Professional Tennis Stars

Young tennis stars must choose between turning pro and college

Taking the college option does not rule out eventually having some success on the pro tour.  However, it does eliminates the chance of achieving a place among the game’s elite.

While many tennis players fantasize about being the next Serena Williams or Kim Clijsters, the number of players who reach their rarefied level is few. And over the roughly 130-year history of tennis, no Canadian has even come close.

The debate about turning pro or choosing the college option is more topical these days because Canada’s two best junior girl prospects, 13-year-old Françoise Abanda and 16-year-old Eugenie Bouchard, both from Montreal, have already signed with professional player agents or management firms and are thus ineligible for a tennis scholarship to a U.S. university.

“Agents are going after players at 10, 11, 12 and 13 years of age,” said Debbie Kirkwood, director of high performance for Tennis Canada.

About Tennis Canada’s approach to the most talented juniors, she added, “we’re really trying to encourage them to ensure they finish high school so it gives them options.”

The United States Tennis Association’s (USTA) National Collegiate Varsity Committee released an FAQ in October that estimated the value of a full-ride scholarship to a top tennis university such as Stanford, Duke or Southern California to be “approximately $90,000” (all currency U.S.) a year or “approximately $360,000” over a four-year-degree period.

That includes “tuition, fees, room, board and books, plus an estimate of expenses for coaching, physical training, mental training, travel and equipment.”

Geoff Macdonald, head women’s tennis coach at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, said: “Private education in the States is ridiculous. It costs $55,000 a year and that’s not even counting racquets and strings, shoes, uniforms, travel, coaching and free tutoring. I reckon the benefits are more like an $80,000-a-year tax-free job.

“I’m so pro college tennis, at least for a couple of years for development physically, emotionally, and just becoming a person and getting an education.

“I think a lot of the tour has nothing to do with tennis as much as being able to handle the life, the losses etc.”  The average age of the WTA’s top-10 players is 26.3 years old.

“It’s been a big sea change,” Macdonald said. “Everything used to be about ‘if you weren’t good at 16, hang it up.’ Now there’s much more late development, [Samantha] Stosur, [Francesca] Schiavone ...”

Canada’s top player, Rebecca Marino of Vancouver, 20, has twice turned down a scholarship to Georgia Tech. Her recent results, from No. 182 at the start of 2010 to No. 105 and a spot in the 2011 Australian Open main draw, would appear to justify her decision to go pro.

But the USTA’s FAQ estimates players must earn about $143,000 in yearly official prize money (not counting sponsorships and other income) to break even on the pro tour.

Even Marino, with earnings of $90,587 this year, was not close. But, like other top Canadians, she gets cost-saving coaching, travel and expenses assistance from Tennis Canada.

Abanda and Bouchard are not alone in passing on the college scholarship route. Sharon Fichman of Toronto, who won the 2006 Australian Open and French Open junior doubles titles, had a full-ride scholarship offer from Stanford University.

An excellent student, Fichman, 20, preferred to pursue a dream of success on the pro tour and now ranks No. 251 after being as high as 114.

Edited by tiffany2010 - January 13 2011 at 2:45pm

The fact that of all the "greats" nobody has more than 10 straight SF except Roger, that just makes the case, in Men's tennis at least. I don't mean to detract from Women's tennis, but it's just not the same. The records don't mean as much as the Men's do. They're easier to obtain, the competition is always weaker, the players are less consistent. Like I said, I don't mean to detract, but as with most sports, the higher quality of play comes from Men than Women. It's especially telling that Evert skipped some grand slams, which Roger has not done during the streak.

IMO, Federer's 23 straight SF streak and his 18 of 19 straight Grand Slam Finals streak are on par with Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hit streak in Major League Baseball. I don't see how anyone will ever match or surpass any of the 3 of those records. They are the model and standard of consistency in their respective sport. People can argue that it's hard to judge the greatest tennis player of all time because of generational differences (I don't think that's really true, but whatever floats your boat), but you absolutely cannot argue against Federer being the most consistently great tennis player of all time.







Edited by Karen Shelton - August 30 2010 at 5:55am