This is really a pity.As a person, I find this really insulting and degrading.

Looks will only get you so far. It's a shame that people get ahead in life with that type of advantage. I guess I'll crawl back under the dumpster that I came from.

I'm not going to speak about Ana... because I am not sure she is quite as qualified to have the large endorsements as Sharapova, but with three grand slam titles, at three different slams... Sharapova has proven beyond a doubt that she wasn't just a blip on the tennis radar at the most competitive of events. As we all know, she shot to super stardom at 17 with her win at Wimbledon... followed it up at 19 with the US Open... and 20 with the Aussie in 08. In those finals, she beat players with a combined Grand Slam tally of 20 grand slam titles. Clearly, she was a worthy opponent for players who also have achieved success at the highest level.

With that said, the value of exterior beauty is not something new to human culture. I personally cannot think of a single society on Earth (ever) that didn't value in some way or another physical beauty. Whilst not all societies value the same physical attributes, I feel that it is obvious that this is the case.

I just feel that it is ridiculous to judge advertisers and the celebrities/athletes that they endorse for choosing the person that sells the most product. Is this something that should be looked down in our society? Perhaps... but it certainly isn't something that only America or only modern societies have valued. Also, should one look down on someone just because they have the physical beauty that mainstream society values? In my opinion, this is wrong as well.

While not all practices by todays advertisers are things that I support, I also refuse to believe that they are completely shameful/bad for our society. Perhaps I am shallow, misguided, or not well informed... but it is my opinion.

Selling isn't the same job as winning.

Hey man- if you got it, you got it. I completely disagree with AA. There is nothing "
degrading" or "insulting" about it, its just the way it is and it is as it has always been. Please feel free to grow up and tune into the realities of the world. Or, you can always crawl back under the dumpster from whence you came and complain about how unfair life is. To be sure, you won't be alone.

Same old, same old...I'm old enough to remember Navratilova complaining about her lack of sponsors, compared to Evert, Sabatini, etc., for the same reasons. I also remember that the generous contracts awarded to Venus and Serena early in their careers, were reportedly tied to their remaining within the top 5 or top 10. Obviously, this does not apply to Sharapova or Ivanovich.

I give a little extra props to those pros who grin and bear it. For example, Nike sponsors many tennis players, but they adorn their favorites (Federer and Sharapova) every year at Wimbledon with those ridiculous golden slippers, and strange swag (add Serena's summer on-court coats to those of RF's and Maria's). Not being a world-class athlete, I cannot imagine how it would feel to know that my "sponsor" was seriously banking on one of my competitors. On the other hand, there are only a few major athletic wear companies, so I guess if you are lucky enough to get a sponsor, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, even if that hand is giving more to some who have accomplished less (compare Serena to Maria).

I would expect non-sports related sponsors of tennis players, like Lexus, Tiffany's, Rolex, etc., to be less concerned with player stats than with image, personality, sex appeal, etc., and if a player like Sharapova has successfully presented or "branded" herself in such a way that she is sought by these sponsors, good for her!

M-life, i guess you'd know what AA and TJ were relating to if you had to work three $6/hour jobs just to make ends meat because you were one of the statistics who were born in slums without much parents guidance and education and didn’t look like a model to end up on the cover of a mag along with bunch of $$$ just cuz you look hot.

I'm surprised that people still seem to get upset that pretty people who also WIN get lots of endorsments. Maria has three major titles, even if she wasn't so pretty, she could be seen as a good representative for products, especially sports products. Ana has won a major, so again she's "earned" the right to get endorsments, not that anyone really needs to earn an endorsment with performance, fame is the name of the game, and if you are famous for anything, whether it be talent or looks or whatever you may get endorsements. And Marion need not worry about being blonde enough, two of the women mentioned as top paid stars with endorsments are not blonde, but have nice brunette hair, just like Marion. I think jealousy plays a big part in why people get in an uproar about who gets endorsements, I don't know why anybody wastes time in worrying about who gets what endorsement, it's not like we are paying for it, the companies are, it's their choice who they want to represent them, and if all they want are pretty people, then so be it.

ukhi, if somebody is born in a slum with no parental guidance, it's not Maria or Ana or Danica's fault. It's that person's PARENTS fault, so to stir up resentment toward attractive women who had GOOD PARENTS, because they get endorsements is just envy. And it's not like a person born in a slum with lousy parents can't get ahead, they can, they do, and history is full of examples of people who pulled themselves up out of bad circumstances to become rich and successful. It's people who sit and envy a "luckier" person instead of trying to work hard and do the right things to get out of a bad situation who won't ever be successful, they are too busy blaming the wrong people for their problems.

wow 70 million in 8 years ontop of everything else she'll make...that's like making $24,000 in one day. so she'll get in one day what a person working 12hours a day, 7 days a week, for 365 days a year, on minimum wage pay. if only nike could build some much needed schools in third world countries instead. but that's the government job right? sorry!!!

