The nepotism on display when tennis associations support their own at tennis tournaments should be diluted.

The beauty of a tennis draw is the unknown - that is, the capability of the lesser names to make their packet and fight for their livelihood against household counterparts.

One way into a draw for a professional tennis player of a lesser standing is a wildcard.

It is - often - a charitable donation, and increasingly, the nation of the host tournament bears the same flag as the wildcard recipient.

Herein lies the problem - especially when it comes to grand slams, where the dollars on offer dwarf that of other tournaments.

The four major hosts - France, United States, Great Britain and Australia - have an oligopoly on a combined total of 64 wildcards into grand slam singles tournaments per year, with the collective minimum prizemoney for those spots tallying an estimated US$8.6million in any one year.

That monetary figure is on the rise, too.

However, while the collective playing group continue to campaign for increased money for the lesser lights, tournaments must weigh up whether they are getting bang for their buck.

The counter argument is locals bring fans through the gates and pay the wages. 

But apt wildcard selection and marketing can do that too.

The most genius of all wildcards was that given to Goran Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 2001. Not a local. Fan favourite. Won the title.

Ivanisevic was selected on popularity, ability in the conditions and capability to compete.

More recently, Australia's Bernard Tomic took a wildcard into the Claro Open Colombia in Bogota in 2014 and won the final.

It was the latest turning point in his career, and he has since stormed back into the top 100 and is ranked 28th. 

The French Tennis Federation boosted the local flavour for the 2015 singles draws at the upcoming French Open by putting in 12 of their own via discretionary selections.

The others? Two go to each of Australia and the United States as part of a reciprocal agreement, as the grand slam nations capitalise on their already strong positions.

There are plenty of capable clay-courters on the lower tier, some that do not hail from France, Australia and the US necessarily. Why not spice up the draw by finding them?

Wildcards should at least resemble a little bit of the 'wild' their title bears. 

There should be no guarantees for developing players, and alternatively, supporting the consistently under-performing journeymen does not sound like a great idea either.

A system where a suitable level of performance at said tournament, or surface, should be taken into account - which happens all too rarely.

For the 2015 French Open, there were some stunning concessions paid to local players.

Nicolas Mahut has a 3-12 win-loss record at Roland Garros, and is winless in 2015.

Paul-Henri Mathieu is 16-12 in the Paris major, but has passed the first round just once in four years.

Edouard Roger-Vasselin is another French 30-something with a losing record (5-6) in the clay grand slam.

Each of the three have been given wildcards in the past three years, and only Mathieu - who will receive his third WC in four years - has managed to get wins out of it.

Mathilde Johansson (6-10 at Roland Garros) and Virginie Razzano (13-16) were others to be rewarded despite both being in their 30s, and carrying negative records at the tournament.

It is not to say that some of those players have more appeal than their records - Razzano's story is in particular remarkable - but as their form indicates, it is the country they call home that has got them into the draw.

While some wildcards should definitely go the way of home-grown players, a soft cap on how many go to locals should be put into place.

Wildcards should not reward mediocrity, nor favour nationality necessarily. It is hard time the major tournaments selected players more aptly, or risk further compromising the quality of the draw.