No doubt prize money should not be the only or most important criterion for consideration as premier status. By right, the brand name All England should in itself command a premium for its long tradition, illustrious history, prestige and even nostalgic reason. But as a premier SS, one of its stipulations is it must meet the minimum prize money, before other factors come into consideration. Fortunately for now, the requirement is met. So, I feel it is imperative that for the All England to stand out from the rest of the PSS/SS events, it must offer a sufficiently attractive prize money to enhance its intrinsic value as otherwise whatever premium qualities or special values the All England possesses may gradually erode over time as it is now just one of the five PSS events annually. In any modern professional sports,prize money, sponsorship and media (TV, Internet) coverage are the lifeblood for their survival and sustainability. In tennis,for example,each of the four Grand Slam tournaments, also called the Majors, command the most prize money, the highest ranking points and attract the most public and media attention. Likewise, for the All England to maintain its prestigious position she would have to do the same as, otherwise, the other majors will over time also gain in status to challenge or diminish the AE's historical advantage. I toyed with the idea of having the All England to offer higher ranking points than the rest but thought it not feasible as it cannot be higher than what the year-end SSF is awarding on par with any of the five PSS. Still it's not an unreasonable or far-fetched idea. Actually, it would most certainly help if the All England also offers the most attractive, even record-breaking prize money in keeping with its stature. Just as important is for all the top players to want to vie for the AE title, so whatever that can ensure this is the case should be carried out and maintained for as long as possible.I'm afraid, for the AE to depend too much on its past glories alone is not enough. And for it to stand still in this fast-changing world we live in today is to risk stagnation and fade slowly but surely into oblivion; that's reality. The fact that there is a call for the All England to be downgraded because it offers the lowest and below the minimum sum in prize money is itself a cause for concern. I don't think it's appropriate to compare the All England to the Olympics which though it offers no prize money but the gold medallists ( much less for the silver or bronze medallists) upon returning home to their country often get to receive very handsome rewards from their government/state and private sponsors/sector far exceeding any prize money imaginable from the SS events. Frankly, those of us who still harbour fond memories of the All England and wish to see it take pride of place among the badminton tourneys would loathe to see it gradually reduced to the level of just one of the ordinary Superseries one day. Let's hope the BWF together with the organizer and the support of sponsors, players and fans all over the world would seriously think it worthwhile to uphold the All England as one of the most prestigious of tournaments for a long,long time. For that, a concerted effort is needed.
I look forward to the day when badminton has its own Grand Slams (I have in mind the individual events, not team). Say , the World Championships and/or the Olympics (due to no WC during Olympic year), the SSF, the All England, and one of the other PSS.
Valid points. My view is that history and all those other things of the All England do have some weighting but these are soft factors which should not be relied upon by the All England organisers. What I would like to see is each Super Series Premier candidate vie equally with the others. In the following, I shall use the Australian Open as an example of decision making: So, if the All England offered equal prize money compared to Australian, I would give the nod to the All England. If the Australian Open offered more money and equal facilities, publicity and crowd to the All England, I would give the nod to the Australian Open. But basically, that is pretty ambiguous and difficult for organisers to know what they need to produce for the event. One can assign a points scale to each factor and add them together to produce a score. e.g. venue over 6000 seats, past attendances over 5000, players lounge, equipment booths, entertainments for spectators, merchandising, food, coverage in local newspapers etc. In fact, anything deserving for a premier event. Then with a scoring system, it makes it much more objective and clear and fair for the awarding of the Super Series Premier status.
Even if AE were to offer less than $400,000 in prize money, the best players in the world will still come. They would still play their best to win. Sponsors would still be willing to pay. The stadium would still be full. The organization would still be the best in the world. Its reputation would still be the most prestigious in the world. So why would AE want to offer more in prize money?
You can get tournaments offering huge sum of money. But you can't get the reputation from money.. Lol. It seems like some people are trying to pull their talents out here by showing their personal likes/frustrations/anger . "All England Open should be degraded to SS immediately". Lol..The heading itself proves or conceals or reveals something to us . Parent is a parent and child is a child. No matters what happens to the later. If a child is super god, that does not mean a parent is no longer existing. This tournament has seen this world for more than a "CENTURY". So, it is silly to even to compare this tournament to all other tournaments. Whether it is following rules or not, it is there, will be there and always be there.
Under BWF rules, if it offers less prize money than the $400 000, it will not be called a Super Series Premier event. Even less than Super Series threshold, then it will become GPG status. Subsequently, there will be fewer ranking points for players to chase. Less money, less points = less incentive for top players to attend. Then where would "prestigious" be without the top players...?
Under BWF rules, if it offers less prize money than the $400 000, it will not be called a Super Series Premier event. Even less than Super Series threshold, then it will become GPG status. Subsequently, there will be fewer ranking points for players to chase. Less money, less points = less incentive for top players to attend. Then where would "prestigious" be without the top players...?
when it was 4-star tournament and had 50% of the prize money of CHN, HKG, KOR and INA, All England was still more prestigious than the rest. Guess who came to the party then? I am sure even if All England were to offer $125k in 2014, it would still be the most prestigious tournament in 2014. When will BWF and the rest of the world learn? Money is not the answer.
