So, here we are in 2004 with around 500 wild cards/year from the USTA up for grabs in the Satellites to the Grand Slam major tour level and numerous other wild cards from IMG also feeding their chosen child stars into the major tour level. What could players be doing instead of grinding, in some cases, on the court 6 hours per day at their chosen academy or is playing an unlimited amount of pro tournaments worse? Not sure which is considered child abuse. Not sure I even want to equate either one with child abuse. How about just give the player a hotline to Child Protective Services so that when she thinks she is being abused, someone can come and rescue her, and she can get out of any perceived bad situation if that is what SHE wants. It cannot be this hard for players to decide for themselves if they feel abused. They can decide what is best for them.

So what is really behind this so-called problem. What I actually think to be the bigger problem are skewed and inflated rankings as a result of wild cards and IMG prospect wild cards into the major tour and challenger events, while the others (14 - 17 year olds) without the wild cards, because of the Age Eligibility Rule, are not even allowed to earn $200 a shot by playing unlimited $10,000's in Eastern Europe and the rest of the world until they are 18 years old. Meanwhile, as the IMG prospects are "groomed for success," and given many times an opportunity to beat some of the members of the lesser, ready to retire top 100, the "unchosen" players are left practicing in Eastern Europe and other places in the world, competing against tremendous young talent, but if they are pretty enough might get selected to come to an academy in the US to "prosper." and get marketed out later (oh yuck!). If the Age Eligibility Rule did not exist, they might simply play as many tournaments as they could afford to get to (parents average income in Eastern Europe is $200/month) and use the $100 or $200 (first or second round loss) from a $10,000 (around 4 or 5 hours of work each week of tournament play) just to get to the next tournament, buy some food, stay in an inexpensive hotel and keep the dream alive. You know, you really do not exert so much energy losing in the first or second round, and if you multiply these results by 20 - 30 tournaments per year, this will help the player earn at least enough to get to the next tournament. The tour is also a relatively inexpensive place to train. So, in theory, she is earning her own way, and this is a TREMENDOUS FEELING for that young player trying to justify a life in pro tennis between the ages of 14 and 18 when the money from being ranked 150 - 200 is $45,000/year and from rank 100 - 150, $90,000/year. And this amount is gross. Subtract expenses for traveling to 20 or more tournaments and that does not leave much. Subtract more for a coach and forget it. You are operating in the red. Doesn't anybody care about this? All players cannot have their tour experience paid for by a rich family. How humiliating is that anyway? Let the young player show responsibility for herself, keep her sense of pride and not be treated like a dependent child on the pro tour. The Age Eligibility Rule takes away many a struggling player's dignity--especially if she is from Eastern Europe and those Americans if they ever realized that they are just living off of daddy's money could benefit from making it on their own at a early age too, so they would not feel like this dependent child well into their 20's. Living off of USTA wild card money does not help a player mature either. By limiting a player's earning potential between the ages of 14 and 18 we are actually jeopardizing their independence and overall career in pro tennis and further delaying the whole concept of "professional player." Let's face it, a player's chance to earn a living on the tour is really only between the ages of 14 and 30. Then, that's it! No more chance to pick up a check as a professional player. It costs a lot to play pro tennis, this does not go away and the player should be allowed to earn enough at the age she chooses to play, as time passes quickly and opportunity is gone. Why take that away from her between 14 and 18? Those are truly the developmental years for the professional player. Remember Steffi Graf? Monica Seles? Martina Hingis? They certainly turned out ok. It is hard enough by limiting her tournaments as well as without leaving her a chance to earn some money to pay her expenses for trying.

I really think that the Western world is scared to death that if the Age Eligibility Rule were not in effect, Eastern Europe would take over tennis. Now why is that? It is simply because they are motivated to succeed. Why? Because they have no money and they have pride. What a great combination for motivation. What a great message to give the world, that this is what it really takes to be a champion, instead of the artifically induced method we now employ. "Take it all away, as it will only make you miserable" (Brother Son Sister Moon--great movie). Good advice for the Western world. But be careful, Eastern Europe, when you get too much money, you will be miserable too, because the danger is, the more you have, the more you want and someone comes along and says wear this and do that and then you lose it all. There is more to life than money. It is the struggle from the bottom that brings the most joy; that, and being a good, honest person. And unfortunately, the US cannot experience this because most players here are given everything--sad but true. Lucky are those who are not. Parents, be careful. You work all day long, leave your children in day care, even tennis day care, and give them presents to make up for this, when all your children really need is you. They do not need to be dropped off. How do your children really turn out? Usually, just like you...yikes!