Top 100 Highest Paid Athletes

[GameSetAndMath]

Every year around this time, Forbes magazine publishes a list of top paid athletes
and they have done so again. The list is headed by the Boxer, Floyd.

The list has exactly 6 tennis players (3 Men and 3 Women)

They are

1. Roger Federer $56.2 million (#7)
2. Rafael Nadal $44.5 million (#9)
3. Novak Djokovic $33.1 million (#17)
4. Dominatrix $24.4 million (#34)
5. Li Na $23.6 million (#41)
6. Serena $22 million (#55)

The amount mentioned here is not their networth. It is their income during
the 12 month period commencing from 1st June 2013. Also, it is not just their prize
money/salary. The amount includes the endorsement money, appearance fee etc.
However, this is not to be construed as their total income for the abovesaid period
as this does not include investment income and profits made from any business
enterprises they may own.

Last year around this time there was a thread in which lot of posters speculated
that Andy Murray will make 80 million, 70 million etc (this is based on the euphoria
created by his Wimbledon win). To refute all these nonsensical projections, I posted
a message in that thread giving the figure from the Forbes list of 2013 and said
Andy will make nowhere near what these posters were predicting. There were
even some vitriolic attacks when I did that. Now that this year's list has come out,
I am vindicated. Andy Murray's name does not even appear in the top 100 list.
As a result, we don't know exactly how much he made. However, we can definitely
say that his total earnings is less than 17.3 million as that is what the person in
position no. 100 in the above list made. In particular, Andy's prize money has
dwarfed since his Wimbledon win as he has done nothing much practically and
has never won a title and never won a match against a top 10 player. But,
this is not so much about people being unable to predict he will perform so poorly.
This is about people putting his ability to earn endorsements based on his
Wimbledon win way over the top.

Out of decency, I am not going to name the specific posters who came up
with such insane projections. But, if you are interested you can look up the old
thread (Andy Murray: The Future King of Tennis) and find out for yourself.

Here is the complete list of Top 100 Highest Paid Athletes that is easy to read.

If you have more time, here is the same list with a small blurb and a photo of
each one of them in the form of a slide show.

For a brief analysis of the list see behind the numbers.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks GSM. I must confess I'm surprised Murray isn't on the list. I certainly wouldn't have expected him to be near the top, but I would have thought he would be around the $20m mark. At the end of the day who knows how accurate these lists are. Some of the endorsements these guys receive are probably not publicly available, but as a guess-timate it's probably decent.

Never-the-less, I'm always amused at the huge variance between these annual earnings numbers and estimates of their net worth. It's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing! For example.. Federer making $50m + last year, which seems like a decline from the last few years, but his net worth being estimated at $180m from one source!? Do these people even know how to add? Bizarro!

 

[Kieran]

They make some dough, these fellers...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Thanks GSM. I must confess I'm surprised Murray isn't on the list. I certainly wouldn't have expected him to be near the top, but I would have thought he would be around the $20m mark. At the end of the day who knows how accurate these lists are. Some of the endorsements these guys receive are probably not publicly available, but as a guess-timate it's probably decent.

Never-the-less, I'm always amused at the huge variance between these annual earnings numbers and estimates of their net worth. It's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing! For example.. Federer making $50m + last year, which seems like a decline from the last few years, but his net worth being estimated at $180m from one source!? Do these people even know how to add? Bizarro!

Recently there was a thread titled "10 richest tennis players" or something close to it.
You are quoting a figure of $180m networth for Federeer. I don't think the source used
in that thread is reliable by any means. On the contrary, Forbes magazine is highly
respected in this regard.

Yes, Roger's income this year was substantitally lower than last year (he lost about
10 million as he did not participate in the post WTF SA tour to collect cash). Last year
he made around $70 million. While Roger never went over $100 million any year.
he has been making good money for over 10 years now. So, the networth of
$180 million is very very conservative. His networth would be at least $500 million
and could even be $1 billion. Let me remind you once again that these income
figures do not include investment gains and business profits.