For now, AE meets the minimum SSP figure and awarded SSP status. Rules are rules, I see your point here, that if AE offers much less in future, it could downgrade even further. IMO, I hope and I think BWF wil not let that happen, someone will step up to ensure AE remains the premier tournament. I am saying this not because I grew up following AE but it is the Open tournament that every player wants to win at least once in their career. AE is the oldest baddy tournament that started it all, always and will be associated to badminton, a player winning every tournaments minus AE title is not 'complete'. Next to WC, OLY, AE is the single most important Open title to win. Ardy and Taufik winning 8-9 IOs, or LCW winning 10 MOs do not command the same recognition to Rudy winning 8 AEs. If Autralian Open is awarded SSP status, so winning that is just more money and points, no big deal. Winning AE, that player joins a long list of illustrious alumni, not just some so-so player that plays this game.
That is a tough one. Let's muse on the unthinkable, that AE is downgraded to GPG status because the $$ is not there to qualify to SS or SSP. That mean less $$ and more importantly less WR points. Eventually, the world best players would give AE a pass because there are only so many Opens and tournaments a player can play in a given year and would pick/choose the Opens worthwhile to participate. Winning AE in an unthinkable GPG status means the opponents are mostly second level players and winning AE is not the same anymore. AE attracts the world best player each and every time. CHN sends her best players time and time again, but often no-show in other Opens that offer more $$, why? So, you are correct, money is not the 'that is it' factor. LCW has 50 SS titles; 2 out them AEs If LCW retires with no major titles, I think LCW would treasure his AE more than his 10 MOs or 4-5 IOs. I also feel that AE is the Open that LD would yearn to add to his glorious collections of WCs, OLYs, TCs, 4-5 AEs. As for ZN and TH, how they wish to just have 1 AE, not runner-ups.
if AE really prestigious, China and Korea players surely will going all out in AE only. the fact is China and Korea players dominates the Swedish / Germany open, that makes them not fully fit when competing in AE if $125k is enough to become the most prestigious tournament (despite only have GPG status), then why AE organizer must offer $500k ? increasing 300%, my friend
So why not offer no prize money then... If there is no prize money, we would see the players still come, right?
Therefore the best solution is ... : make it the permanent home for the WC and scratch it from the Super Series/GP calendar
That's what they did with OLY, WC, Thomas/Uber Cup, Sudirman Cup, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Championship and a few others.
The problem is for the AE to offer no or low prize money (USD125K as for a GPG ?) and yet remains one of the most prestigious tournaments, it has to offer something similar or on par with the WC or the Olympics. And since the AE title itself is not of the same status or comparable value as the WC/OG, then it has to make up for it by, say, offering the most attractive prize money and/or the highest ranking points, both will be ideal. It cannot simply depend on its past glories or long,distinguished history alone to stand up from the rest because as time goes by, the younger and newer top players who have little or no experience or first-hand knowledge of the AE's excellent tradition, may not feel compelled to participate and decide to skip it for other considerations. I'd say it's not a bad idea if we can call the WC , the AE-WC or make the SSF, the AE-SSF; at the very least, have the AE as the top rung of the five PSS by offering something substantial enough to earn it a special place.
As for saying AE to offer low prize $$, and changes to AE-WC or AE-SSF, that is not what this thread is about. This thread started because someone posted the incorrect information that AE is offering $400K, therefore should not get SSP status. Since AE does meet the minimum $500K prize, this issue has been settled...for now. I concur the '$500K SSP minimum' BWF rule should be followed. If AE cannot meet the minimum prize money, then AE should not be granted SSP. Honestly, I cannot see AE not meeting the minimum prize for SSP. Maybe BWF limits the minimum amount to $500K and not more is to ensure that AE can meet this figure for SSP. But if the minimum prize goes up further, that may make it difficult for AE and DEN to play ball. The whole Euro zone is suffering economically. Only DEN and AE could or want to host SSP in Europe. Baddy is unlike soccer and tennis with the huge TV coverage and attendance akin to printing money. Baddy is a money losing business, supported by sponsors and government funding. Of all the Opens, AE is too important to be downgraded and not in SSP. Europe should have at least 1 or 2 SSP, otherwise badminton risks being an Asian sport and BWF knows this is not the way to promote and grow this sport, and may even get booted out of OLY. So if there are many nations offering far more than the minimum amount, BWF would have to factor in heritage, history, attendance, etc., to ensure AE and DO be in SSP. If top prize money is the only SSP criteria, wait till India comes on board (and she will in the near future), then we have CHN, INA, KOR, MAS and IND (all Asians) and Australia, that is wonderful indeed. CHN alone has the money power to host 2-3 SSP easily if BWF permits. Whereas in Asia, despite Rudy saying there is no return yet on hosting baddy tournament, so for INA to offer US$750K means the deep pocket sponsors want this SSP badly regardless of losses. It does not work that way in North America or Europe where there is no govt funding nor TV coverage to support baddy.
What I feel a little frustrated about is that the All Engalnd does have this rich tradition, but seems content to depend on it too highly. With its 'status', I would rather see it as a premier event taking the lead and being proactive rather than having to be 'dragged' up to SSP level. Pre super series, All England prior was a 4 star grand prix event (not five star). Pre 2009 the european economy was doing well (*cough*). Now the economy is not so good, the All England manages to raise the prize money even higher to SSP level. Why couldn't they have done that when the economy was good?