Um....if you don't like it, don't buy the products they endorse. It's because it works that they keep getting these ridiculous offers. Simple facts of economy, and marketing.

@Jay, I bet you anything, Serena will ENSURE she's the highest endorsed Female athelete the next time around. (That or switch sponsors) Essp if she's #1 still.

Although she's already got more money than I'll ever have, I hope that you are right about Serena, Legoboy, just for the sake of fairness.

I'm not sure when Serena's contract is to be re-negotiated, but as an attorney, aside from the $ figures, I'd like to see how a clause would be written to say "player agrees not to freak out over foot faults..."

I'd also like to see how Henin's (7 majors) Addidas contract compares to Ivanovich's (1 major).

@ukhii... It is in no way Nike's "job" to build schools in third world countries. Never has, never will. They do some things to help the impoverished like the (red) campaign... but obviously that isn't enough to have a HUGE impact in the world. Often, I feel that people put too much blame on the wrong people, like @Cosi said. The best way to change oneself and ones situation is to improve yourself first... not wonder why others have more or why Nike and other international corporations aren't building schools around the world... Plus, Maria's earnings PALE in comparison to what some people in this world make... 70 million in 8 years... at least she had to work from 6 years-old on everyday to reach the level she needed to be at to even have a chance of winning tournaments in her sport. That is more dedication and hard work than many people can say they've invested.

I also think that comparing high level athletes to minimum wage workers isn't really a fare comparison. Do you think that the athletes (hypothetically) that you love watching, whose jersey you own, and whose gear you purchased deserve to make $6/hour when they are on the court/field/etc?? I don't.

Finally, we of course know that many, many athletes/celebrities have come from absolutely horrific backgrounds. Some from war torn areas, while others were raised in abusive families. Not everyone that is privileged always was... It is insensitive and naive to assume that because someone makes a lot of money and lives a seemingly "charmed" life, is someone that didn't have countless struggles to get there... in fact many are destroyed even by making it...(i.e. drugs, depression, etc.) This is a much more complicated matter than "rich, pretty people get more stuff than I do...they don't deserve it..."... and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

I think , at some level , we have to accept that beautiful people are better (not necessarily better human beings) when it comes to being spokesperson for a brand. I cannot remember the last time an ugly person was given a huge endorsement. You have to be atleast average looking...like Tiger woods.

In every sense of the word ,Bartoli is not beautiful. Venus , Ana , Maria , Wozniacki , kirilenko are all very beautiful. Serena is sort of ghetto beautiful (just hate me for being blunt and for saying like it is) but with that kinda of appeal she can only sell bling (think a huge mercedes benz pendant) and not a small heart pendant with a little diamond in it.

The companies exactly know these things...But like one of the posters said , you can exercise your will in buying or refusing to buy their products.

I stopped buying Nike since 94 and haven't bought a single Nike product except for a RF cap (which I bought after so much reluctance since it had a swoosh on it). I feel sad that Roger endorses Nike but that's how it goes. Nike continues to disfigure and maim small children in poor east and south asian countries and despite video footage proving that this continues to happen even today , their CEO doesn't give a damn and continues to destroy these children and their families.

Point being , don't blame Nike or Sharapova. They do what they do because we are stupid and gullible. Boycott on a mass scale and things will change. But most of us are retail whores who will buy things just because it is on sale or we can afford them. So we deserve all the things that happen to us.

