Federer, Nadal And Djokovic Prize Money. Wow!

This is the total amount of prize money (singles and doubles) won by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic as listed on the ATP site. In American dollars? (Not sure)

Federer $76,541,427

Nadal $50,061,827

Djokovic $48,246,061

Surprised that Djokovic's total is so relatively high. I can think of a few reasons why this might be so... but still. Wow!

It's called inflation.

Check out Pete's prize money.

It is not all down to inflation, inflation in the western world at least in the states has been relatively flat in the last few years. Prize money is growing rapidly, at a much higher rate than inflation. A dollar today is not that much different in buying value than what it was in 05 for example or 07. The money is coming into the game and the game is growing still despite claims of widespread strtuctural problems we may read on some websites. It is not unfathomable for djoko to break the 100 million mark.

There's a wonderful opportunity for them to do some more heroically charitable money-giving

I don't think anyone can be as heroically charitable as the early 2000 players.

I didn't think there were 2000 early players. Tennis was quite an elitist sport when it first started.

Murray - $26,214,181 ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx )

PS: Sampras - $43,280,489 ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Sa/P/Pete-Sampras.aspx )
Borg - $3,655,751 ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Bo/B/Bjorn-Borg.aspx )
Laver - $1,565,413 ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/La/R/Rod-G-Laver.aspx )
Serena - $42,242,272 ( http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/9044/title/serena-williams )
Azarenka - $19,334,928 ( http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/11289/title/victoria-azarenka )
Sharapova - $23,654,080 ( http://www.wtatennis.com/players/player/9499/title/maria-sharapova )

It sure is big, big money - although of course still only a small percentage of what the top guys today are pulling in annually from endorsements.

For example Federer racked up a reputed $45m in the space of just 12 months from off-court earnings alone, putting him at Number 5 on the highest-paid athletes global list

Masha does best out of all female athletes, placed at a healthy number 26

http://www.therichest.org/sports/forbes-highest-paid-athletes/

The money these players earn is atleast 5 times more than Pete's time, I won't be surprised if Tomic breaks all these records one day by just reaching the 4th rounds of GS.

lags72 wrote:It sure is big, big money - although of course still only a small percentage of what the top guys today are pulling in annually from endorsements.

Well yes exactly. And appearance fees. Isn't Rafa rumored to be receiving a grand slam winning amount of cash to smile, wave and hit a few tennis balls in Chile?

Back in the olden days (for those who had to earn a living) winning a slam or two was merely a way of getting in the public eye. The real "work" was done on the professional circuit. Who would be the GOAT now in what could be considered the most essential part of the game?

I think murray, djoko, and Nadal all could break the 100 million mark and it Roger sticks around 3 years and plays well he could do it as well. Murray has aways to go, but Djoko seems to be a lock for it if he doesn't get injured.

pah no chance.

You don't think Djoko will hit the hundred million mark? He has averaged about 10 million a year for the last two years, he could be at 60 by the end of this year.

I can't see him being at the top for another few years 2bh.

Yes I mean he finished in the top 3 for the last 5 years in a row I mean how could he possibly maintain his position at the top of the game for a few more?

socal1976 wrote:You don't think Djoko will hit the hundred million mark? He has averaged about 10 million a year for the last two years, he could be at 60 by the end of this year.

If Andy Murray gets $30 million from Adidas on a five year deal what does Novak get from Uniqlo?, probably $50 million + so getting into the nine figure bracket with endorsements, sponsorships etc. he is probably there already. The top guys (current4) will all make or have made in excess of $100 million, but money doesn't come into it now I wouldn't think!

As for Novak being at the top, barring injury he will be there for another four or five years for sure.

sportslover wrote:

socal1976 wrote:You don't think Djoko will hit the hundred million mark? He has averaged about 10 million a year for the last two years, he could be at 60 by the end of this year.

If Andy Murray gets $30 million from Adidas on a five year deal what does Novak get from Uniqlo?, probably $50 million + so getting into the nine figure bracket with endorsements, sponsorships etc. he is probably there already. The top guys (current4) will all make or have made in excess of $100 million, but money doesn't come into it now I wouldn't think!

