money to see the French Open the Tour is free.

[MattTuck]

Also, it is the type of sponsor that makes a difference. Tennis and golf attract luxury and B2B advertisers with big checkbooks. Cycling has done a very poor job of attracting premier sponsors.

[djg21]

Originally Posted by parco

They charge money to see the French Open the Tour is free.

The big money is TV. TV coverage of cycling is pretty boring, and other than cyclists, how many people actually watch it? Let's face it, it's boring even for cyclists, except for the few decisive moves and last 20 minutes or so.

[tv_vt]

Think, too, of the costs involved in putting on the Tour across a whole country vs using the enclosed Roland-Garros complex for the French Open - way way cheaper to produce a tennis tournament.

Look at the big advertisers at Grand Slams - Mercedes, IBM, Rolex,... Tennis crowds are pretty wealthy, so they attract the high-end companies.

What is puzzling though is the views of the French Open stands during matches. They seem half empty! Can't figure that out at all. Late rounds of a Slam and the stadium is empty? Maybe tennis isn't really as popular as people think.

I love tennis as much as cycling...

[PQJ]

Originally Posted by djg21

The big money is TV. TV coverage of cycling is pretty boring, and other than cyclists, how many people actually watch it? Let's face it, it's boring even for cyclists, except for the few decisive moves and last 20 minutes or so.

Fact is, even the French aren't that into it. Meaning, they'll watch a stage if it passes through their part of the country, but, generally speaking, they don't care for it like we think they might. I canvassed the opinions of a bunch of taxi drivers when I was last in Paris, and almost without exception, soccer was their thing, and the Tour was an afterthought.

[PepeM]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

Compared to winning a major title in tennis or golf, cycling is comparatively easy. If thought about in the basest skill set requirement, cycling distills down to a raw VO2 max and a watts/kg attribute. And these qualities can be obtained and/or enhanced through proper medication.

There is no way to win a French Open in tennis or The Masters in golf through any application of a syringe.

I'd say you are comparing playing tennis to cycling. When it comes to winning in either of them: How many players are genuine contenders in the French Open? Two? Three? How many riders are genuine contenders in the Tour de France?

The doping thing is ridiculous; No matter how much EPO you give me, I am not winning the TdF. Elite athletes could go from top ten riders to winners, sure, but to suggest that a top ten tennis player wouldn't benefit from doping is probably not very accurate.

All of this is off-topic, of course, since it has nothing to do with why some athletes earn more than others.

[djg21]

Originally Posted by tv_vt

Think, too, of the costs involved in putting on the Tour across a whole country vs using the enclosed Roland-Garros complex for the French Open - way way cheaper to produce a tennis tournament.

Look at the big advertisers at Grand Slams - Mercedes, IBM, Rolex,... Tennis crowds are pretty wealthy, so they attract the high-end companies.

What is puzzling though is the views of the French Open stands during matches. They seem half empty! Can't figure that out at all. Late rounds of a Slam and the stadium is empty? Maybe tennis isn't really as popular as people think.

I love tennis as much as cycling...

I don't know if I would go to a closed arena to watch a sporting event in Paris right now given security concerns. I'm also curious as to how spectators and riders will be protected at the Tour.