The figures quoted for other players are also wrong. There are all kinds of stuff
on the internet. One has to also worry about the reliability of the source.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks GSM. I must confess I'm surprised Murray isn't on the list. I certainly wouldn't have expected him to be near the top, but I would have thought he would be around the $20m mark. At the end of the day who knows how accurate these lists are. Some of the endorsements these guys receive are probably not publicly available, but as a guess-timate it's probably decent.

Never-the-less, I'm always amused at the huge variance between these annual earnings numbers and estimates of their net worth. It's like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing! For example.. Federer making $50m + last year, which seems like a decline from the last few years, but his net worth being estimated at $180m from one source!? Do these people even know how to add? Bizarro!

Recently there was a thread titled "10 richest tennis players" or something close to it.
You are quoting a figure of $180m networth for Federeer. I don't think the source used
in that thread is reliable by any means. On the contrary, Forbes magazine is highly
respected in this regard.

Yes, Roger's income this year was substantitally lower than last year (he lost about
10 million as he did not participate in the post WTF SA tour to collect cash). Last year
he made around $70 million. While Roger never went over $100 million any year.
he has been making good money for over 10 years now. So, the networth of
$180 million is very very conservative. His networth would be at least $500 million
and could even be $1 billion. Let me remind you once again that these income
figures do not include investment gains and business profits.

The figures quoted for other players are also wrong. There are all kinds of stuff
on the internet. One has to also worry about the reliability of the source.

I totally agree. I think I made a similar comment on that thread. Hard to see how his net worth doesn't exceed $500m. I think he'll be Jordanesque in terms of his after retirement income too. That's why I'll never feel sorry for him if his records are exceeded! Too busy worrying about myself :laydownlaughing

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One thing to be noted from the list is that the total income is not necessarily directly
proportional to the on-court performance or prize money earned.

Dominatrix earned more than Serena Williams and this has been so for several years.
Everybody knows why and I don't have to explain. While it may not seem fair, it is
understandable given the biases in the society.

Li Na also earned more than Serena Williams. This is also understandable considering
the huge population of China and hence, the amount of new business an endorsement
by her may bring to a company and help them penetrate into new markets.

However, similar reasons do not exist for Murray to make huge dough. Murray
is neither a charismatic figure like Fed nor a masculine figure like Rafa / a funny guy
like Novak (not to mention that his performance record is way below that of
these guys). UK is not a new market that is untouched before. Neither the economy
of UK is that great nor it has huge population to drive up volume. Sure Murray hit
the headlines for ending the agony of British People by chasing Perry's Ghost away
after 77 years. But, that can only translate to small amounts of disposable income
being ciphoned from a small population for a small period of time while the
euphoria lasts. That is why I did not expect his endorsements to go up the sky.

Having said that there is no reason for us to take pity on Murray. He made
12 million during 2012-13. I am sure he made more than that during 2013-14,
although we know that it is less than 17.3 million. That is no spare change.

 

[Federberg]

I think you underestimate the amount of income top sportsmen earn in the UK

 

[Iona16]

I think you underestimate the amount of income top sportsmen earn in the UK

He underestimates way more than that. However, it's too late here in the UK to respond.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think you underestimate the amount of income top sportsmen earn in the UK

You misunderstood. Top folks in sports will make lot of money through endorsement
independent of what country they come from as they can peddle products all over
the world. If you can peddle products only in your region, as you are not big enough
in the global arena, your earnings will be limited by the economy and population of
the region where you come from.

 

[Moxie]

Last year around this time there was a thread in which lot of posters speculated
that Andy Murray will make 80 million, 70 million etc (this is based on the euphoria
created by his Wimbledon win). To refute all these nonsensical projections, I posted
a message in that thread giving the figure from the Forbes list of 2013 and said
Andy will make nowhere near what these posters were predicting. There were
even some vitriolic attacks when I did that. Now that this year's list has come out,
I am vindicated. Andy Murray's name does not even appear in the top 100 list.
As a result, we don't know exactly how much he made. However, we can definitely
say that his total earnings is less than 17.3 million as that is what the person in
position no. 100 in the above list made. In particular, Andy's prize money has
dwarfed since his Wimbledon win as he has done nothing much practically and
has never won a title and never won a match against a top 10 player. But,
this is not so much about people being unable to predict he will perform so poorly.
This is about people putting his ability to earn endorsements based on his
Wimbledon win way over the top.

