ANDY MURRAY yesterday highlighted the financial difficulties facing the game’s players who are not playing at the highest level. 

Britain’s top player will earn £1.76 million in prize money if he successfully defends his Wimbledon title in July, but even if a player wins a tournament at the lowest level of the men’s or women’s tour they can still end up out of pocket and often forced out of the sport.

Prize money on the third-tier International Tennis Federation Futures Circuit has not increased since the tour was remodelled 16 years ago. Since then the cost of living has risen 53 per cent.

A tournament winner’s cheque can be as low as £850, while a losing quarter-finalist may only get £175.

“If you win the tournament that week, you can just about pay for your hotel room and travel,” Murray said. “You’re losing money.”

The Wimbledon champion suggested that the world’s most successful players and tournaments could subsidise the events that nurture the talent of the future.

“We want to make tennis a better sport and we want to make it easier for more players to make a living,” said Murray. “It’s not about making millions, it’s about being able to make a living.

“There’s a lot of players that have to stop when they are 21 or 22 because they can’t afford to play the game because the prize money is not high enough.

“The Grand Slams obviously make a lot of money and the players at the top of the game could certainly help, too.

“On a recent visit to the West Hants Club in Bournemouth, I discovered 32 players competing for a total prize fund of $10,000 (£5,940).”

Britain’s Liam Broady, the 2011 Wimbledon boys’ singles runner-up, was among them. He had to fund his matches in Britain and three weeks in the Middle East but won only £1,830 in prize money all year.