Actually, Fed is making $250k plus a percentage of the gate. Roddick’s take is the same, minus the gate revenues. Cronin didn’t cite the source, but it was from Bob Larson, who didn’t cite his source either. Presumably it was OTR from someone from IMG.

The fact is that if the event grosses $1.8, which has been around average, there’s no way Roger’s making $1m.

September 27th, 2011 at 11:55 am

Well, that’s ok. i can’t see any problem. Federer and Roddick and the others can donate all such fees to their foundations. Yeah? They like to show what saintly characters they are and absolutely want the rest of us to acknowledge them as such - fine, donate, and donate properly. No pissing around,no careful pinched mouth calculations with their tax lawyers or accountants or whatever it is, just stick the lot in the Foundation Account. They might even earn a bit of respect. They seem keen on it.

September 27th, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Clearly Federer is the marquee name here. I got an email from the USTA yesterday and the headline (and subject line) said “Federer returns to the Garden” so that’s the player who they’re banking on to bring in the masses. Otherwise the USTA would be selling the only American in that group - Andy Roddick.

September 27th, 2011 at 12:41 pm

There won’t be too many years left where Roger will be able to play an exbo at the gardens while still on tour. And with Andy in tow it will be a fun night.

September 27th, 2011 at 1:50 pm

the greedy swiss miss strikes again
and the players whine about a union HA

September 27th, 2011 at 8:09 pm

Federer is the main draw of the event he is entitled to get a nice chunk of change. No one kid themselves. People are paying all that money to see him.

September 28th, 2011 at 12:19 pm

>> Matt Cronin of tennisreporters.net wrote an interesting tweet yesterday

I guess it depends on your definition of “interesting”. Yawn.

September 28th, 2011 at 12:46 pm

Kimberley - your post (which made me think, for which I thank you) reflects the standpoint of unqualified market economics. It’s on the Reaganite/Thatcher wing. As I understand it from this point of view, the rich are expected to help the poor, but out of the natural goodness of their hearts, not because of any legal requirement. It then follows that the foundations of Federer, Roddick, Agassi et al- which I have categorised as to a large degree humbug - fall into ideological place. They are justified, worthy and, moreover, do their bit to uphold the values of American Civilization, along with motherhood, apple pie and so on.

I do wonder, though, whether all the posters on this site who drool on about these foundations share these extreme right wing values. I suspect sometimes not.

Ny own view, for what it is worth, is that all ideology, whether of the right or of the left, ends up being horrific. The best we can do is to muddle along. Hypocrisy, though, is always hypocrisy from which ever angle you look at it.

September 28th, 2011 at 2:59 pm

Love him or hate him, but Federer is popular enough globally he could make 10 million per year just doing exos with legends and friends.

September 28th, 2011 at 5:30 pm

To Grendel:
>> The best we can do is to muddle along.
I am always doubtful when people use “we” when they should really use “I”.

“Hypocrisy, though, is always hypocrisy from which ever angle you look at it.”
Sure and eggs are eggs… how enlightening.

>> They like to show what saintly characters they are and absolutely want the rest of us to acknowledge them as such<>is that all ideology, whether of the right or of the left, ends up being horrific.<<
Sure all ideologies are equally bad not to mention relativism. That one is especially horrific.

September 28th, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Grendel, I wholeheartedly share your views on all those foundations, and on “all the posters who drool on…” (for me, that’s at least ridiculous, not to say worse). Yet, I’d never risk to bring down politico-economical (or, God forbid, ideological) issues on a tennis site. There are lots of other appropriate platforms and forums, no? but I suspect you were disappointed to be involved in them long ago, weren’t you? I’d be happy to learn your thoughts on the best possible way of mankind organization (I have gone through several different, sometimes diametrally opposite regimes and, alas, have no stable opinion on that matter) but I clearly realize the futility of such discussions here and, perhaps, elsewhere.
And Federer as a person/citizen, even if prominent, is a product of his time, society, etc. Maybe, nothing special, except he is a genius - yes, at tennis “only”, but maybe that’s enough for avoiding terms like hypocrisy or humbug beside. After all, he hardly looks hypocritical or roguish ON COURT. I cannot ask more.

September 28th, 2011 at 7:28 pm

Fed does not HAVE to do this. Then what? Posters would criticize him for being greedy with all his money. It never stops. I look at it this way, he has 2 kids he is raising with his wife, travels the world, hardly ever gets to stay “home”, but yet finds the time to contribute to charitable foundations. Remember, for the ones that have money, its always EASY to write a check, but impossible to give there time. He does. And also writes a check, not only just receives them.

As far as appearance fees, again, some of you seem to think Fed is the King of this. Actually, Rafa and others demand fees also.