I was wondering why this needed a thread, but it seems the objective is to either diss Murray, or anyone who claimed that Wimbledon would be a cash cow for him. (TBH, I couldn't find the thread you're referring to, via several searches.)

Murray is neither a charismatic figure like Fed nor a masculine figure like Rafa / a funny guy
like Novak (not to mention that his performance record is way below that of
these guys). UK is not a new market that is untouched before. Neither the economy
of UK is that great nor it has huge population to drive up volume. Sure Murray hit
the headlines for ending the agony of British People by chasing Perry's Ghost away
after 77 years. But, that can only translate to small amounts of disposable income
being ciphoned from a small population for a small period of time while the
euphoria lasts. That is why I did not expect his endorsements to go up the sky.

I'm not sure if your assessment of why Fed/Rafa/Novak are the 3 tennis men on the list is accurate, (charismatic/masculine/funny,) compared with the more objective fact that all 3 have been #1. Murray has not. If and when he does get to #1, I'd wager his numbers will change. In any case, I'm surprised at how much you treat Murray as a local phenomenon in a puny (UK) market. He's pretty popular in the other English-language markets, as well. However, look at the list of sports. That tennis has 6 players is surprising enough.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Murray is neither a charismatic figure like Fed nor a masculine figure like Rafa / a funny guy
like Novak (not to mention that his performance record is way below that of
these guys). UK is not a new market that is untouched before. Neither the economy
of UK is that great nor it has huge population to drive up volume. Sure Murray hit
the headlines for ending the agony of British People by chasing Perry's Ghost away
after 77 years. But, that can only translate to small amounts of disposable income
being ciphoned from a small population for a small period of time while the
euphoria lasts. That is why I did not expect his endorsements to go up the sky.

I'm not sure if your assessment of why Fed/Rafa/Novak are the 3 tennis men on the list is accurate, (charismatic/masculine/funny,) compared with the more objective fact that all 3 have been #1. Murray has not. If and when he does get to #1, I'd wager his numbers will change. In any case, I'm surprised at how much you treat Murray as a local phenomenon in a puny (UK) market. He's pretty popular in the other English-language markets, as well. However, look at the list of sports. That tennis has 6 players is surprising enough.

You are twisting my words. I never said that Fed/Rafa/Novak are in the list because of
the characteristics of charisma/masculinity/being funny.

Li Na has never been ranked #1. She has only won two slams in her career.
So, in a sense her achievements are comparable to that of Murray. She nonetheless
made the list. Why? She gives an opportunity for companies to penetrate the
Chinese market. China is a growing economy and has a vast population. While
Li Na may not be considered attractive by the usual biases of the media and
society, she gives funny interviews which makes her endearing to people.

The point I was trying to make was that Murray does not bring anything
to the table (neither by virtue of his personality nor by virtue of where he
comes from) other than his tennis performance, which is substantially weaker
than others. He does not have "other factors" to compensate for his weak
record to make huge dough despite that.

Also, you mention about Murray someday making big money, if and when
he achieves lot more on court, which he may. The old thread that I was referring
to was involved in the business of estimating his income during the 2013-14 year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I was wondering why this needed a thread, but it seems the objective is to either diss Murray, or anyone who claimed that Wimbledon would be a cash cow for him. (TBH, I couldn't find the thread you're referring to, via several searches.)

Talking about the money tennis players make is an item of interest to folks as evidenced
by other threads such as "10 richest tennis players" which had false data. Also, I am
not the one who started the old thread which you cannot find despite several
searches.

You are the one who cannot see a post for what it is. I did not diss at Murray neither
in this thread nor in the old thread. I was purely trying to bring reason to bear on earning
estimates for Murray in the old thread and could not successfully do so. I thought,
perhaps people would see it now in retrospect.

If I wanted to diss at people, I would have named them, I would have quoted their
posts, picked apart the posts line by line etc.

When you cannot find anything wrong in what is said, but nevertheless do not find
what is being said as palatable, you start questioning the objective. Isn't it?

