A question about becoming a professional

[Moose]

This may sound like a really daft question given how long on and off I have played, but how do you become a profesional badminton player who can support themselves financially as such? I remember at the All England 2004 there was a feature in the match booklet congratualting a lady (sorry, I cannot remember the name) who was 10th in England and still in full time employment as a mechanic!

Ive known lots of people who either played exceedingly well for their university or county etc who were never approached to become a "professional". I certainly never knowingly saw scouts at open tournaments like you'd get in say football or rugby.

So, how did Gail emms get noticed etc? (No smutty comments!!!)

These are just issues are never really understood.

Furthermore, what is an average prize fund for a winner? Its ridiculous money in tennis but everyone kows about it!

[badmintongroupie]

Prize money for the All England 2005 taken from the programme was

Men's Singles

Winner US$ 10000 Runner-Up US$5000 Losing Semi-Finalist US$2500

Women's Singles

Winner US$8625 Runner-Up US$4125 Losing Semi-Finalist US$2250

Men's Doubles

Winner US$9000 per pair Runners-Up US$5000 per pair Losing Semi-Finalists US$3000 per pair

Womens'Doubles and Mixed Doubles

Winners US$7625 per pair Runners-Up US$5000 per pair Losing Semi-Finalists US$2750 per pair

You can see that by the standards of tennis it is almost a pittance!


National Elite Competitions

MS Winner £240 Runner-Up £120 Losing Semi-Finalists £60

WS Winner £160 Runner-Up £80 Losing Semi-Finalist £ 40

MD Winners £240 per pair Runners-Up £ 120 per pair Losing Semi-Finalists £60 per pair

WD and MXD Winners £180 per pair Runners-Up £90 per pair Losing Semi-Finalists £45 per pair

Most National players are supported with Lottery Funding which is dependent on results at home and more importantly abroad. Certain criteria have to be reached in order to retain funding which can be reduced or lost if the criteria are not met.

Players are not 'spotted' but usually come through the junior ranks where he/she will have demonstrated talent/ability to win/mental toughness/perseverence/willingness to train and learn new techniques etc.

This is a thumdnail sketch but I hope it gives an idea of the way things work.

[Michael Banks]

Let's compare that with the tennis equivalent to the All England, Wimbledon.

Wimbledon Prize Money 2004

Men's Singles : Winner £602,500 : Runner-up: £301,250
Ladies' Singles : Winner £560,500 : Runner-up £280,250
Men's Doubles : Winners £215,000 : Runners-up: £107,500
Ladies Doubles : Winners: £200,000 : Runners-up: £100,000
Mixed Doubles : Winners: £90,000 : Runners-up £45,000

Total Prize Money : £9,707,280

The loser of a first round match in the mens singles receives - £6,530

Also found this,

"In 1968 the championships became 'open' to all categories of player, both amateurs and professionals. The men's singles prize leapt to £2,000 and the women's to £750. The prize money has been rising ever since."

The mens singles prize at the All England this year was about £5,000. A disgrace.

[redkingjoe]

no doubt, the winning prize of tennis is much more attractive than badminton.

moreover, the coaching charge for tennis is around 30-50% higher than badminton in hong kong. that's one of the reasons my son's talented china badminton coach is learning tennis. he will be taking an internationally accerdited tennis coaching licensing exam this x'mas...after his passing of the exam my son might lose his talented badminton coach gradually.

the coach said that those who learn tennis are generally more willing to pay on the one hand and on the other hand having a higher social economical status...just compare the car parking outside the tennis court and badminton court and one will know the diff.... if he is to teach tennis, he simply doesn't need to negotiate the coaching charge as often...also, there will be auto-tennis ball-feeder, how comfortable?

[redkingjoe]

besides tennis, professional footballl players are compensated heftily. When will badminton's fans reach the passion like this:

WE'LL DUMP THE WIFE BEFORE OUR FOOTBALL TEAM Mar 29 2005

Fans adore club more than their loved ones

By Lachlan Mackinnon



MORE than half of football fans would get rid of their missus before they would ditch their team, a survey claimed yesterday.

Zoo magazine found 52 per cent of men would give their lover the elbow if they had to choose between them and their club.

And a further 28 per cent were unsure who they would keep.

