Federer earns most prize money ever

[joeri888]

With his win over Radek Stepanek Federer has now earned $43,280,489 (not that it's worth anything these days) which is more than Sampras for the first time. I don't really care for this number and it doesn't have any significance to me really. Next generation will break it again, and the generation after that as well I think.

Do any of you think this record is 'valuable'?

 

[zacinnc78]

thats because he is the GOAT

 

[FlamEnemY]

"Do any of you think this record is 'valuable'?"

Not worth a dime.

 

[Fedexeon]

He earns around 35 millions USD per year (prize money + endorsement). I don't think he cares about that too much as well.

 

[joeri888]

"Do any of you think this record is 'valuable'?"

Not worth a dime.

that's why I used the quotation marks

 

[FlamEnemY]

Yes, I know. Prize money depends on so many variables outside of tennis that it is no measure of player's success.

 

[Safinator_1]

I don't like Federer so ill say meh....

 

[cknobman]

"Do any of you think this record is 'valuable'?"

Not worth a dime.

Not really. Id tend to give it more credit if they adjusted for inflation.

 

[helloworld]

FV = 43,280,489
r = 2.6%
t = 10
FV = PV(1+r)^t >>> PV = FV/(1+r)^t
PV = 43,280,489/(1.026)^10
PV = $33,482,552

The actual money that Federer has earn compared to Sampras is $33,482,552.
*Note that r variable represents average inflation rate of the US. If world inflation rate is taken into account, the real figure is likely to be higher.

 

[sureshs]

FV = 43,280,489
r = 2.6%
t = 10
FV = PV(1+r)^t >>> PV = FV/(1+r)^t
PV = 43,280,489/(1.026)^10
PV = $33,482,552

The actual money that Federer has earn compared to Sampras is $33,482,552.
*Note that r variable represents average inflation rate of the US. If world inflation rate is taken into account, the real figure is likely to be higher.

You need to find out how much of the 43 mil was received each year and discount the cash flow appropriately. You are assuming it was received as a lump sum after 10 years. If you distribute the payments, the PV will be higher than what you have calculated.

 

[helloworld]

You need to find out how much of the 43 mil was received each year and discount the cash flow appropriately. You are assuming it was received as a lump sum after 10 years. If you distribute the payments, the PV will be higher than what you have calculated.

Calculating the cash flow year by year is also acceptable, however the process is more difficult to calculate and takes longer time to prepare. I simply presented you with the rough figure that Federer should earn if he were to play during Sampras's era.

 

[joeri888]

FV = 43,280,489
r = 2.6%
t = 10
FV = PV(1+r)^t >>> PV = FV/(1+r)^t
PV = 43,280,489/(1.026)^10
PV = $33,482,552

The actual money that Federer has earn compared to Sampras is $33,482,552.
*Note that r variable represents average inflation rate of the US. If world inflation rate is taken into account, the real figure is likely to be higher.

Hmm.. that would be kind of strange. What makes the 10 million difference? Fed won 5 US Open's, the title with the biggest prize money. And is closing in on tournaments total and Grand Slams.

 

[Safinator_1]

Prize money changed from tournaments as years gone by?

 

[joeri888]

Prize money changed from tournaments as years gone by?

Yeah, but apparantly it didn't change enough compared to inflation or Federer has achieved only 33/43 of what Sampras achieved (which I don't believe) if that analysis is correct.

 

[Safinator_1]

Well either way both players must be very happy they are ver very rich and adored by many dont get any better than that

 

[NGM]

With his win over Radek Stepanek Federer has now earned $43,280,489

A mistake here. 43,280,489 is Sampras's number. Fed earned 43,300,847 dollar.

I dont use money to compare players. But 43 millions dollar is still impressive, isnt it?

 

[ferim]

Prize money is in nominal terms. I think you need to adjust for inflation rather than taking an arbitrary interest rate to compare those two numbers (IMHO).

 

[FlamEnemY]

If you are going to adjust Federer's prize money to the inflation you should do the same for Sampras. For example, calculate how much money both players would have had at the end of Sampras' career. Because the money Sampras earned in 1995 for example is worth more than what he earned in 1999 and so on.
It's really time consuming and complicated. Plus, you have to do this for every single tournament, because the calculations differ for every country.

Not worth a dime, I say

 

[MEAC_ALLAMERICAN]

You guys are unbelievable; a lot of you Sampras nut huggers would try to find anything to keep Sampras on his throne.

What is going to happen if Federer passes his grand slam total? Will that be devalued by the competition during each era? How will that one be spun ? :shock:

 

[Azzurri]

You guys are unbelievable; a lot of you Sampras nut huggers would try to find anything to keep Sampras on his throne.
What is going to happen if Federer passes his grand slam total? Will that be devalued by the competition during each era? How will that one be spun ? :shock:

I agree..what a bunch of nut jobs.

 

[380pistol]

This is for all those trying to relate inflatio and how much Federer would make in comparison to Pete if the played in the same era. 43 mil to 33 mil seems about right. Many people are forgetting that 43 mil was pete's count as of 2002, so Roger would still have 2009-02 to go, which could even it out.

Also bonus money. Sampras played the Grand Slam Cup(which he won twice) which was the highest paying tourney of the 90's. On the other hand Roger in 2007 Roger got "X" for winning US Open series, "Y" for winning US Open and then "Z"(+ 1 mil bonus), for winning US Open as US Open Series winner. So he took about 2.4 mil in Flushing alone 2007.

So there are independant variables that aren't factored.

 

[veroniquem]

Good for him. Now, why should I care?

 

[veritech]

Good for him. Now, why should I care?

you tell me, you posted in the thread as if you do care.

and money is not a good comparison to compare sampras and federer, or any player.

 

[joeri888]

Good for him. Now, why should I care?

I don't know. But is that a reason, not to open the thread? It's just another (bad) measure of how much he's achieved that's all.

 

[Safinator_1]

i said it before and ill say it again meh.....

 

[TheTruth]

You guys are unbelievable; a lot of you Sampras nut huggers would try to find anything to keep Sampras on his throne.

What is going to happen if Federer passes his grand slam total? Will that be devalued by the competition during each era? How will that one be spun ? :shock:

Actually it goes both ways. How logical is this thread in the first place? Lindsay is quite high on the money list with her three grand slams. It proves nothing, but some people (not you) are so obsessed with Federer they actually sit around and think of crazy stuff like this to over value Fed. A ten year difference in playing time says it all, but who really cares about this stuff? This board is getting ridiculous.

 

[sureshs]

Calculating the cash flow year by year is also acceptable, however the process is more difficult to calculate and takes longer time to prepare. I simply presented you with the rough figure that Federer should earn if he were to play during Sampras's era.

Agreed.

But is inflation the right thing to adjust for here? Prize money has grown in leaps, specially for the women.

 

[veroniquem]

I don't know. But is that a reason, not to open the thread? It's just another (bad) measure of how much he's achieved that's all.

What I meant is I care about how much he has won: 13 slams and 14 masters, that's awesome but I don't care about how much money he makes. I actually find those millions obscene when more than half the planet is starving.

 

[tennis-hero]

all well and good

but where is Fed's private jet????

he should buy one