Well, what is it you are referring to? Inflation in prize monies or real inflation in price levels? Price levels (CPI and also the deflator) have been very low since 2000 (and even before), so the real value of his prize money is very high.
Sampras only won 2 AO's. And he had a long career. He was crap until Wimbledon most years.
There hasn't been anyone like Federer in this sport. 5 Wimbledons and going for 4 USO's and then going for 3 AO's. Plus he's been in the last 2 RG finals.
No one else has ever done it.
Roger having been able to amassed 11th majors as of last Sunday is already satisfying and fulfilling, already an accomplishment in itself, that when, many years after from today, he tells his grandchildren how he did it, he would tell them he had quite a good run. He would also tell them that, along the way, he fell and stumbled, but as a whole, it was fun. Not every day that a player gets 11 majors. Why, he might make it 12 next US Open. Of course, Roger telling his grandchildren that he surpassed the great Sampras in terms of the majors garnered (more than 14) would be more quite exciting for the kids to hear. Hey wait, I am getting ahead of myself here, Roger and Mirka have yet to get married.
So just 2007 + 2006 winnings for Roger = about 1993+1994+1995+1996 (approx) for Pete.
So there has been some inflation in prize money (and it is way off from the inflation rate in the UK). If they keep going at this rate, in 5 years there will be some new ball who has outstripped Federer of his winnings as well. According to inflation adjusting, 305000 pounds in 2003 would be equivalent to 429,300 pounds in 2006 using retail price index. So Federer earned well more than inflation would suggest.
Does anyone know if the ATP stats are true values, or adjusted for inflation (I guess someone else asked a related question earlier. Anyone know?)
He had already surpassed Agassi after reaching the Roland Garros final.
He now has $32,636,278 and if you subtract the $1,399,175 he won by winning Wimbledon, you get $31,237,103 which is more than the $31,152,975 Agassi won in his career.
He had already surpassed Agassi after reaching the Roland Garros final.
He now has $32,636,278 and if you subtract the $1,399,175 he won by winning Wimbledon, you get $31,237,103 which is more than the $31,152,975 Agassi won in his career.
Almost $4.5M of Pete's career tour earnings came from the Grand Slam Cup which no loger exists. What was the purpose of that event (other than to pay guys huge $$ to play in Germany).
Almost $4.5M of Pete's career tour earnings came from the Grand Slam Cup which no loger exists. What was the purpose of that event (other than to pay guys huge $$ to play in Germany).
There are tournaments now which pay a lot of money, which did not exist before. There were tournaments previous which paid a lot of money, which do not exist now.
It's like saying, if Dubai had not been around, Federer's earnings would have been lower.
Nadal's money increasing even faster than Roger's at the same age.
Wow! I think he'll probably finishes near the TOP 10 of history by the end of this year!!!!
This kid is simply amazing!
he was second since Roland Garros not since after Wimbledon
and compare the earnings in the different eras , a huge different
I guess current players should not whine too much about past eras :devil:
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
88K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!