Girl supporters were almost as bad - 48 per cent put their team before their loved one.

The lads mag survey of 12,500 fans also found that, despite the widest ever coverage, supporters still want to see more footy on TV.

Fifty-two per cent said there is not enough on TV, while 29 per cent thought the total coverage is about right and 19 per cent thought there is too much.

Scottish fans spend the most on their teams with the average fan forking out £119.60 a month.

Premiership supporters average £99.40 and Championship fans shell out £100.80Fans also said they would stop going to matches if ticket prices rise too far. More than half - 51 per cent - claimed a £15 price rise would stop them going.

And 69 per cent said a £30 rise would do it. But 30 per cent said that current ticket prices are good value for money.

Meanwhile, 76 per cent of those polled feel fans do not have enough say in the running of the game.

While 62 per cent think the Premiership is the best league in the world, only eight per cent of Scots fans think the Scottish Premier League is the world's finest.

Hooliganism is clearly not yet dead, with 77 per cent of fans saying they have witnessed trouble at matches.

Racism is still a problem with only 22 per cent feeling it has been eliminated from the sport

[Michael Banks]

Zoo magazine found 52 per cent of men would give their lover the elbow if they had to choose between them and their club.

Girl supporters were almost as bad - 48 per cent put their team before their loved one.

This is crap, Zoo magazine is the equivalent to the Sunday Sport and mostly made up on the spot, how can you beleive a stastic that says half of women put football before their partner?

Football support is all about clan rivalry not about sport so can't be compared with badminton where there are no clans to be rivals of.

[Loafer]

Zoo magazine found 52 per cent of men would give their lover the elbow if they had to choose between them and their club.

Girl supporters were almost as bad - 48 per cent put their team before their loved one.

This is crap, Zoo magazine is the equivalent to the Sunday Sport and mostly made up on the spot, how can you beleive a stastic that says half of women put football before their partner?

Football support is all about clan rivalry not about sport so can't be compared with badminton where there are no clans to be rivals of.
Have to agree. I believe the target demographic for Zoo, would have trouble spelling badminton, in fact i believe this is why most of the readership call football "footy". It can all be so confusing, all those letters, getting them in the right order.........;)

[NeilNicholls]

Girl supporters were almost as bad - 48 per cent put their team before their loved one.

... how can you beleive a stastic that says half of women put football before their partner?

firstly, you have to not mis-quote it.
It said "48% of girl supporters" not "48% of women"
You could work for a political party, with spin like that.

that said, though, I wouldn't trust it either.

[Michael Banks]

firstly, you have to not mis-quote it.
It said "48% of girl supporters" not "48% of women"
You could work for a political party, with spin like that.

that said, though, I wouldn't trust it either.
Sorry Mr Picky ;)
I should have said 48% of the women asked as they were all supporters, although they couldn't really comment on those that weren't asked. :)

[flamingjam]

The money in badminton is totally stewed really biased in Asia because of the business there look these are the prize funds for winners
Noonnoppi KOREA OPEN $250,000 6*
Chinese Taipei Open $50,000 2*
Djarum IND OPEN $170,000 5*
China Open $250,000 6*
Aviva Singapore Open $170,000 5*
Yonex Japan Open $180,000 5*
Yonex US open $50,000 1*
Proton Malaysia open $120,000 4*

EUROPEAN WORLD GRAND PRIX
Swiss Open $80,000 3*
Yonex Dutch Open $50,000 2*
Yonex German Open $50,000 2*
Denmark Open $170,000 5*
Yonex AE $10,000?is it :p 5/6*

the number and * denotes the grading of the tourney and its ranking worth. WHY isnt ther a larger pot for the AE . I thk its being increased but by how much a massive increase you could argue is needed. THe prize funds for the Korea Open increased by 50,000 last year :rolleyes:

[Michael Banks]

Yonex AE $10,000?is it :p 5/6*:
I thuink the AE is $125,000 USD, 10k is for the mens singles winner

[Michael Banks]

Found this from 1997, looks like the prize money has stayed static for 8 years.

February 10, 1997 (NEW SHUTTLENWS) - The four-star Indian Open badminton tournament, offering US$125,000 in prize money, makes it debut tomorrow at the Indira Gandhi stadium in New Delhi.

