PDA

View Full Version : The possible explanation for players leaving Nike...


Prostaffer
01-04-2013, 12:57 PM
The number of players leaving or getting dropped by Nike might be explained by what is happening on the other side of the country club...check the golf course.

From MyGolfSpy.Com

http://www.mygolfspy.com/nike-golf-1-golf-company-in-the-world/

"To understand why this time is different, you need a very rudimentary understanding of how money gets divvied up at Nike. Every year the different segments (golf, football, basketball, etc.) make their plans and plead their cases to the corporate decision makers. And year after year the bulk of the money goes to football (metric) and basketball and other sports where RZN isnít. This year, however; things are different. More money than ever before has been allocated to the golf division, which is going to allow Nike Golf to do things it has never been able to do before (like compete with TaylorMade dollar for dollar)."

Nike Golf is making a strong push this year into the golf market which not only includes a new club lineup, but 5 new athletes being added to their roster. The largest being a man who is no stranger to tennis. BF (maybe finacee) of former no.1 WTA player Caroline Wozniacki is Rory McIlroy who is rumored to be joining Nike Jan. 14th to the tune of $200 million dollars.

My golf contacts tell me that his money is being paid by Nike Inc and not Nike Golf. So if Nike is pushing Golf this year, some money had to be pulled back. The signs are there that the money is being cut in the tennis world. They are carrying over the Court Ballistec and Vapor 9 for another year. Something that hasn't been done by them in a long long time. Usually we get a new Vapor or secondary shoe every year. Now we see a diminished presence by them on Tour.

Most interesting...for a long time I have heard that the Golf industry is shrinking...what does this say about the Tennis industry?

Bartelby
01-04-2013, 01:09 PM
Wozniacki's sleeping with the enemy.

Bartelby
01-04-2013, 01:11 PM
Nike golf seems to do everything, Nike tennis just clothes and shoes. That would make a huge difference to potential revenue.

Vertiz
01-04-2013, 01:16 PM
They realized nadal is done. They realized roger will be done soon. They realized rory is beast moding on the course. Easy corporate decision, transfer funds from a dieing sector to a rising sector. Their golf equipment is actually very nice though.

benraschke
01-04-2013, 02:35 PM
Why is Nike not interested in signing the number #1 player in the world. Djokovic has become like Federer in making it to the semi finals in all the majors and pretty much most other tournaments as well. Djokovic needs a bigger sponsor and with question marks about Nadal and Federer getting older why not lock up the Joker now? Tennis will continue to grow in this country and it's much cheaper to play compared to golf. Green fees in this country are ridiculous.

West Coast Ace
01-04-2013, 03:11 PM
...why not lock up the Joker now?Because Nike does their homework and doesn't think he's marketable or recognizable? Fed appealed to older fans because he reminds them of tennis when they were young; Nadal appeals to the young, anti-establishment fans. And maybe they have negotiated with his team and found their demands too high? We will never know (since none of us were involved in any talks) - he may have only gone to Uniqlo because they were the ONLY deal, not the best deal.

OP, thanks for posting - although I'm respectfully not buying. The tennis budget at Nike is a mere pimple on the proverbial 'large mammal's' rear end. For what the Rory contract is allegedly for, Nike would have to shutter the entire tennis operation.

Bobby Jr
01-04-2013, 03:26 PM
I don't think this has anything at all to do with tennis players seeming to be leaving Nike... For a start, the divisions of Nike pull their weight or they would be reigned in after a short time - possibly less than 2 years. Nike wouldn't stand for, very long at least, propping up a division that had to be paid for by the others.

Secondly, we have no idea whatsoever when the contracts of the players leaving Nike were up. They're not in perpetuity. Del Potro for example may have been offered a three year deal shortly after winning the 2009 US Open - which would be up now.

Likewise, the tennis clothing market especially seems to be maturing again after a relatively long haitus where only two or three brands really succeeded and the others struggled. The fact we're seeing Wilson clothing quickly become a relatively common sight again suggests it's companies like them and Head who're branching out and approaching players with offers moreso than Nike ditching players. These companies often have existing direct contacts courtesy of their racquet contracts/arrangements so the likes of Wawrinka, Berdych, Dimitrov or whoever moving over to their clothing division is not remotely surprising to me.