 

[atttomole]

Who is Dominatrix?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Who is Dominatrix?

That is Maria Sharapova. She has been the top paid female athlete for years.
She has won only 5 slams which is nothing in comparison to Serena's total of 17,
not to mention their H2H. If you take a cursory look at their earnings, you will
see that Maria made 24.6 million whereas Serena made 22 million. It does not
look like much of a difference, right. Now, take a look at the break-down
of their earnings.

Serenas's prize money is $11 million and endoresements is $11 million.

Maria's prize money is $2.6 million and endorsements is $22 million.

In other words, Maria got less than 1/4th of what Serena got in prize money and
yet got double that of Serena in endorsements.

Why does this happen? Because, she is tall, white & blonde and perceived to
be a beautiful girl by the general society and media and so the companies
anticpate that she can successfully peddle products. Is that fair? Probably
not, but who told life is fair.

We got to realize that companies are not particularly interested in donating
their money to sportsmen. The companies are not here for philanthropy.
They pay money to a particular sportsmen, if they expect that doing so
would be beneficial for the bottom line of the company i.e, the increase
in profits due to some sportsmen endorsing your product should be
(substantially) higher than the profits that the company can generate
without the sportsmen endorsing its products. They don't throw this
kind of money without thinking or in mere hopes that it would increase.
The companies have statisticians working for them to help them figure
out whether it makes sense to sign up some one and if so upto how
much, they can give.

Needless to say that companies do not particularly care whether
the sportsperson is a the top of his/her sport or not. The only thing
that they care is whether the person is sufficiently popular and
bring in extra sales or profits. That is why Anna Kournikova got
lot of endorsements even though she has never won a Grand
Slam event and never even ranked in top 5.

 

[Moxie]

Murray is neither a charismatic figure like Fed nor a masculine figure like Rafa / a funny guy
like Novak (not to mention that his performance record is way below that of
these guys). UK is not a new market that is untouched before. Neither the economy
of UK is that great nor it has huge population to drive up volume. Sure Murray hit
the headlines for ending the agony of British People by chasing Perry's Ghost away
after 77 years. But, that can only translate to small amounts of disposable income
being ciphoned from a small population for a small period of time while the
euphoria lasts. That is why I did not expect his endorsements to go up the sky.

I'm not sure if your assessment of why Fed/Rafa/Novak are the 3 tennis men on the list is accurate, (charismatic/masculine/funny,) compared with the more objective fact that all 3 have been #1. Murray has not. If and when he does get to #1, I'd wager his numbers will change. In any case, I'm surprised at how much you treat Murray as a local phenomenon in a puny (UK) market. He's pretty popular in the other English-language markets, as well. However, look at the list of sports. That tennis has 6 players is surprising enough.

You are twisting my words. I never said that Fed/Rafa/Novak are in the list because of
the characteristics of charisma/masculinity/being funny.

Li Na has never been ranked #1. She has only won two slams in her career.
So, in a sense her achievements are comparable to that of Murray. She nonetheless
made the list. Why? She gives an opportunity for companies to penetrate the
Chinese market. China is a growing economy and has a vast population. While
Li Na may not be considered attractive by the usual biases of the media and
society, she gives funny interviews which makes her endearing to people.

The point I was trying to make was that Murray does not bring anything
to the table (neither by virtue of his personality nor by virtue of where he
comes from) other than his tennis performance, which is substantially weaker
than others. He does not have "other factors" to compensate for his weak
record to make huge dough despite that.

Also, you mention about Murray someday making big money, if and when
he achieves lot more on court, which he may. The old thread that I was referring
to was involved in the business of estimating his income during the 2013-14 year.

As to my bolded above, those are your words, as to the characteristics that make Fed/Nad/Djo marketable. I don't know what else to say, but I didn't twist them.

I left off the women, because I thought you had explained it well enough before. Li is a Chinese woman who has achieved more, or nearly more, than any Chinese athlete in history, which makes her the heroine of all of Asia. Big market. And I don't think the issue of her being "attractive," as you feel the need to point out, or even funny, which she is, has anything to do with it.