Despite the prize money and the four-star ranking, the tourney has not attracted a large number of top players, many of whom have chosen to bypass the Indian Open and instead train for the more prestigious All-England Open scheduled for mid-March, even though the two tournaments have the same rating and purse (The All-England is also a four-star event and also offers US$125,000 in prize money).

[flamingjam]

i stil thk the All ENgland should have a larger prize fund as its quoted by Yonex as being 'the worlds oldest and most prestigious tournament' suppose there has to be a question sponsorship to the all england in addition to Yonex, im sure tourneys in china and korea dont have this problem (Aviva and Proton are to large sponsers) because the game is so high profile and therefore attractive to sponsers like the way football is here and in europe.

also the term 'the worlds oldest and most prestigious tournament' would to me suggest its the highest level of grading that is 6* but in your artite it says 4* is this still the case the AE is on the same level as the indian open?

[redkingjoe]

The money in badminton is totally stewed really biased in Asia because of the business there look these are the prize funds for winnersNoonnoppi KOREA OPEN $250,000 6*
Chinese Taipei Open $50,000 2*
Djarum IND OPEN $170,000 5*
China Open $250,000 6*
Aviva Singapore Open $170,000 5*
Yonex Japan Open $180,000 5*
Yonex US open $50,000 1*
Proton Malaysia open $120,000 4*

EUROPEAN WORLD GRAND PRIX
Swiss Open $80,000 3*
Yonex Dutch Open $50,000 2*
Yonex German Open $50,000 2*
Denmark Open $170,000 5*
Yonex AE $10,000?is it :p 5/6*

the number and * denotes the grading of the tourney and its ranking worth. WHY isnt ther a larger pot for the AE . I thk its being increased but by how much a massive increase you could argue is needed. THe prize funds for the Korea Open increased by 50,000 last year :rolleyes:

Does anybody know who's behind the scene in allocating the prize's funding? and "stars" giving? it really looks like most of the money were stewed to Asian countries. anyone knows the rationale?
(btw: my friend(o.k.,he doesn't play badminton) said that the higher prize in asia was meant to attract ppls from Europe to take a long flight to the asian(communist/backward) countries? and it sounds like the asian will be willing to fly to Europe or US(1 star) no matter how little they got paid?)

[Moose]

Cheers for the prize money info. It does seem a shame that badminton is so over shadowed by tennis in regard to awards money. It would seem practical for giants like Yonex or Carlton to invest a little more in British competition prize money, not just to increase interest in the sport but also because of valuable advertising that it would bring to the respective companies. Given how much greater the prize money is in Asia, I doubt it would be too much of a problem to invest here; the long term benefits would, I think be very good. This would after a while go hand in hand with greater media coverage, thus increasing spectatorship over here... etc...

[feeder]

Can players make a living from grants as well as the prize money? There seems to be full time players not only in England but Scotland and Wales. Do they really live on the prize money. How come its possible to play for a minor country and be fulltime.

[RichardS]

What is the situation with countries like China regarding prize money. Do the pro's actually get much of it? If a lot of the main badminton nations take the money back there is not incentive to raise prize money from the sponsers. The players won't be caring surely as they wouldn't benefit so they have no incentive to ask for more.

Where as in a sport such as tennis the players are more in control I personally feel. Although don't think for a moment there isn't injustices in tennis as well... such as the women being payed a lot less than the males. Although you could argue that the men bring in more spectators etc. :p

[Phil McBride]

Can players make a living from grants as well as the prize money? There seems to be full time players not only in England but Scotland and Wales. Do they really live on the prize money. How come its possible to play for a minor country and be fulltime.

I believe the top players are salaried although to what level I don't know.

It is pretty safe to assume their coaching, training, materials, competition fees etc are all covered but at what level the cut off is I don't know. Even some junior squads are funded almost completely.

Erm.............. the top players in Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales living on prize money :rolleyes:

Also remember many players suppliment their income by coaching and the top ones have some kind of sponsorship deals or in the worst cases terms instead of outright sponsorship.

What is the situation with countries like China regarding prize money. Do the pro's actually get much of it? If a lot of the main badminton nations take the money back there is not incentive to raise prize money from the sponsers. The players won't be caring surely as they wouldn't benefit so they have no incentive to ask for more.

