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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[cmbicycles]

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.

To be honest, I find most professional sports boring to watch. I understand that there is a social component to watching with others, but otherwise it doesn't do much to make my life better. How long is a baseball game compared to the actual action that takes place... or football? Those are the two biggest money makers I would think. Basketball, soccer, and hockey have a little more action, but less $$$. It doesn't take away from the skills required at a professional level, I appreciate that some people are very talented at playing games (like chess and checkers too ;) ), but I would rather be playing a sport than watching... although with cycling at least the scenery changes.

[shovelhd]

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.

This.

[djg21]

To be honest, I find most professional sports boring to watch. I understand that there is a social component to watching with others, but otherwise it doesn't do much to make my life better. How long is a baseball game compared to the actual action that takes place... or football? Those are the two biggest money makers I would think. Basketball, soccer, and hockey have a little more action, but less $$$. It doesn't take away from the skills required at a professional level, I appreciate that some people are very talented at playing games (like chess and checkers too ;) ), but I would rather be playing a sport than watching... although with cycling at least the scenery changes.

I'm in complete agreement. As much as I like watching a Patriots game, I'm not going to spend an entire weekend watching football, or any televised sport for that matter. I follow the Tour, but prefer to watch the highlights because I don't need to watch skinny little guys (on drugs) pedal for hours on end, and I really don't need to see incessant athlete profiles (which are necessary because the sport is boring).

[alancw3]

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

i would totally agree with you about rodger federer but i would also say the same about eddy merckx. both the best in there sports.

[AngryScientist]

as a related comment: i am baffled and amazed by the $$$ that goes into advertising in general. the millions that are spent on tv, print, social media, etc is just amazing to me.

i know there is a whole science to it all, and that somehow a ba-jillion dollar superbowl ad for a $75k audi somehow sells enough audis to justify that ad, but it still baffles me.

[chiasticon]

I assume the values you quoted were overall purse? as in, for men and women, singles and doubles. the tour is several different competitions (GC, sprinter, team, KOM, best young rider, etc) but it's also only for men.

[djg21]

I assume the values you quoted were overall purse? as in, for men and women, singles and doubles. the tour is several different competitions (GC, sprinter, team, KOM, best young rider, etc) but it's also only for men.

This same discussion has been held regarding the disparity in purses in men's and women's sports.

[Mr. Pink]

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.

I watch it for the scenery. Seriously. France is beautiful.


As per the OP, Amercans could care less about cycling, and America is still the most voracious consumer culture, therefore, the world's prime ad market. So, no Americans, no money. But many upper middle class Americans play and follow tennis.

[adub]

It's all just entertainment (all sports) and pro tennis entertains more people.

[Rpoole8537]

Speaking of ad money and popularity, I recently heard Colin Cowherd state that each NFL team receives 98 million dollars from TV revenue each season. So, a team can generate unlimited additional revenue from tickets, concessions, local sponsors, etc. We only wish cycling teams could generate this much interest in America.

[bitt3n]

Speaking of ad money and popularity, I recently heard Colin Cowherd state that each NFL team receives 98 million dollars from TV revenue each season. So, a team can generate unlimited additional revenue from tickets, concessions, local sponsors, etc. We only wish cycling teams could generate this much interest in America.

easy, make it full contact

[jumphigher]

To be honest, I find most professional sports boring to watch. I understand that there is a social component to watching with others, but otherwise it doesn't do much to make my life better. How long is a baseball game compared to the actual action that takes place... or football? Those are the two biggest money makers I would think. Basketball, soccer, and hockey have a little more action, but less $$$. It doesn't take away from the skills required at a professional level, I appreciate that some people are very talented at playing games (like chess and checkers too ;) ), but I would rather be playing a sport than watching... although with cycling at least the scenery changes.

This is exactly how I feel as well. :beer:

[daker13]

Tennis and cycling are my two sports too. I love watching tennis, but the ads are insufferable. Financial services, retirement planning, luxury cars, fine watches... I get it, tennis is a supposedly classy sport full of classy things for all the classy dudes who play it--gross. It's kind of a shame, because the entry costs for tennis are really pretty low: racquets are cheap, courts are usually free, and that's it. Except for the lessons...

With the red clay and the green stands, Roland Garros is a beautiful tournament. I don't have the Tennis Channel, and I'm dying to watch some of the matches.

[Mr. Pink]

easy, make it full contact

The end zone/finish line celebrations are similar.

[54ny77]

can't stand the grunting of tennis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKZgefsTh4

really. i watch it with volume off, generally.

[Polyglot]

The Tour draws far more unique views than any other sporting event in France. Tennis does not even come close to the number of cycling, whether live or on TV. The problem largely lies in the fact that cycling events, in much the same way as marathons, have long been considered to be a "free" sporting events, unlike virtually any other sporting event. Organizers cannot readily monetize bicycle events and are therefore not able to pay out the same prize money. Add to this the fact that pro cyclists have never been overly well-organized and you have a situation where it is highly unlikely that things will change any time soon.

I was formerly sales Director of the then third largest manufacturer of tennis racquets in the world, and we were the sole (racquets, apparel, gear and footwear) or principal sponsor of a number of Grand Slam title winners and the cost of sponsorship was not that outrageous when compared to individual sponsorship of a top cyclist, mainly due to the fact that individual sponsorship in cycling is virtually impossible: you sponsor a team, you can't sponsor a single cyclist. When I was subsequently involved in supply contracts for team clothing for pro cycling teams, where at best you could get a small little logo with little exposure, the costs were very expensive for the return in notoriety.