As for Novak being at the top, barring injury he will be there for another four or five years for sure.

I agree sportslover, I am talking 100 mill in prize money only. A whopping sum that speaks to the current financial health of the game at the top levels. And I agree with you I can't see Novak falling out of the top 5 for the next years barring some serious injury issues, which are always hard to predict. But he has played a full ATP match schedule for many years in a row with relatively few problems so hopefully that is a good omen. Federer makes the most in endorsements but when compared to other sports the top guys in tennis do pretty well but everyone else in the sport doesn't do as well as other sports.

socal1976 wrote:Yes I mean he finished in the top 3 for the last 5 years in a row I mean how could he possibly maintain his position at the top of the game for a few more?

somebody's knickers are in a twist! retract the claws socal.

If you look at his prize money from the start of his career to the end of 2010, he had like 25m in the bank from prize money, that has doubled in 2 years.
If believe that by 2015 or so novak will be usurped by someone and won't be getting 10+m a year and winning multiple slams. I dunno who will come in but i can't see him dominating for the next few years.

So basically what you said before was that he could get to 100m, but as you say he would need to at least 3 more years at the top to get close before the slide, which i think will be much quicker than feds.
So what is so crazy about that? So touchy about their precious players, sweet.

LuvSports! wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes I mean he finished in the top 3 for the last 5 years in a row I mean how could he possibly maintain his position at the top of the game for a few more?

somebody's knickers are in a twist! retract the claws socal.

If you look at his prize money from the start of his career to the end of 2010, he had like 25m in the bank from prize money, that has doubled in 2 years.
If believe that by 2015 or so novak will be usurped by someone and won't be getting 10+m a year and winning multiple slams. I dunno who will come in but i can't see him dominating for the next few years.

So basically what you said before was that he could get to 100m, but as you say he would need to at least 3 more years at the top to get close before the slide, which i think will be much quicker than feds.
So what is so crazy about that? So touchy about their precious players, sweet.

Luvsports, no claws, just a little zinger here and there for the crime of doubting Nole. It is a minor misdemeanor so I allowed you a pass with a mild rap of the knuckles. I think he could hit 100 million, I actually think in retrospect Murray and Nadal might find it hard to get there but they could. The fact is that each year the prize money at slams is going up I think about 8-10 percent a year, if this trend continues that will make it possible for all three players with reasonable health to get there, Murray might be too far away, and Nadal might not be healthy enough.

Will prize money keep going up? That will be dependent on interest in the game. I would say that Federer and Nadal have been responsible for a fair amount of the current interest in the game and the healthy state of prize money. If interest in watching tennis is not as great when one or both retire prize money would reflect this. I can imagine laverfan disagreeing but tennis as a spectator sport is largely celebratory lead.

Of course no one knows what the future might bring and some new bright stars may or may not be practicing their backhands and forehands in preparation not just to win trophies (that would not be enough) but to pull in the crowds.

Good point. Nadal and Federer were a good combination and had a lot of clout over the tournament organisers. I am not convinced that Murray and Djokovic bring the same bargaining power to the table as of now. Might change , who knows.

I don't think prize money will drop from current levels but will it go up at the same percentile rate that it has gone up the last 2 years? The western world has seen a 4-5 years of recession but that does not seen to have impacted tennis prize money. Surely at some point that impact will be felt.

hawkeye wrote:Will prize money keep going up? That will be dependent on interest in the game. I would say that Federer and Nadal have been responsible for a fair amount of the current interest in the game and the healthy state of prize money. If interest in watching tennis is not as great when one or both retire prize money would reflect this. I can imagine laverfan disagreeing but tennis as a spectator sport is largely celebratory lead.

Of course no one knows what the future might bring and some new bright stars may or may not be practicing their backhands and forehands in preparation not just to win trophies (that would not be enough) but to pull in the crowds.