Sir Lance-alot, your logic is terrible. I agree with you that the there is MUCH MORE money to be made in women's tennis than in women's track. Which is why track is only big enough for one huge marketing presence on the women's side, which was Marion Jones for years. However, if Suzy had been the CHAMP, her good looks would have made her much more than Regina made as a champ. However, because nobody cares about women's running, a NONWINNER is not marketable. People care about women's tennis though, so a nonwinner IS marketable. Suzy was great, but not great enough, great for marketing in track means being number 1, you cant market number 2.
Think about what you are saying:
1) People care about tennis, not track.
2) Neither Suzy nor Anna K were the TOP in their sport.
3) Anna still made money because there is enough money in tennis for even a NONWINNER to be marketed.
4) Anna made 10mil without winning, Suzy couldn't because nobody cares about track.
5) Because of this, it is the lack of caring about track, not Regina, that caused Suzy to lose out on money.
Ok, so there are your statements summed up. You realize there IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10MILLION AND 100'S OF THOUSANDS? Nobody here is claiming Suzy would have 10million, the highest claims have been to a couple million. You are telling me that if Suzy had won the titles Regina cheated her out of that she wouldn't have made $300,000 more in endorsements? That being the undisputed champ year after year as well as possessing great looks wouldn't have made her A FRACTION of what untalented tennis players make. Considering track is a fraction as popular as tennis, I think she would earn a fraction of the money. You do realize 100,000 is 1% of Anna's 2001 earnings. You are saying you don't think Suzy would have made an additional 1-2% of Anna's 2001 earnings with those additional titles under her belt.
You are an idiot.