Zebedee I agree but I don't think there are any of those payments for slams where attendance is mandatory. So, say Federer makes £36.5m in total endorsements or 100k a day (no idea, just using a round number). He plays tennis for 14 days and wins Wimbledon (£1.6m, this year after a 40% increase from last year, increase would have a lot to do with the tax rules imo) plus he makes £1.4m in endorsements for those 14 days. That's £3m and, as I understand it the UK takes 50% of the lot, so he takes home £1.5m. If he missed Wimbledon and stayed out of the UK he'd have kept his £1.4m in endorsements (or thereabouts, assuming he lives in a tax-free or very low tax area, which they normally do.)
So he makes an extra 100k or maybe a bit more for a 2 week slog and that's if he wins the whole thing. If he loses in the final he gets 800k, 400k after tax, but still has to pay 700k tax on the 14 days worth of endorsements, so he is down 300k. Simply not worth it. It is a big financial risk, you would basically have to win the whole thing or else end up out of pocket overall using those numbers. I may be a bit off with the endorsement numbers but even if I am you get the idea, they might be financially better off going out early. I'm not certain if the rules are applied exactly as above, it may be just days where tennis is played but even if it is you can see how ridiculous the rules are and how a player could want to avoid them. Bolt also pulled out of a Crystal Palace meeting last year as he said it would cost him money to run it and gave out at how stupid the rules were.
In Murray's case he can hardly refuse to play Queens and I'm sure his appearance fee would cover him and be bigger than the rest (and prob even more seeing as the rest don't turn up). Murray is not tax resident in the UK AFAIK, I don't blame him, I would spend as little time as possible there if I were him.
I was interested to see that he gave his £1.6m prize money to charity this year, that may have been more tax efficient and less charitable than it seemed.
So he makes an extra 100k or maybe a bit more for a 2 week slog and that's if he wins the whole thing. If he loses in the final he gets 800k, 400k after tax, but still has to pay 700k tax on the 14 days worth of endorsements, so he is down 300k. Simply not worth it. It is a big financial risk, you would basically have to win the whole thing or else end up out of pocket overall using those numbers. I may be a bit off with the endorsement numbers but even if I am you get the idea, they might be financially better off going out early. I'm not certain if the rules are applied exactly as above, it may be just days where tennis is played but even if it is you can see how ridiculous the rules are and how a player could want to avoid them. Bolt also pulled out of a Crystal Palace meeting last year as he said it would cost him money to run it and gave out at how stupid the rules were.
In Murray's case he can hardly refuse to play Queens and I'm sure his appearance fee would cover him and be bigger than the rest (and prob even more seeing as the rest don't turn up). Murray is not tax resident in the UK AFAIK, I don't blame him, I would spend as little time as possible there if I were him.
I was interested to see that he gave his £1.6m prize money to charity this year, that may have been more tax efficient and less charitable than it seemed.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram