Edberg vs Wilander, Prize-money

[Mortifier]

Stefan Edberg
42 single titles, 18 doubles
36 runner-ups singles, 11 double RU's
6 single Grand Slams
Career Prize Money: $20,630,941

Mats Wilander
33 single titles, 7 doubles
26 runner-ups singles, 11 double RU's
7 single Grand Slams
Career Prize Money: $7,976,256

And here comes the question - how come they made such different quantities of money? I mean, surely, Edberg has won more titles, both doubles and singles, but he has got a ratio of almost 1 : 2,6.

Did Edberg go to the money-tourneys and Wilander made it to the more prestigious tournaments? I'm asking since I am a swede, but wasn't watching tennis at the time. It's always interested me and there's probably a very good explanation you guys could point out in a heartbeat.

 

[mdhubert]

Inflation and prize money increase play also a role as Wilander won his slams a few years (last one 10 1988) before Edberg (last one in 1992)... plus the doubles titles as you say...

 

[Moose Malloy]

Prize money became really huge in 1990(when the current ATP tour was formed - masters series, best of 14 ranking, etc)

Edberg got 500,000 for winning the USO in 1992, Wilander got 250,000 for winning it in 1988.

And look at these 2 90s events - Year End Championship & the Grand Slam Cup(you got 2 mill for winning it!) I wouldn't be surprised if Edberg won 5 or 6 mill at those 2 events alone in the 90s. While Wilander was pretty much done by 1990, so he never got a shot at being paid ridiculous amounts of $ for just going 0-3 at a YEC, like they did in the 90s & today.

Prize money increases every year by a lot at the majors, but yet has stayed pretty much the same at the YEC which I find surprising. Djokovic got the same amount for winning the YEC last year that Stich got for winning it in 1993. Guess the ATP can't find sponsors willing to go too big in the $ department.

 

[Mortifier]

Thank you guys, that really explains a lot.

Did you get frikkin' 2 mil for winning the YEC/Grand Slam Cup? Don't you get about 1 mil in the current era? Anyways, that is just sick.

How about the doubles? Has there always been a major focus on singles and therefore their prize money, or was it more evenly distributed in the old ages? (Of course singles has always had more money (?) but if may have changed in proportions though)

The reason why I created the thread is that in Sweden many/more people seems to fancy Wilander rather than Edberg, atleast in the circles I am accustumed to. Something like the ratio of 60/40 in my opinion.