More than Sharapova's $70 million dollar contract for six years (with Nike) which is $11 million plus a year, Serena landed a lifetime contract with with Nike several months before Sharapova's. And it was for $110 million which is $16.6 million a year. So Serena actually is receiving $5.2 millions a year more than Sharapova. And Serena is the 16th more powerful and richest athlete in the world. Sharapova is only reached #80th last month census conducted by several companies like Forbes Magazine. And according to Forbes and census. Serena is the richest woman athlete ever with the most endorsement and with the most grand slam titles among "active" women and men (excluding Federer and Sampras). So, recheck and research your data again, Jay because it's Serena and Roger Federer who have the most endorsement not Sharapova and Federer. Your fact was 3 to 4 years passe. In 2009 and 2010 census, Maria Sharapova is not the richest and most in demand tennis player . The richest and the one who has more high end endorsement of all athletes is Tiger Woods followed by LeBron James. Roger Federer is #17 in this census.

Well this is capitalism. It works mostly. Why do people make such a fuss. If you dont like it go out and make something of yourself that you feel proud off. Maria and Ana have earned it through their looks. There are many other ways to make big bucks. Federer has this many sponsorships simply because he is that successful. Or start a business and make it a multi-million dollar company.

This discussion is pointless

@Jay
But Henin did retire randomly...so, who wants to be giving a bunch of money who can just quit again at any moment?

If someone buys a racket because they want to play like that player, why on earth would anyone buy Ana's?

Look at it this way, for those who are not tennis savvy, gets the opportunity to earn a living off the court while they "make an effort" on the court. For those who can play, kudos to them, because they are also making it big on and off the court. The problem is that America is just too superficial and feed into the hype, hence we come up with rich adn in some cases talentless players. Look at Anna Kournikova, enough said!

Eat your hearts out. Ana is the pritiest and in fact one of the best tennis players. Sooner or later you will wish you ate your words.

Anna is gorgeous. She is basically a model and a tennis player. You get two for the price of one. Not sure what the deal with Maria is though. She is not all that good looking.

This article is a joke! How can you compare Bartoli to Sharapova or Ivanovic? Maria has won 3 grand slams on 3 different services and boasts 21 career singles titles. Ana has one grand slam under her belt and has appeared in two other grand slam finals. Yes, her serve toss these days is completely pathetic and she has lost all confidence, but she still has a grand slam win. Bartoli has no grand slams, is out of shape, and has only just started to show consistency.

The player that should be upset is Kuznetsova. Bartoli can start complaining once she actually accomplishes something big.

I always find this endorsement deal envy both funny and sad. I personally have never felt a twinge of jealousy toward good-looking people. It's 95% genetics, anyway, so it's greatly out of our control. I do feel strongly about people who buy the stuff these companiesa are hawking, simply because of the idols they use. I've never purchased a racquet, let alone a shirt or pair of jeans, because of who was posing in them on the billboard. That's simply an illogical reason to make a purchase, and I feel sorry for thoise people who are so easily manipulated.

As for certain players being overlooked by the big endorsers because they aren't "marketable" enough, Ivan Lendl comes to mind. Althoug I do recall there was a rash of players with sawdust in their pockets in the 80s... LOL.

I may be seen as shallow for my reasons for buying particular products, but I would always choose to buy Ana's tennis work out outfits and dresses, because I like Ana. It's that simple. As a young girl who is as fascinated by both the sport and the personalities that make it up, I choose to buy and am more inclined to consider buying products endorsed by players I like both on and off court. I'm not ashamed to admit that even if Ana never wins another title again, though it will break my heart as a fan, I'd still continue taking notice of the products she endorses.

I don't necessarily agree with that part of the article that says off court persona is just about sex appeal. That's part of it sure. I like pretty, so I'll buy pretty stuff endorsed by a pretty athlete. But more than pretty, I buy products because I like an endorser. Perhaps it's because of his/ her game, perhaps it's because of her advocacies, perhaps it's just because I like the person. I can't exactly tell you why I like a person, I just do. Successful endorsers have that intangible element that not everyone has. And that's what the Sharapovas and the Ivanovic's have that make big brands and consumers take notice. And I don't think people should crucify them for having that "it factor"? So yea, pleasr don't judge us consumers wither who buy their products because we like pretty.

With Ana, her persona is not simply "sex appeal" - she also has a "nice girl" quality that Bratty Sharapova lacks - I actually got rid of a Prince racket when I discovered Maria used the same, after some egregious example of rudeness to an opponent. So for me, I guess she's a reverse endorsement!

Serena could sell me a bridge - she's the dominant number 1, funny, and a brick house!