Similarly, now that Federer is closer to the end of his career and Nadal has been relatively unsuccessful in terms of taking over those reigns in the last 18 months or more (either in his results or as the person to take over the head "face of tennis" role post-Federer *) Nike is perhaps just taking a broader view for a period and being pragmatic about who they sign. Most of the players they've endorsed haven't broken through to the top echelon and most of them will be on two or one year arrangements of pretty moderate value, so other companies will be stepping in and making offers for sure. Maybe Nike is just reassessing the field - taking a closer look at guys like Janowicz, Tomic etc.

Also worth noting, the total cost of the players who're leaving Nike would be less money than Nike spends on Federer promo events per year. His and Nadal's total endorsement costs combined would surpass everyone else put together by miles (I'm talking just about the men here). Losing Del Potro or Dimotriv or Berduch or all of them would be less about saving money than it would their not being bothered to get into a bidding war with another company for players who've had years to break through and haven't really yet.

(*a local shop I go to doesn't even stock Nadal's clothing anymore. They still have plenty of his last season's gear available in the sale bins and the guy there told me no-one was buying it. Federer's gear flies out the door still though.)

thefederman
01-04-2013, 03:28 PM
i agree with your point about the division of money at nike but i believe there is nothing to the carry over of the vapor. I believe (and this is just my opinion) that the carry over is due to the success of the vapor 9, the fact it was designed by Tinker Hatfield a nike legend and so that they could do a massive cross sport launch of the Vapor 10 which would include their soccer cleats the nike mercurial vapor next year because those shoes are on their 9 edition in 2013

Maui19
01-04-2013, 04:48 PM
Golf had a very good year in 2012. Whether it will continue to grow after years of stagnation remains to be seen, but Nike seems to think the best return of their investment will be in golf rather than tennis.

bigmatt
01-04-2013, 05:04 PM
Dropping some of these guys reinforces the point that there are very few players that actually sell stuff. Roger does; Rafa did (and may again if he gets healthy). I doubt Berdych does, but am surprised Delpo wasn't re-signed.

MAXXply
01-04-2013, 05:16 PM
On the topic of Nike Golf, what do you guys think of the crossover suitability of Nike Golf apparel for tennis?
I exclude their golf shirts for the reason I dislike the traditional oversized billowey sleeves (presumably to aid one's golf swing?) but the materials are the same aren't they? And their designs are tasteful enough for streetwear. I'd buy Nike Golf polos in a heartbeat if they had normal/small armholes and a regular polo fit.
Mainly, I'm asking about their golf shorts, which look great and are also a great fit for the street. There usually seems so much more cool stuff in the Nike Golf section of a sports store.

cork_screw
01-04-2013, 06:24 PM
Players aren't *leaving* Nike, they're getting dropped. Nobody leaves an extra paycheck. Nike pays very well, better than other companies. Maybe Nike wants to focus on other sports. Maybe Nike thinks it has too many sponsored players who aren't making them a return in endorsements. Maybe Nike doesn't want to endorse someone in the outside top 20 because they feel whether they are there or whether they are not won't make a difference in the amount of money Nike is investing in them. Nike is a very smart company, they don't just stumble and make mistakes. Nike is in charge here, not the players.

"Somebody got 'let go.' - you mean "fired" - 'let go' is a euphemism. Be realistic and use logic.

フェデラー
01-04-2013, 08:14 PM
Players aren't *leaving* Nike, they're getting dropped. Nobody leaves an extra paycheck. Nike pays very well, better than other companies. Maybe Nike wants to focus on other sports. Maybe Nike thinks it has too many sponsored players who aren't making them a return in endorsements. Maybe Nike doesn't want to endorse someone in the outside top 20 because they feel whether they are there or whether they are not won't make a difference in the amount of money Nike is investing in them. Nike is a very smart company, they don't just stumble and make mistakes. Nike is in charge here, not the players.

"Somebody got 'let go.' - you mean "fired" - 'let go' is a euphemism. Be realistic and use logic.