Murray does bring something to the table: he's a British player who won Wimbledon. You seem to have your teeth in the notion that that's not enough. Enough, compared to what? He's surely earned loads of dosh. And, as I said, tennis players don't find themselves easily on the list you provide. Doesn't mean that Murray isn't a big earner in tennis. That list is the 100 highest earning athletes…across all sports! I don't know why boxing or racing are so big, but do you think tennis features over soccer, basketball, baseball, US football…OK, golf, why? (I read that golf was on the decline. I digress.)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I let the other readers figure out for themselves whether you twisted my words are not.
I have fully explained my point clearly and I have nothing more to say regarding the issue
without wasting my time.

 

[Moxie]

I was wondering why this needed a thread, but it seems the objective is to either diss Murray, or anyone who claimed that Wimbledon would be a cash cow for him. (TBH, I couldn't find the thread you're referring to, via several searches.)

Talking about the money tennis players make is an item of interest to folks as evidenced
by other threads such as "10 richest tennis players" which had false data. Also, I am
not the one who started the old thread which you cannot find despite several
searches.

You are the one who cannot see a post for what it is. I did not diss at Murray neither
in this thread nor in the old thread. I was purely trying to bring reason to bear on earning
estimates for Murray in the old thread and could not successfully do so. I thought,
perhaps people would see it now in retrospect.

If I wanted to diss at people, I would have named them, I would have quoted their
posts, picked apart the posts line by line etc.

When you cannot find anything wrong in what is said, but nevertheless do not find
what is being said as palatable, you start questioning the objective. Isn't it?

That old thread was started by Clay Death, and mostly seemed to be a good laugh one. I have to say, I couldn't read all of it, but it was a bit of a fluff thread, after Murray won Wimbledon. Are you seriously concerned about comments on that thread? You seem to be harboring resentment. I think you should pick out of those 7 pages what it is that's bothering you, and not make the rest of us dig through, or else give it a rest.

I'm not trying to poke at you, especially, but you do seem to have it in your craw against Murray on this one.

As to the bolded above: you are surely welcome to your opinion, but it does seem skewed against Murray and his marketability. I'm just not sure why. Is it simply to prove others wrong? In the end, is it important if Murray makes the Forbes top 100, or only the 200? Or how much Roger makes vs. Rafa or Novak? It still doesn't tell us anything more about their tennis than we already know.

 

[Kieran]

I actually found the "charismatic/masculine/funny" descriptions to be accurate in a shorthand way. I don't think they represent the full picture - but I don't think they were meant to. Murray doesn't have the same international appeal as the Big 3 ("Big 4" is suspended as a brand until the Scot actually reaches "Big"), but I'd also say this is as much down to the fact that he just isn't in their league as a champion, as much as an personality issues.

Rafa, Novak and Federer are bona fide legends of the sport, based on their achievements alone. Andy has achieved legendary status through being the first Brit of note since the Romans ruled the world. His personality - neither charismatic/masculine/funny - is one which is probably harder to sell, too, although I think he's most likely a very humorous fellow, he's surely masculine, and his charisma has attracted the beauty that is Kim Sears.

But the personality traits most people would associate with him - unfairly or not - are "sulky, petulant, whining, mouthy" - these kind of negative, unsaleable items that don't sit well with flashy watches and expensive chocolates.

Until he gets to #1, and becomes a dominant force as a player, having his "own slam" to call home, having a routine run of expected championships, he's not going to get the same moolah the Big 3 have access to. I'm sure, however, he doesn't lie awake on a mattress stuffed with money worrying about it...

 

[Iona16]

There were even some vitriolic attacks when I did that. Now that this year's list has come out, I am vindicated.

Out of decency, I am not going to name the specific posters who came up with such insane projections.

I had a quick read at the original thread and I seem to be missing the 'vitriolic attacks'.

I do hope you quote the specific posters though. It would seem only Clay Death mentioned some crazy figures. I stand by everything I said in the initial thread. I really can't be bothered arguing with people who just want to find a reason to have a dig at Andy and his personality. I'm off to read Andy's recent Q&A.

Oh and I see Fastgrass is back. I'm stunned to see his thread is anti-Andy. Shocking!! What fun.