Players that earned the most in a season

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Highest prize money in a season, adjusted by inflation (best season only):

1) 2015 Djokovic $19,760,143.41
2) 2016 Murray $14,237,530.38
3) 2017 Nadal $13,274,805.11
4) 2017 Federer $12,294,451.89
5) 1997 Sampras $9,043,308.08
6) 2018 Zverev $7,889,448.54
7) 2019 Medvedev $7,137,688.36
8) 2019 Thiem $7,111,907.76
9) 2019 Tsitsipas $6,731,424.46
10) 2016 Wawrinka $6,515,359.53
11) 1999 Agassi $6,147,261.77
12) 2018 Del Potro $6,006,452.99
13) 2017 Dimitrov $5,833,771.25
14) 2001 Hewitt $5,381,153.17
15) 2000 Kuerten $5,081,918.83
16) 2014 Cilic $5,054,826.92
17) 2018 Anderson $5,020,785.76
18) 2016 Raonic $4,948,894.07
19) 2014 Nishikori $4,799,241.52
20) 2000 Safin $4,613,346.34
 

zuluzazu

Hall of Fame
Highest prize money in a season, adjusted by inflation (best season only):

1) 2015 Djokovic $19,760,143.41
2) 2016 Murray $14,237,530.38
3) 2017 Nadal $13,274,805.11
4) 2017 Federer $12,294,451.89
5) 1997 Sampras $9,043,308.08
6) 2018 Zverev $7,889,448.54
7) 2019 Medvedev $7,137,688.36
8) 2019 Thiem $7,111,907.76
9) 2019 Tsitsipas $6,731,424.46
10) 2016 Wawrinka $6,515,359.53
11) 1999 Agassi $6,147,261.77
12) 2018 Del Potro $6,006,452.99
13) 2017 Dimitrov $5,833,771.25
14) 2001 Hewitt $5,381,153.17
15) 2000 Kuerten $5,081,918.83
16) 2014 Cilic $5,054,826.92
17) 2018 Anderson $5,020,785.76
18) 2016 Raonic $4,948,894.07
19) 2014 Nishikori $4,799,241.52
20) 2000 Safin $4,613,346.34
Zverev > Agassi confirmed by lewisian statistics
 

Mr Backhand

Rookie
Highest prize money in a season, adjusted by inflation (best season only):

1) 2015 Djokovic $19,760,143.41
2) 2016 Murray $14,237,530.38
3) 2017 Nadal $13,274,805.11
4) 2017 Federer $12,294,451.89
5) 1997 Sampras $9,043,308.08
6) 2018 Zverev $7,889,448.54
7) 2019 Medvedev $7,137,688.36
8) 2019 Thiem $7,111,907.76
9) 2019 Tsitsipas $6,731,424.46
10) 2016 Wawrinka $6,515,359.53
11) 1999 Agassi $6,147,261.77
12) 2018 Del Potro $6,006,452.99
13) 2017 Dimitrov $5,833,771.25
14) 2001 Hewitt $5,381,153.17
15) 2000 Kuerten $5,081,918.83
16) 2014 Cilic $5,054,826.92
17) 2018 Anderson $5,020,785.76
18) 2016 Raonic $4,948,894.07
19) 2014 Nishikori $4,799,241.52
20) 2000 Safin $4,613,346.34
Imagine how much that will turn out to be once you add endorsement money in it, plus appearence fees, etc...
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Does inflation include the fact that most tournaments increased their prize money many folds in the past 2 decades?
Inflation is the monetary inflation.

If tournaments increased their prize money is because they thought they had better players who deserved more money.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
Tennis billionaires:

federer1-1416909843.jpg


Yawn. :)

Worked out well for many, OP.
 
Inflation is the monetary inflation.

If tournaments increased their prize money is because they thought they had better players who deserved more money.

Only monetary inflation doesn't portray the entire picture. The tournaments itself provided more cash flows over the years with greater prosperity, which exceeds the value achieved by merely inflation.

I doubt companies really care that much about who is playing the tournaments. Also, we are living in a world where more and more companies and start ups are built up every year. So naturally there will be an increase in number of companies who want to invest in a rich sport like tennis today as compared to the 90's or 2000's. Not to forget the advancements in digitization and social media which weren't prevalent back then.

A better metric to compare best seasons is to check the number of Big titles (as per the norm in respective years and generations) and keep prize money out of it
 
Last edited:

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
That money is not earned by strictly winning tennis matches.

no brand will throw multi-million multi-year contract at a player that is low ranked and say is 25 or 30 years old.
it works usually the following way:
1. you win something to get attention
2 your image is built

so you start getting endorsement after you win something serious,
so strictly speaking that money is earned AFTER winning matches
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Only monetary inflation doesn't portray the entire picture. The tournaments itself provided more cash flows over the years with greater prosperity, which exceeds the value achieved by merely inflation.

I doubt companies really care that much about who is playing the tournaments. Also, we are living in a world where more and more companies and start ups are built up every year. So naturally there will be an increase in number of companies who want to invest in a rich sport like tennis today as compared to the 90's or 2000's. Not to forget the advancements in digitization and social media which weren't prevalent back then.

A better metric to compare best seasons is to check the number of Big titles (as per the norm in respective years and generations) and keep prize money out of it

or adjust the prize money earned in the past by current prize money for same results
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
This is literally the most useless of all your useless threads, Lew. Federer 2017 the highest grossing year of his career when he's a part timer. What a laugh. I would say the Federer the billionaire article would be a good response to all this.
2017 Federer won 2 slams, 3 masters and 2 500s. A great season.

