You are way off base as well. The issue of how when he made the majority of his wealth was secondary to the discussion. The ONLY reason that someone would highlight that distinction is in support of an unreasonable belief that her settlement should've been smaller. You've incorrectly suggested that I stated Tiger secured most of his endorsements prior to his marriage, I didn't. It's no revelation that sponsors dropped him because of his adultery, that's fairly well known.
It's ridiculous to think that Tiger is getting endorsements because of his play. He's still out of the top 100, I think, I haven't checked lately. To date, since the divorce he's had few 10 top finishes. It's his name recognition that keeps the endorsements, not his sterling play, at least at this juncture. This fact is borne out looking at John Daley, someone who was once a good player but has played dismally for many years. Yet, he continued to get endorsements for many years of poor play. You also must look at the companies providing him with the new endorsement deals, international companies, European companies. Europeans, where infidelity is seen throughout political and business life as a norm, had a decidedly different view of Tiger. The point is that not his play that's providing endorsements, it's his name recognition. Even in his worst days, his income as an athlete was 10's of millions of dollars more than the next person in line.
It's completely UNTRUE that injuries have prevented his winning. He has gone through coaching changes, swing changes and most important, as many golfing experts have pointed out, the divorce fiasco, which was the test of his ability to focus. By his own admission, the divorce weighed on him, affected his practice. But, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that distractions of that magnitude would affect anyone. Perhaps, just perhaps he'll get back on solid footing and win again. It's what golf needs because without him in the mix, the sport will continue to suffer.
Bottom line, peace of mind allows anyone to be at their best. He had a good marriage, he played well, he made lots of money. Sponsors, at least here in the states, appreciate the idea of a family man rather than a lecherous adulterer, as a promoter of their products. That's undisputed. When his image was tarnished, he lost sponsors, that's real money, gone. He didn't receive the same amount of appearance fees and his winnings were negligible. Replacing sponsors doesn't "make up" for lost money, that money is gone forever. So, his net worth would've been higher in several regards, sponsors would not have dropped him. He wouldn't have had the distraction of the family issues to affect his play and his tournament winnings, and he wouldn't have had to pay out $100 MILLION DOLLARS.