“It's tricky” - Tennis' low profit-sharing model with players can't be compared to NFL, NBA & MLB, argues Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson recently discussed the disparities in profit-sharing models between tennis and major sporting leagues such as the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and Major League Baseball (MLB) . Johnson mentioned that comparing the financial structures of tennis to those of the NFL, NBA, and MLB is "tricky."

During a recent episode of the 'Nothing Major' podcast, which is hosted by John Isner, Sam Querrey, Jack Sock and Steve Johnson himself, Querrey highlighted that players on the ATP Tour receive the smallest share of total revenue compared to athletes in other major sports leagues like the Premier League, Bundesliga, NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, and PGA.

“Tennis players get the smallest cut of total revenue in major sports. This is total revenue what percentage the players get for their salaries: Premier League 61%, Bundesliga 53%, NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB all about 50%. Then you’ve got the AFL, PGA and the 20% and then ATP tennis is 17% of total revenue is going to the players. So seeing these numbers tennis of the major sports around the world is kind of one of the lowest as far as revenue share for players,” Querrey said [46:16].

In response, Steve Johnson explained that the comparison between tennis and major sporting leagues is challenging due to it's unique structure.

“It’s a bit tricky and compare them to the NFL, NBA, MLB, like the big sports leagues because they all have one league right, like it’s 30 teams, 32 teams whatever it is,” Steve Johnson said [47:15].

Johnson pointed out that tennis is highly "segmented," with Grand Slam tournaments existing in a world of their own, and varying pay structures in ATP Masters 1000, 500, and 250 tournaments.

The American mentioned that the Masters 1000 tournaments pose the least financial risk while offering the highest returns, whereas 250 tournaments carry the highest risk with the lowest financial rewards.

“Tennis is very segmented where the Slams are their own world and then you go to the ATP World where we have the 1000s, the 500s and the 250s where we all kind of know the structure, where the pay is better at the thousands and so on and so forth. From a financial standpoint, in tennis, the 1000s risk the least amount of sweat equity and capital and they gain the most,” he continued [47:26].

“Whereas the 250 tournaments, the Delray Beaches, the Atlanta’s back in the day, whatever it may be, they risk the most to make the least amount of money because they don’t know what their player field is going to be,” Johnson added [47:51].

Steve Johnson also highlighted the mandatory nature of Masters 1000 tournaments, which attract top players like Carlos Alcaraz, Jannik Sinner and Daniil Medvedev, increase spectatorship, boost ticket sales, and contribute to the overall success of the tournament.

In contrast, Johnson mentioned that smaller tournaments often need to pay top players to participate, hoping that their presence will attract sponsors, increase merchandise sales, and boost ticket revenue.

“The Master series, it's mandatory. Carlos Alcaraz , [Jannik] Sinner, [Daniil] Medvedev, have to play Indian Wells or they take a zero or they lose a fine something of that nature. But these tournaments in Marseille this week for example, they need to pay Medvedev to come there so they are basically betting on him to bring in sponsorship dollars, to bring in ticket sales. And if he doesn’t do well or he pulls out because he gets hurt, that isn’t bad, that's just bad luck for the tournament,” Johnson said [48:03].

---

“Smaller tournaments risk the most to get players, bit backwards in tennis the big tournaments risk the least to gain the most” - Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson at the 2023 US Open [Image Source: Getty Images]

In the aforementioned episode of the podcast, Steve Johnson mentioned the challenges faced by smaller tennis tournaments in attracting top players and generating revenue through ticket sales and merchandise.

“Smaller tournaments ultimately have to risk the most to get players there to then try and get some return on their investment through ticket sales, merchandise, alcohol, whatever it might be, once they get through the gate at the door,” Steve Johnson said [48:35].

Johnson also highlighted the disparity in risk-taking between smaller and larger tournaments, noting that smaller tournaments often take on greater risks in the hopes of securing substantial returns, which is not always guaranteed.

“It’s just a bit of a backwards environment in tennis where the big tournaments risk almost the least to gain the most. I don’t know if that’s how you guys felt but that’s that’s how I looked at it in the grand scheme of things. Indian Wells doesn’t have a lot to risk, everyone’s gonna come, they’re gonna get hundreds of thousands of people through the door,” he added [48:50].

Steve Johnson retired from the sport after competing at the 2024 Indian Wells Masters. He played his final match alongside compatriot Tommy Paul. However, the American duo were defeated in the first round by eventual champions Wesley Koolhof and Nikola Mektic.