This is not a new thing, just something that does not get much press. This did not start with Fed’s era either.

September 28th, 2011 at 8:05 pm

Leon, you’re actually wrong about the other sites thing. Very recently (weeks) I posted in the Guardian about 1)Richard Dawkins (is he or is he not obsessional?)and 2)the business in Syria - the final one in the second topic was pretty funny, let me present you with it. This chap had been going on and on about the resonsibility the United States bore for terror and suffering in almost every part of the world, and I posted (something like):”yesterday, I fell over and grazed my knee. It hurts. I blame America”. This geezer then shot back:”then this too must be added to the litany of America’s crimes”. I thought that was quite brilliant. But in general, I have never posted except on tennis sites.

However, I think you are certainly right, and one should avoid politics on tennis sites - and I wouldn’t blame at all the moderators for deleting any such posts. There is a little difficulty, though. Tennis, after all, is part of the world which - unfortunately - includes politics. The business of foundations, of appearance fees and so forth, is - in the end - a political one.

Still, you are quite right, and I was way over the top in using expressions like “hypocrite” and “humbug” w.r.t.Federer. I think I must have been in my sanctimonious mood, which overcomes me from time to time. Sorry. I actually like Federer, as a human being I mean, insofar as one can tell. It’s all guesswork, isn’t it, with public figures? And as you say, he is a genius. And a driven man - kind of inappropriate to labour on about other matters. Because clearly what drives him isn’t money. So - apologies again.

September 28th, 2011 at 8:49 pm

I have watched tennis for many years. I am old enough to almost know all the players. I think Roger is a fine man who does everything he can to help others.He does not advertise it. He simply helps others who need help and that is the sign of a very good soul. GO ROGER!!!

September 28th, 2011 at 9:12 pm

“This chap had been going on and on about the resonsibility the United States bore for terror and suffering in almost every part of the world, and I posted (something like):”yesterday, I fell over and grazed my knee. It hurts. I blame America”. ”

And you’re actually proud of writing this?

“1)Richard Dawkins (is he or is he not obsessional?)”

Who could possibly care about somebody’s opinion on the personality of someone they don’t know personally. It’s not like people could talk about the actual message vs the messenger.

Sticking with tennis might be a real good idea when the other option is just boring ad hominems.

September 28th, 2011 at 10:00 pm

Leon: most of the tennis players live in tax havens don’t they? Those of us on the left would argue you contribute to society through taxation not donation.
Jack Lewis: I obviously can’t speak for grendel but I guess grendel he was being ironic….and making a point through humour.

September 29th, 2011 at 1:18 am

aahh! edit button please!

September 29th, 2011 at 1:19 am

As for blogging, thumbs up, Grendel and Leon.

As for money in tennis, the strategy seems to be to create a culture of stars which are easier for followers to relate to - and protect them. (YeC, seedings, price money allocation..)(*)

You would think that the Atp and Itf are professional enough to poll their customers. It leads to the assumption that the average tennis fan is one that roots for domination instead of diversity.

Which is better for the evolution of the game? Strengthening the base or having the sharpest of spearheads? Is the evolution of the game relevant to turnover? If you look at golf and what those guys can do with the ball, its actually amazing. But, if you have a hundred amazing guys in the field they make themselves look ordinary. But when you have one that is clearly above the rest, you get starpower - which is needed to get relatability.

The consensus is apparently that the grand prize that awaits if you make it to the top ten in the world, is a stronger stimulating factor than broadening the amount of journeyman players who by greater financial security can solely concentrate on what they passionately want to do the most.

Which is better, to allocate all the great resources to the top or concentrate on strengthening the base? Do we want to see an ultimate skill-level or broad sprectum no holds bar fighting?

(*)
YeC - A tournament for only the elite, yet the ranking points acquired stand for the whole year, consolidating better seedings.

Seedings - This is also plain logistics to maximize tournament revenue, by maximising the probability of top names appearing on weekends, when most people have time to come and watch.

Prize money - the amount of prize money the winner gets is also a strong contributing factor to the amount of starpower created.

September 29th, 2011 at 2:40 am

federer one z the right play tennis so roger goooooooooood man best player tennis in the world

September 29th, 2011 at 4:10 am

margot - I permit you to speak for me…

September 29th, 2011 at 9:46 am

grendel: :) Two nations separated by a sense of humour?

September 29th, 2011 at 11:57 am

Awesome! a million $ for a few hours of pay. Roger definitely has earned it.

He’s a once in a life-time player/sportsman like jordan, ali, bubka, woods, maradona, phelps, bolt, armstrong, schumacher, tendulkar.

you see such players play and you know there’s never going to be another like them.

Go Rogi!

September 29th, 2011 at 5:44 pm