Thanks for clarification. That should satisfy the OP that AE satisfies the minimum requirement in terms of prize money. Correction. Not highest bidder. It's those that meet the minimum requirement in prize money. I am sure there are other factors involved such as running of the tournament, player's and official's area, booths for equipment retailers, hospitality etc. So Australian Open, being very new to the SS scene, wouldn't get SSP status quite yet until it's proven it's worth.
There are so many factors to get SSP...they look at the strength of nations in badminton, history of badminton, crowd,organizers..so at the beginning only 4 countries got SSP, INA, China,AE and Korea but Europe felt that the distribution of SSP was not balance so they asked Denmark to be included ..that's why we had 5 .. MAS was not happynto lose that status to Korea as being the highest prize money at that time...to conclude how they chose was....INA being good host/ crowd/organizer and long history, CHN being most powerful badminton country, AE for being the oldest/ original/prestige titles and Korea for being the highest prize money...
Take away tournaments like the AE and have all major tournaments in asia will just end up eventually resulting in badminton becoming fully an "Asian sport". BWF should be awarding majors and keeping major tournaments in certain countries based on expanding it's popularity, that's the ultimate goal. (Look how F1 did it, now one of the most watched sports in the world)
That could be a nice option, albeit BWF must alter its rule. Such a structure would be an effective incentive for each country to compete in providing the highest prize money which, in line, would advantage their home players. To augment into it, higher prize money would call more athletes to play badminton given badminton prize money is too miniscule, less than 1% that of tennis. Wimbledon, for instance, provides $34M of prize.
I like the idea of more prize money equates to more points. Therefore, the players have even more incentive to enter and perform well at the big tournaments. It took pro tennis 50 years to get to this stage of prize money Pro badminton started ten years behind tennis. There are other historical and geographical factors that disadvantage badminton. I notice that the All England offers exactly the minimum amount to acheive super series premier status. Is there anyway to improve on that so that the organisers offer more? When does offering more prize money, compared to All England , overcome the history of the AE so that another super series tournament, like Australian, can achieve SSP status?
I doubt anybody wants to take away the All England. But you can't let the All England rest on its laurels and always point to history when the other tournaments are working very hard to raise more funds for players and the game.
Yes, you are right. SS Finals is getting better. It should now be an BWF Event (Level 1). It should award the same ranking points as OLY and WC. (Right now, it is the same as other PSS.)
I believe what you say is correct to some extent but keeping a balance between history, concept, increasing popularity has to be reached. There are a few sports where prize money for historical events is way lower than other big events and it works fine. They still have a place because what they lack in prize money they make up for in keeping some romance within the concept of the sport. There is plenty of room for spectacular tournaments with lots of prize money as well, just not necessarily as a SSP "major"(doesn't mean the organizers can't make it a huge event)
They do that with the World Championships. The host city is invariably outside of Asia. Of course, it depends if any city putting in a bid is outside of Asia. Yup, my question is at what threshold would prize money or organisation overcome history and lack of promotion/publicity?
They should work together to make the threshold whatever they have to. For Badminton to lose the All England has a highly regarded tournament would just be a spit in the face to badminton and be a massive step back/mistake.
You mean if the All England moved to a super series instead of Super series premier? Then that is up to the organisers of the All England to keep up there. It would be a massive wake up call if that situation of moving to super series status (non-premier) did arise.
How about raising the minimum threshold of SSP prize money? I guess $750,000 should be the minimum bar instead. When we take into equation the fact that most major powerhouse of badminton (UK, Korea, China, and Denmark) are prosperous country with high GDP and strong PPP, there's no reason they are unable to do so given Indonesia, a less prosperous country, could provide $750,000.
AE just had been a 4 star tournament with USD125k before 2007, but CHN, HKG, KOR and INA Open etc. had been 6 Star tournaments with USD250k or more at that time.
GDP & PPP impacts the ROI (for instance, compare $750,000 in UK and $750,000 in Indonesia). Apart of that, there are other denominators indeed such as the attractiveness of the sports in each countries which do matter indeed.
For badminton, there is no profit yet in return..tournaments in china, mostly sponsored by city so they did not expect the profit at all...INA Open is sponsored by private company, can be part of their CSR..I believe INA open is the most expensive tournaments in term of total cost..that's why it is chosen the best tournament in 2013..
hmm,u can do 10 SS tournament in USA(highest GDP and 2nd PPP) but yet u wont get a better ROI than u do 1 SS tournament in indonesia if u dont know ur target customer,u gonna fail depend on how they do business
