There’s been a lot of talk at the 2006 U.S. Open about Maria Sharapova’s $25 million in earnings, but the real focus should be on the top-ranked players in the world, Roger Federer and Amelie Mauresmo.  Federer has dominated tennis for the past few years and speaks eloquently in several languages so why isn’t he the highest paid athlete in the world?  With her Australian and Wimbledon titles, Amelie Mauresmo fully deserves her Number One ranking, but her off-court earnings are almost non-existent.  She also comes across very well in interviews and continues to gain the support of fans around the world.  Top-ranked Pete Sampras and Lindsay Davenport also didn’t lead the list of highest-paid athletes in the world, especially in terms of off-court earnings.  Besides auto racing and soccer, there is really no other sport with such a global following as tennis, both in terms of participants and fans.  The worldwide demographics of tennis players and fans are very desirable to potential sponsors.  Tennis is also an individual sport so the top players, such as Federer and Mauresmo, are more recognizable than athletes hidden behind helmets and car windows.  Women’s professional tennis is the most successful professional sport for women worldwide.  Federer did earn over $20 million last year, but his earnings pale in comparison to Tiger Woods’ take home pay (over $90 million!) and also trail Michael Schumacher.  Sure endorsements are based on looks, charisma, etc. but Schumacher is no Brad Pitt!  So why don’t the top-ranked tennis players garner more global endorsements? 

Related post:  Are Tennis Players Underpaid?