Where as in a sport such as tennis the players are more in control I personally feel. Although don't think for a moment there isn't injustices in tennis as well... such as the women being payed a lot less than the males. Although you could argue that the men bring in more spectators etc. :p

In some associations the players are paid and accommodated by their national body, all fees are taken care of by the government and funding by way of sponsorship, and as such all prize monies won by the players in these countires are split between the player and the national body.

[AXC]

This may sound like a really daft question given how long on and off I have played, but how do you become a profesional badminton player who can support themselves financially as such? I remember at the All England 2004 there was a feature in the match booklet congratualting a lady (sorry, I cannot remember the name) who was 10th in England and still in full time employment as a mechanic!

Ive known lots of people who either played exceedingly well for their university or county etc who were never approached to become a "professional". I certainly never knowingly saw scouts at open tournaments like you'd get in say football or rugby.

So, how did Gail emms get noticed etc? (No smutty comments!!!)

These are just issues are never really understood.

Furthermore, what is an average prize fund for a winner? Its ridiculous money in tennis but everyone kows about it!

Most professional players in England are funded by the lottery funding through BA of E and part of their terms and conditions is that the train at MK for 5 days a week, with some exceptions, and they should play the elite circuite. The money is not enaough to live off unless you have free accomodation or obliging parents. The lady engineer had to pay for her own accomodation so got a job and could not receive lottery funding. However, all tournament flights and expenses are paid for by BA of E.

Players only get spotted at certain tournaments i.e. those on the junior and senior circuites. There was a rudimentory scouting system at one time but suspect it never got as far as university or county matches.

Gail went full time at MK after she left the juniors and spent a year or two sorting out partners before she teamed up with Nathan and after much work they became the good pair that we know today.

In my opinion none of the juniors selected to train at MK are physically prepared to cope with the training they need to turn them into good, senior players. This is not a criticism of the training at MK but a criticism of the poor preparation of juniors who want to migrate to seniors. Gail is an example of someone who worked hard at this and managed the transition. How often have we seen the "best thing since sliced bread" junior fail at senior level? Is it because they won too easily at junior level but were not prepared to put in the work to get to a good senior level? (Please accept my apologies for bleating on about my hobby horse)

You can see the comments about prize money from other contributers. However, the elite circuite pays very little in prize money and is badly in need of a sponsor like Friends Provident used to be.

[BadmintonsBest]

Hasnt Wimbledon's prize money this year gone to something like 1.4m? Crazy.

[dlp]

The prize money in grand prix events is not the problem it is the lack of money in the game further down. If you are a top 2 player or pair you can make a decent living at the sport. There may be one paid development officer per county but outside that all the officials/organisers are volunteers, tournaments below elite level you would be lucky to get back your expenses even if you won, and playing for a county costs a player and the county rather than rewards. While coaching may be rewarding in parts of the country with large clubs, generally with court and shuttle costs to factor in few players can afford or are willing to pay for much coaching.

Contrast tennis, golf where there are many paid positions for a player of top county standard, whether paid as coaches / professionals at clubs, paid to play in matches or winning relatively high amounts on fairly low level events.

In badminton we have had the situation where even the 5th best singles player in England can be self funded if they are perhaps in their twenties when they break through and therefore not in the lottery funding. When you consider you probably need a team of five singles players for Thomas / Uber cup you see that badminton is really an amatuer sport.

[AXC]

TV coverage is required to get sponsors interested and to boost the wages of the players. Most English top players' money comes from equipment/clothing sponsors who pay an annual wage plus bonuses for achieving results in tournaments. All major companies are happy to sponsor tennis players and tournaments as they get such good tv coverage. As a consequence tournament prizes and players' sponsorship is a lot higher than in badminton. Even in Denmark where the tv coverage for badminton is better only top players tend to be full time, most of the others work for a living.

I would guess that only Gail and Nathan are the only English players making a good living out of badminton from sponsorship and their silver medal must have helped considerably. There may be a few more who have reasonable sponsorship deals but not many.

A lot of the European countries now have far eastern players, particularly singles players, playing for them who I am sure attract good money. England has not gone that route so our singles players are home grown. The ladies seem to be higher ranked than the men with Tracey Hallam ranked about 8th at the moment. I hope MK continue this policy of growing our own.