Roger Federer Leads List Of Highest Paid Tennis Players, Novak Djokovic Ahead Of Rafael Nadal

by Tom Gainey | June 11th, 2015, 10:04 am

Forbes has released its list of 2015’s highest paid athletes, and tennis figures prominently with five players in the Top 50.

Roger Federer leads all tennis players with $67 million in total earnings from June 1, 2014-June 1, 2015. Federer’s play ranks 5th overall among all athletes behind Floyd Mayweather ($300M), Manny Pacquiao ($160M), Cristiano Ronaldo ($79.6M) and Lionel Messi (73.8M).

According to Forbes, Federer made $9 million in prize money and another $58 million on endorsements during a 12-month span.

Novak Djokovic ranks 13th with $48.2 million.

Rafael Nadal is 22nd with $32.5 million.

Maria Sharapova is the highest paid woman, ranking 26th at $29.7 million. Serena Williams is 47th with $24.6M.

You Might Like:
Forbes: Roger Federer Remains The Highest Paid Player In Tennis
Roger Federer Ranks Second On Forbes Highest Paid Athletes List
Who’s The Highest Paid Female Athlete? It’s Maria Sharapova
Forbes: Serena Williams Passes Maria Sharapova To Become Highest Paid Female Athlete
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

18 Comments for Roger Federer Leads List Of Highest Paid Tennis Players, Novak Djokovic Ahead Of Rafael Nadal

DC Says:

another symptom of suffering from goatness.

Hippy Chick Says:

Too much kitsch,and all rather self serving….

Purcell Says:

Hippy Chick….what do you mean?

sienna Says:

The hatred continues. Fed with his foundation does also very good work. He doesnt keep all his money for the twins… Of course he keeps some of it.

Snowbird Says:

It’s amazing how endorsements and prize money have severely increased for tennis players over the past decade. Sampras won 14 slams and his prize money is nowhere close to that of Djoko’s 8, and Nadal’s 14. Fed, of course has 17 slams, and it’s understandable why he earns so much. Ditto for Masters prize money.

I often wonder whether the present day players would have won so many Masters titles if the 3 best of 5 format was still in effect. Please, I’m not trying to knock any of the title winners for their wins which they deserve, but it’s just my thinking on how 3 best of 5 would have or changes the complexion of the outcome of those titles. I feel the Masters have become very watered down and less exciting now that it’s the same format as a 250 or 500 tournament.

Snowbird Says:

oops: “on how 3 best of 5 would have or changes the complexion ….” . I meant to say, “on how 3 best of 5 would have changed..” etc.

Markus Says:

Masters at 3 out of 5 will mirror the slams, so it will likely have the same guys hoarding the titles and probsbly monopolize them even more.

chris ford1 Says:

Snowbird – It’ not the prize money that makes up the bulk of their pay, it is endorsements. And appearance fees and exos add more.
A lot of this is the rich get richer, the whole STAR system that tennis, like other sports, embraces. Being a STAR attracts corporate people wanting their stuff hawked. Preferably by a bland person known for excellence, with no great controversy in their lives. Dr Ivo can stop holding his breath waiting for that Moet, Rolex money to start coming in.
On the woman’s side, it’s even worse because there, looks and how this or that woman appeals to a marketing demo – are almost everything. Titles are secondary to that, though winning one Slam makes a physically appealing woman a “serious athlete”, jacking up their price and attracting more corporate types. Why Sharapova, who IMO isn’t a superbeauty but is perceived as such, makes twice what Serena makes in a year.

Wog Boy Says:

Anna Kournikova was the best paid player on WTA tour at the time and she has never won one single title.

sienna Says:

Stop the insanity. 3 of5 finals would mean. Finalist wouldn’t be able to compete in master week after for obvious reasons. Especially there was no bye in those days.
Winners would have lesser chance to compete a masters title. This is a no brainer!

Michael Says:

This is surprising considering that it is Novak who has dominated the year. And yet it is Roger who still rules the Sport despite his demotion in the game and not being the player he used to be in the past.

But still it only goes to show the stature of Roger in the game where he is the undisputed leader enjoyng a huge popularity rating with the masses as well as the Media and is celebrated as its brand ambassador. He remains the star attraction even today and that wins him huge commercial favour.

Hippy Chick Says:

@4.54pm June 11th,Im not really sure what your getting at?i just find these lists all a bit OTT,and it seems like the rich are rubbing everyone elses noses in it,so what if Elvis has more money than Paul McCartney etc etc,i just find it all rather self serving,and this has nothing to do with Federer as i repeat i do not hate the guy whatever people choose to believe,this is an overall generalisation wouldnt matter if it was Phelps or Bolt or whomever,i rather get the feeling though that your rather fishing for a quarel,one that doesnt even exhist?….

Markus Says:

Roger must be the most universal of all tenns players ever if you consider the amount of endorsements he gets. In the regard, he is on par with most marketable athletes fornm other sports such as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, etc.. The bulk of their income is from endorsement deals rather than winnings. Some people are not just good, they’re also lucky to click so much with the public.

Tennisfan Says:

In Roger’s heyday he really was the “perfect” tennis star. He was extremely dominant, played with an aesthetic style and would never show emotion on court until after he’d won. I used to only follow Roddick matches circa 2003/4 but when I first saw Fed play in his effortless style it really drew me in. That image is his legacy now so it’s why he can still get so many endorsements even if he loses much more and sometimes takes those losses very badly.

Snowbird Says:

@cf1, Yes, it’s the endorsements that make up the greater part of their earnings. But, the point I was trying to make concerns their prize money and how much that has increased from say 5 years ago. e.g., a Masters win is now doubled at $1 million, as opposed to $500,00; slams are now close to $3 million, and the smaller 250 and 500 have also been upped. I know it’s inflation, and I sure wish my employer would double my salary over that of 5 years ago.I’m just dreaming!

I agree with the comparison you made with respect to Masha and Serena. You’re correct, Masha is notnear super beautiful. There are other players much more beautiful than her, e.g., Ana I, Kirilenko (she’s disappeared)and some others. Why Masha receives so much in endorsements is mind boggling to me.

Serena has won exactly 4 times the amount of slams over Masha, but is not remunerated for her hard work, instead it’s eye candy that has won out. I think it’s ridiculous. In a fair, unprejudiced world, it should be Serena who should receive the elephant’s share of the endorsements.

Snowbird Says:

a small correction: should be Serena… change to, ‘it would be Serena’…

Markus Says:

I do agree that it boggles the mind how much endorsement deals Sharapova gets. She’s not the best player, not the most beautiful, looks unfriendly and aloof, and based on what I read from tennis fans, not very well-liked. That says something about how good her agent and management team are.

Top story: Tsitsipas Streaks To 10 Straight On Clay, Gets Rematch With Ruud In Barcelona Final