Is Roger Federer Really Getting $1 Million For The MSG Exo?
by Tom Gainey | September 27th, 2011, 9:53 am

Matt Cronin of wrote an interesting tweet yesterday. Writing about the March 2012 Madison Sqaure Garden exhibition, Cronin revealed what he thought or heard the players would be making in guarantee money just for the one day appearance in New York City.

“Now reality on BNP Paribas exo at MSGL: Fed getting at least 1 million, Maria $500,000, Roddick 250-300,000 & Caro 100,000 or a little more” he tweeted.

That’s $1 million in Federer’s bank account just for one day/night of tennis. If that sounds like a lot of money it’s because it is, especially just for one day of play.

Federer and Rafael Nadal both command appearance fee dollars in that range to play FULL WEEK tournaments, but that much for a single night of mildly competitive exo tennis?

Maria Sharapova sells tickets and for it according to Cronin she’s set to earn $500K. Roddick may be slipping in the ranks but he’s still a marquee attraction at $250K. And Caroline Wozniacki is still feeling the pinch of not having won a Grand Slam pocketing “just” $100K.

Based on Cronin’s numbers, the event will award around $1.8 million just in guarantee monies. Tickets, which won’t be cheap for obvious reasons, go on sale next week.

You Might Like:
Forbes: Serena Williams Passes Maria Sharapova To Become Highest Paid Female Athlete
Roger Federer Leads List Of Highest Paid Tennis Players, Novak Djokovic Ahead Of Rafael Nadal
China Tennis Booming with $15 Million Web Cash Influx
21 Million Dollar Man Novak Djokovic Made More Prize Money In 2015 Than Andy Roddick Made In His Career
Roger Federer Tops Sports Illustrated’s Earnings List

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

22 Comments for Is Roger Federer Really Getting $1 Million For The MSG Exo?

me Says:

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.

grendel Says:

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.

RZ Says:

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.

Patty Says:

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.

I like tennis bullies Says:

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

Kimberly Says:

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.

Jack Lewis Says:

>> Matt Cronin of wrote an interesting tweet yesterday

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

grendel Says:

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.

Golf is barely a Sport Says:

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.

Jack Lewis Says:

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.

Leon Says:

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.

skeezerweezer Says:

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.

grendel Says:

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.

Mitzi Heim Says:

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!!!

Jack Lewis Says:

“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.

margot Says:

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.

margot Says:

aahh! edit button please!

Chico Says:

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.

hakim Says:

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

grendel Says:

margot – I permit you to speak for me…

margot Says:

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

Swiss Maestro Says:

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!

Top story: Andy Murray Tests Positive For COVID, Australian Open Not Ruled Out?
Most Recent story: Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Serena Williams Arrive In Australia