We are nearing the pointy end of the 106th Australian tennis Open, where the men and women singles champions will each bank $AUD4 million.
The losing finalists will take home $2 million each, the losing semi-finalists $880,000, and the losing quarter-finalists $440,000.
Even the first-round losers pocket $60,000.
So how does this compare with the other three Slams in Australian dollars?
There have been 121 French Opens, where last year the two singles champions won $3.22 million each. The runners-up each earned $1.55 million, the losing semi-finalists $967,135, the losing quarter-finalists $536,699. First-round losers walked away $53,699 richer.
At the home of tennis, where there have been 131 Wimbledon Championships, last year the two singles champions earned $3.85 million each. The losing finalists took $1.95 million, the losing semi-finalists $962,607. the losing quarter-finalists $481,303. First-round losers received $61,254.
There have been 137 US Opens, the last Slam of the year, where the two singles champions bank $4.63 million apiece. The losing finalists got $2.28 million, the losing semi-finalists $1.15 million, the losing quarter-finalists $585,325. First-round losers took $62,621.
[latest_videos_strip]
All Slams are of two-week duration, and vastly better paid than four-day golfing majors.
There have been 82 US Masters, where last year’s champion won $2.47 million, and the coveted green jacket. Second banked $1,49 million, third $937,000.
At the 118th US Open, the champion received $2.7 million, second $1.63 million, and third $854,000.
The Open is the oldest tournament of the eight. Last year was the 146th, with the champion taking home $2.31 million, second $1.34 million, and third $856,504.
And there have been 99 PGA Championships, where last year the champion won $2.37 million, second $1.42 million, and third $894,000.
While there’s a disparity among the slams and majors, golf has more better-paid tournaments on the circuit than tennis. So there’s not much difference in career-best prize money.
Roger Federer tops the male tennis players with $112 million won, from Novak Djokovic’s $110 million, and Rafael Nadal’s $95 million.
Tiger Woods, who makes a comeback to the USPGA tour this week, tops the golfers with $110 million, from Phil Mickelson’s $85 million, and Vijay Singh’s $71 million.
Serena Williams is way ahead of the women tennis players, with $84 million, from sister Venus’ $40 million, and Maria Sharapova’s $37 million.
The women golfers are way behind, with Annika Sorenstam showing the way with $23 million, from Karrie Webb’s $21 million, and Christie Kerr’s $19 million.
But whichever way you look at it, both sports are very well paid, and will only get better every year. Because they deserve it.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Yet, the best golfers in the world play far less tournaments each year than the best tennis players. Given the extra physicality of tennis, it seems strange to me that so many matches are played by the elite players. The comparison of women's prize money between golf and tennis highlights the different philosophies around women's prize money. Women's golf prize money is so much less than men's because it simply doesn't have a product comparable in marketability with the men's game. Women's tennis certainly has a marketable and popular product, which is evident in the equal pay for men and women at Grand Slam events. However, the women only play the best of three set matches in Grand Slams, which, apart from tradition, makes no sense to me. Why can't women play best of five sets at the Grand Slams? Are women tennis players somehow viewed as lesser athletes? Why do tennis administrators feel the need to protect them from a couple of extra sets in a match? I have tried to consider possible reasons, but find none that don't seem, in some way, insulting or patronising to women's sport. If the product is marketable enough to have the same prize money, surely seeing longer matches, as in best of five sets, would be better, not worse? Where is Billy Jean King when we need her?
Johnno
Guest
I should have been more accurate, for men's tennis and men's golf im focusing on. Men's golf has a better equalization payement system for mid ranked and lower ranked players from what i've red, here is just one article on this. I agree about women's tennis getting a better deal than women's golf.. https://www.sportseconomics.org/sports-economics/why-do-golfers-earn-more-than-tennis-players
David Lord
Expert
Categorically incorrect Johnno. Tennis is equal pay for the four Slams, but women's golf is lagging way behind the men for their five majors. US Open - men's champion $2.7 million, women's champion $900,000. Open Championship/British Open - men $2.31 million, women $490,000. PGA Championship - men $2.37 million, women $530,000. Masters/Evian Championship - men $2.47 million, women $500,000. ANA Inspiration - women $410,000.
Johnno
Guest
Golf has a far better equal pay structure than tennis..
Charlie
Guest
Tennis and Golf have long been compared, they are both individual second tier sports and both have 4 competitions a year that are way way more important than every other competition in their sports. Stop being obtuse just because you dont like the author.
oldtimer
Guest
Scott, Christo and others I don't profess to know as much about sport as many of the regular posters on this forum. So I took Davids article to mean, as the header say's elite tennis players earn more money than the top golfers and the figures quoted where a revelation for me at least. I can't for the life of me get the Fox's point about inferior opinions etc, sounds like he just does not like David, but as I have said I am no expert.
