Picture this: a sport that captivates millions with its grace, power, and nail-biting drama, yet remains frustratingly out of reach for countless aspiring young players due to sky-high costs. Dominic Thiem, the 2021 US Open champion, pulls no punches when labeling tennis as 'a sport for the rich,' drawing attention to the financial hurdles that can keep kids from ever picking up a racket. It's a stark reality check in a world where dreams of stardom often hinge on a hefty bank account. But here's where it gets controversial—can we really accept that one of the world's most beloved sports is reserved for the privileged few?
Let's dive into Thiem's journey to understand his perspective better. As a child, the Austrian star had a head start that many envy: both of his parents were tennis coaches, providing him with immediate access to the game. He began swinging a racket at just six years old, guided by his father, Wolfgang. From there, he honed his skills at the prestigious academy run by Gunter Bresnik, who later became his coach during his professional career. These early advantages helped propel Thiem to remarkable heights—he clinched a Grand Slam title (that's the ultimate prize in tennis, encompassing the four major tournaments like Wimbledon and the US Open), climbed to a career-high world ranking of No. 3, and racked up 17 ATP championships, cementing his status as one of Austria's all-time greats.
After hanging up his racket last year, Thiem hasn't slowed down. In mid-July, the 32-year-old unveiled his own tennis academy in Burgenland, aimed at nurturing the next wave of Austrian talent. It's a passionate move to share his wealth of knowledge and expertise. Yet, even as he builds this legacy, Thiem is acutely aware of a bigger issue: tennis simply isn't as welcoming or affordable as other sports. For beginners, think about how soccer or basketball often just require a ball and some open space—tennis demands courts, equipment, and coaching that can add up quickly. And this is the part most people miss when they romanticize the game: the accessibility gap that starts young and widens as kids get older.
Thiem lays it out bluntly on the Jot Down Sport podcast (check it out at https://sport.jotdown.es/ for the full conversation). 'Tennis is a sport for the rich, and you can see that from a very young age,' he says. 'Training, for instance, is incredibly pricey. Between the ages of 13 and 18, you're looking at spending anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 euros per year—that's nearly a million euros over those five years, an amount that's simply unaffordable for most families.' To put that in perspective, imagine covering not just lessons and court time, but also travel for tournaments, specialized gear like high-end rackets and shoes, and even nutrition plans to keep young athletes performing at their best. These aren't luxuries; they're necessities if you want to compete seriously, and they create a barrier that favors those with deeper pockets.
Of course, Thiem's own career was fueled by substantial earnings—over $30 million in tournament prize money, to be exact. But as he points out, a large chunk of that vanishes before it even hits his account. Taxes play a huge role: for example, winning the first round of Wimbledon might earn you around £65,000, but after deducting the host country's taxes, your home country's levies, and costs related to your support team (think coaches, physiotherapists, and travel expenses), you're left with far less—often more than 60% gone. It's a sobering reminder that even at the top level, the financial grind is real, and it underscores why breaking into tennis often requires starting with resources that most families don't have.
Now, here's the twist that sparks debate: while Thiem's critique highlights a genuine problem, some might argue that tennis isn't entirely inaccessible. Programs like community grants, scholarships, or even free public courts could open doors for talented kids from modest backgrounds. But here's the controversial interpretation—should tennis federations and sponsors do more to subsidize costs and democratize the sport, or is the exclusivity part of what makes it special, like a merit-based elite club? It's a point that divides opinions: on one hand, accessibility fosters broader participation and could unearth hidden talents; on the other, the high stakes might preserve the sport's prestige and professionalism. What do you think—does tennis need a shake-up to become more inclusive, or is it fine as a 'sport for the rich'? Should athletes like Thiem push harder for change, or is the current model sustainable? Drop your thoughts in the comments; I'd love to hear your take!
