Mens Tennis Forums banner

Who will end up with most cash when retired

  • Djokovic

    Votes: 21 63.6%
  • Nadal

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • Federer

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • Total voters
    33
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
It looks like Djokovic is the most likely since he will probably play for a while after Nadal and benefit from constant prize money increases. Not to mention they are nearly level as it stands anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
Djokovic

inflation is terrible though, Rod Laver won $4500 for winning Wimbledon, Djokovic just took home $3,000,000 the other day

even Sampras Wimbledon wins was not much more on average than $500,000 per title

Djokovic and Nadal will bust 100 million, Federer probably barely hit 90m.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
Honestly, who cares? They're all rich. And I'm sure Fed and Nole don't care, they have wonderful families who mean more than money.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,269 Posts
Federer will be making a lot more money post retirement than either of these guys.

But when they retire, I guess you have to go with Djokovic, surprisingly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
Djokovic

inflation is terrible though, Rod Laver won $4500 for winning Wimbledon, Djokovic just took home $3,000,000 the other day

even Sampras Wimbledon wins was not much more on average than $500,000 per title

Djokovic and Nadal will bust 100 million, Federer probably barely hit 90m.
What? You think Djokovic and Nadal are only 65% and 70% through their careers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Djokovic

inflation is terrible though, Rod Laver won $4500 for winning Wimbledon, Djokovic just took home $3,000,000 the other day

even Sampras Wimbledon wins was not much more on average than $500,000 per title

Djokovic and Nadal will bust 100 million, Federer probably barely hit 90m.
That has little to do with inflation. Prize money increases vastly exceed inflation. Sampras has less prize money than Djokovic even when you incorporate inflation.

Anyway, it's not very important. Not only is prize money a bad measure for achievements, it is also a bad measure for earnings because the top players receive more in endorsements, especially Federer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
That has little to do with inflation. Prize money increases vastly exceed inflation. Sampras has less prize money than Djokovic even when you incorporate inflation.

Anyway, it's not very important. Not only is prize money a bad measure for achievements, it is also a bad measure for earnings because the top players receive more in endorsements, especially Federer.
This. It is what it is.

I've seen some people trying to use prize money as a surrogate to brag about their favourite's achievements, while others get upset that it isn't fair.

Not only that, but all players are expected to pay their expenses from prize money, which are considerable, so it's not even much use to compare against other sports. Top footballers are not expected to pay for the hotels, flights and salaries of their support team (and themselves). I presume golfers might be in the same boat, but not many of them have their own dedicated physio.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top