Fox
Roar Guru
Explanation accepted David and I do concur that major competition golf in Australia is poorly run and promoted and rubbish these days. The world would be lopsided indeed but I regret to inform you David it has already reached way past crowded - just ask all the other animals that live here :) or perhaps I should say don't live here any more! And no I am not one those who ties himself to trees by any stretch - but hey just sayin'
David Lord
Expert
FS, two points. There's no such thing as "inferior", we just view sport differently - no-one is more right, or wrong. And thankfully, "appearance money" is only paid by the poorer golfing countries to attract world class golfers to their pitifully sponsored tournaments. They never have to pay appearance money in the USA, Japan, South Africa and most European countries. Australia has become one of those poorer countries thanks to rank amateur administration. There used to be summer circuit that attracted top class overseas golfers when their home backyards were covered by six feet of snow. But there are now only two tournaments in Australia - the Open and the PGA. Even the traditional Australian Masters is dead and buried. So Jordan Spieth is paid a million bucks appearance money so he can win the Australian Open first prize of - wait with bated breath for it - $225,000. Australian golf at home is an international embarrassment, yet with the current likes of two former world number ones in Jason Day and Adam Scott, and world-class Marc Leishman, they keep Australia in the headlines overseas. And this could be a big year for Cameron Smith, who is on the verge of breaking through. There are lots of different ways to view sport. That your way FS is different from mine is what life is all about. Just imagine if everyone held the same opinions, the world would be very lop-sided and crowded.
Griffo
Guest
If you are at the top of one of those sports you are very well paid. Imagine you are in the top 200 in the world in tennis but outside the top 100. It could be a struggle to actually get by considering the great travel expenses incurred to stay on the tour. Compare this to the code of football often referred to as soccer. If you occupy a similar position in the world for players in your sport you could be playing for the European champion club, earning an excellent salary, training in state of the art facilities, receiving exemplary medical and sports science treatmeant and conditioning. It's really only the very elite who earn good money in tennis.
Fox
Roar Guru
So I take it you are inferring David, that if we don't care how much players get paid in prize money - our vastly different ideas on sport are inferior to yours? Because that is clearly what you are inferring here no doubt about it - it could be nothing else no matter how you dress it up. So why not say.... let's mention the very highly paid, and non-disclosure, of "appearance money" for the biggest money drawing players that sometimes -as we are learning in golf- is more than the prize money and tennis would be similar in many instances. Either way who cares - it is like the stupid, almost competitive nature of sporting transfer fees to see which player breaks the record for the highest transfer fee year in,year out in a given sport - some not even delivering on the dosh laid out for their services - just like the no1 or 2 drafts in the AFL don't necessarily end up becoming the best players of that draft but it has become television theatre now with all the commentating theatrics to go with it. At the end of the day, who cares about how much athletes get paid - I mean seriously, its novelty knowledge of a sport at the end of the day not real knowledge of a sport itself - and since they probably earn more for wearing a pair on Nike shoes, pants and T-shirt annually and good luck to them - who cares. And that is not the game - that is the "business of sport" which as we are seeing in cricket, is suffocating the contest between bat and ball in the interest of network advertising dollars by preparing batting roads - especially in Australia but they are not alone. Now that business I do care about! Why? Because it is effecting the game I love itself as a contest between bat and ball - but how much they get paid? I couldn't care less about - only how they play - only how they are coached. So yeah DL - guess for some of us, we will just have to be content loving the game and not giving a crap about how much individuals get paid in prize money. You know - we inferior sports fans to your good self of course.
The Big Red V
Guest
I am no "rocket surgeon" (as my daughter is want to say), but it may be a more "interesting" stat to compare things like: • What is Laver's and Nicklaus' earnings worth in "modern money", ie, calculate their winnings as if it were earned today, ie. the value of the dollar. • How may Majors / Slams has each of the 4 greats mentioned above played in to achieve their success (Yes I could Google it, but then I would answer my own question and what would be the point of this forum) This article offers a view that is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the Monday morning sports pages where winners and loser are published and the amount of money earned is highlighted just to depress the spectator who helped pay for that cheque by way of an over inflated ticket price. More of your "good stuff" please David but equally, my apologies if I have missed your point entirely....
David Lord
Expert
The comparisons are really simple, tennis careers are gauged by the number of Slams won, golfing careers by majors. It doesn't matter Slams are over two weeks, and majors four days - it's the career stats and prize money that demand comparisons. Let's go a step further. Roger Federer has won 19 Slams, and banked career prize money of $111 million. Rod Laver is the only tennis player to win two Grand Slams among his 11 Slams, and earned a career $1.56 million. Tiger Woods has won 14 majors, and was runner up six times, to bank $110 million in prize money. Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors, and was runner up 19 times, and earned a career $5.7 million In the history of both sports, the elite tell vastly different stories, and if you don't find that interesting, we have vastly different ideas on sport.
Smiggle Jiggle
Roar Guru
Cough, Roy Mcilroy earned 16m in 2017. Roger earned 6m. Not including any endorsements.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Yeah, I really don't understand the point of this article. Elite golfers and tennis players get paid a lot of money - who knew...
Scott Pryde
Expert
Wait, why are we comparing two-week grand slams with four-day golf events? I don't get it... And let's be honest, Golfers are not under anywhere near the same amount of physical exertion as tennis players across that time period.