Federer made the most money by endorsements, not by strictly winning tennis matches and prize money of the tournaments.
 
2016 Murray played at a higher level than 2006 Federer IMO.

Prize money adjusted for inflation:

1995 Agassi $3,910,622.38
2006 Federer $10,693,031.25
2016 Murray $14,364,640.78
763344.jpg
 
Last edited:

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
You don't even have to do that.

If Federer won the exact same tournaments this year as he had in 2006, he would have more prize money than Djokovic.
He would make: $22,865,724
So? What does it tell us about what happened in reality?
 

skaj

Legend
Highest prize money in a season, adjusted by inflation (best season only):

1) 2015 Djokovic $19,760,143.41
2) 2016 Murray $14,237,530.38
3) 2017 Nadal $13,274,805.11
4) 2017 Federer $12,294,451.89
5) 1997 Sampras $9,043,308.08
6) 2018 Zverev $7,889,448.54
7) 2019 Medvedev $7,137,688.36
8) 2019 Thiem $7,111,907.76
9) 2019 Tsitsipas $6,731,424.46
10) 2016 Wawrinka $6,515,359.53
11) 1999 Agassi $6,147,261.77
12) 2018 Del Potro $6,006,452.99
13) 2017 Dimitrov $5,833,771.25
14) 2001 Hewitt $5,381,153.17
15) 2000 Kuerten $5,081,918.83
16) 2014 Cilic $5,054,826.92
17) 2018 Anderson $5,020,785.76
18) 2016 Raonic $4,948,894.07
19) 2014 Nishikori $4,799,241.52
20) 2000 Safin $4,613,346.34

3) Should be Serena.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
So? What does it tell us about what happened in reality?

It tells us,
oh wait, @Lew II take a seat please, it's gonna be a shocking surprize,
it tells us that 2006 is the most dominant season from the list that you compiled.

and when you factor the weak competition which lets a 39 years old to reach W final and finish the year ranked #3 in the world, well, you certainly can deduct the rest
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
It tells us,
oh wait, @Lew II take a seat please, it's gonna be a shocking surprize,
it tells us that 2006 is the most dominant season from the list that you compiled.
If Federer wanted to make that much money he had to dominate this year, not in 2006.

If, if, if... doesn't exist.

 
z7Nipjz.gif


The original poster's idea behind this equally meatless & needless thread seems to be inescapably light-headed beyond the event horizon.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
2017 Federer won 2 slams, 3 masters and 2 500s. A great season.

Federer made the most money by endorsements, not by strictly winning tennis matches and prize money of the tournaments.
Hey, you know what they say, if they "thought they had better players who deserved more money." to shill for them, then so be it.

And what he won in 2017 compares to what he won in 2004, 2005 or 2006? All this list does is point out the positive direction of money being pumped into tennis.

And on that note, genuine question, how the hell did Sampras make so much in 97? :-D 94 would seem like the standout year to me.
 

JaoSousa

Hall of Fame
Do you have anything to say other than insults?
You have no argument. All your posts are based on a preconceived notion, and you use numbers from a certain website to try to confirm your view. You are not objective in any way. It's called cognitive dissonance.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Lew, why haven't you posted a thread about most successful players with the given name Novak, or the surname Djokovic?

I bet it would be pretty eye opening as well.
 
Hey, you know what they say, if they "thought they had better players who deserved more money." to shill for them, then so be it.

And what he won in 2017 compares to what he won in 2004, 2005 or 2006? All this list does is point out the positive direction of money being pumped into tennis.

And on that note, genuine question, how the hell did Sampras make so much in 97? :-D 94 would seem like the standout year to me.
In 1997 he won the Grand Slam Cup, which netted him $2 million. 30% of his earnings that year.
 

DjokoGOAT

Semi-Pro
You have no argument. All your posts are based on a preconceived notion, and you use numbers from a certain website to try to confirm your view. You are not objective in any way. It's called cognitive dissonance.
Lew backs up his views with statistics and expert’s analysis. Is all you can offer are insults? Troll.
 

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
Lew, how much do you actually believe that prize money = tennis quality?

The amount of prize money a tournament offers is bound up with all sorts of other causal factors far beyond simply which or how many top players attend. If the world economy slumps, so will tennis prize money, even if the pool of players (say the top 100 for big tournaments) stays largely the same. We'll see this in the coronavirus recovery. If tournaments are forced to have limited or no spectators, a big source of revenue will be gone and they'll have to offer less prize money. Does that mean a tournament won in 2022 with lesser prize money and no spectators is less valuable to a player's resume than a tournament won in 2019 pre-COVID, even if all the same players attend? That seems a little silly.

And I don't think the amount of prize money that the very top players earn has much impact on the broader pool of tennis talent. There are still significant barriers to entry when it comes to tennis, and whether the US Open pays $1 or $2 million to the winner will (in my opinion) have pretty much no effect on whether a particular young athlete decides to commit to tennis or commit to a different sport. No one pursues tennis expecting to get rich. That top players earn more now than they did in decades past doesn't mean there's a deeper talent pool. It doesn't mean there's not, but there are a lot more factors at play.

But if you think there are good reasons to think the opposite, I'm interested to hear them. More than, like, one sentence saying, "Well I believe it, so there."
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Hey, you know what they say, if they "thought they had better players who deserved more money." to shill for them, then so be it.

And what he won in 2017 compares to what he won in 2004, 2005 or 2006? All this list does is point out the positive direction of money being pumped into tennis.

And on that note, genuine question, how the hell did Sampras make so much in 97? :-D 94 would seem like the standout year to me.

Grand Slam Cup.
Edit: I see that's been addressed, sorry.
 
Top