Single Season Prize Money Record under assault

Record: Pete Sampras (1997) $6,498,311

Roger Federer (2005) $5,240,518 and counting.

Fed will probably have to turn up to AMS Madrid and Paris to beat that record.
Although I'm not exactly sure how prize money is awarded for the TMC.

I think that shows that prize money hasn't risen that dramatically since 97. Fed has had at least as good a year as Pete did in 97.

Fed will probably have to turn up to AMS Madrid and Paris to beat that record.
Although I'm not exactly sure how prize money is awarded for the TMC.

I remember the unbeaten winner can get up to 1.5 millions.

Sampras got 2 million for winning the Grand Slam Cup... an event that is no longer played, but had the biggest purse in tennis. Hence his total being so high.

I thought it was only 1 million, but the atp says it's 2: http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity/default.asp?year=1997&query=Singles&player=S402&x=21&y=9

Sampy won over $3.7 m in the last 3 events that year (winning GS Cup, Paris and Masters cup)
he also got over $800,000 from the bonus pool at the end of the year (another thing ended by the ATP)
so it will be impressive if fed beats that record..

Feds was actually 100,000 short of it last year ($6.357) and missed Madrid, Paris..

For this comparison to make any kind of sense you'd have to convert 1997 dollars to 2005 dollars.

*Edit* Okay the closest I could get was 2004 dollars. Pete $6,498,311 in 1997 is equivalent to $7,648,120 last year.

For this comparison to make any kind of sense you'd have to convert 1997 dollars to 2005 dollars.

*Edit* Okay the closest I could get was 2004 dollars. Pete $6,498,311 in 1997 is equivalent to $7,648,120 last year.

If Sampras was born 20 years earlier, he could have won 40 slams in 1969.
:wavey:

If Sampras was born 20 years earlier, he could have won 40 slams in 1969.
:wavey:


What are you saying???

For this comparison to make any kind of sense you'd have to convert 1997 dollars to 2005 dollars.

*Edit* Okay the closest I could get was 2004 dollars. Pete $6,498,311 in 1997 is equivalent to $7,648,120 last year.


:haha: I wish they used this kind of math at my workplace.

:haha: I wish they used this kind of math at my workplace.

Please if you're an economist help me out!! Though now that I think about it, using a quickie CPI conversion isn't the most accurate. Listing all the tournaments Pete played in 1997 then finding their equivalent in 2005 and tallying his expectant prize money would be the most accurate. But then you run into the problem of finding substitutes for disbanded tournaments... ah too much work.

Please if you're an economist help me out!! Though now that I think about it, using a quickie CPI conversion isn't the most accurate. Listing all the tournaments Pete played in 1997 then finding their equivalent in 2005 and tallying his expectant prize money would be the most accurate. But then you run into the problem of finding substitutes for disbanded tournaments... ah too much work.

:haha:

I got a CPI table on my desk, let me know if you need me to quote the rates from the past 8 years

Pete $6,498,311 in 1997 is equivalent to $7,648,120 last year.

I find it hard to believe that the value of money dropped so much that quickly.

I find it hard to believe that the value of money dropped so much that quickly.


Inconsistencies with the macro and micro-economic tendencies its what it is all due to.

Is Federer close to breaking the record for most points won in a single season? Seems like he should be up there.

two wins from the world record.

Prize money totals are basically meaningless - inflation, exchange rates (as the tournament prize totals are listed sometimes in dollars, euros, pounds, etc.) and of course the fact that many players derive just as much if not more of their income from endorsement deals.

Which is why I remember it being so funny when the Y-man mentioned how he took such pride in leading the money list for the year in one of his interviews.