Nike makes so much money off of Roger and Rafa they probably wouldn't care if they didn't sponsor any other players on the entire tour.

andymaratkimi
01-04-2013, 09:09 PM
Hope Joker go to an euro brand but not Adidas.

vandre
01-04-2013, 09:12 PM
Players aren't *leaving* Nike, they're getting dropped. Nobody leaves an extra paycheck. Nike pays very well, better than other companies. Maybe Nike wants to focus on other sports. Maybe Nike thinks it has too many sponsored players who aren't making them a return in endorsements. Maybe Nike doesn't want to endorse someone in the outside top 20 because they feel whether they are there or whether they are not won't make a difference in the amount of money Nike is investing in them. Nike is a very smart company, they don't just stumble and make mistakes. Nike is in charge here, not the players.

"Somebody got 'let go.' - you mean "fired" - 'let go' is a euphemism. Be realistic and use logic.

look at who they've dropped...

...donald young, bird-man (berdych), julia gorges, and a bunch more i'm forgetting (feel free to add them). now look at their results for 2012. the only record dy came close to breaking was number of first round loses, berdych maxed out as a sf @ uso and qf @ oz (and got bounced from w in the 1st rnd) while winning minor titles in montpellier and stockholm. gorges was ru in linz and dubai in 2012 and made it to the 4th rd @ ao, 3rd rd @ the french, 3rd rd @ w and got bounced in the first round @ uso.

out of these 3, berdych definately had the best 2012 results but there's such a log-jam at the top of nike's men's roster that he was prolly odd man out.

conversely, here's who nike kept: fed (w champ, ao @ fo sf, uso qf), rafa ( fo champ, ao sf), serena (w & uso champ, 4th rd ao, 1st rd fo), masha (fo champ, ru @ ao, 4th rd @ w, sf @ uso), vika (champ @ ao, ru @ uso, 4th rd @ fo, sf @ w).

you can say that nike is shifting emphasis away from tennis or you can say nike cut loose some dead weight.

Bhagi Katbamna
01-05-2013, 08:55 AM
Makes sense given the demographics of the developed world(more older people, decreasing birth rates).

canny
01-05-2013, 09:16 AM
On the topic of Nike Golf, what do you guys think of the crossover suitability of Nike Golf apparel for tennis?
I exclude their golf shirts for the reason I dislike the traditional oversized billowey sleeves (presumably to aid one's golf swing?) but the materials are the same aren't they? And their designs are tasteful enough for streetwear. I'd buy Nike Golf polos in a heartbeat if they had normal/small armholes and a regular polo fit.
Mainly, I'm asking about their golf shorts, which look great and are also a great fit for the street. There usually seems so much more cool stuff in the Nike Golf section of a sports store.

I play High School Golf aswell and have numerous Nike golf apparel and gear. Their shorts and pants are the only thing I'd wear outside of golf. But I do use their visors and heritage hat line for my tennis ware as it's better than their ugly tennis hats.

XFactorer
01-05-2013, 02:13 PM
Nike golf seems to do everything, Nike tennis just clothes and shoes. That would make a huge difference to potential revenue.

Nike Golf is a subsidy of Nike, Inc. Nike Tennis (Running, Training, Football, etc) is just part of Nike, not it's own little entity.

smoledman
01-05-2013, 02:15 PM
Nike Inc. FY 2012:

Revenue - $24.128 billion
Net income - $2.23 billion

novak.20v
01-05-2013, 03:28 PM
Why is Nike not interested in signing the number #1 player in the world. Djokovic has become like Federer in making it to the semi finals in all the majors and pretty much most other tournaments as well. Djokovic needs a bigger sponsor and with question marks about Nadal and Federer getting older why not lock up the Joker now? Tennis will continue to grow in this country and it's much cheaper to play compared to golf. Green fees in this country are ridiculous.

Nadal is only a year older than Djokovic. haha.

Prostaffer
01-06-2013, 09:17 PM
Because Nike does their homework and doesn't think he's marketable or recognizable? Fed appealed to older fans because he reminds them of tennis when they were young; Nadal appeals to the young, anti-establishment fans. And maybe they have negotiated with his team and found their demands too high? We will never know (since none of us were involved in any talks) - he may have only gone to Uniqlo because they were the ONLY deal, not the best deal.

OP, thanks for posting - although I'm respectfully not buying. The tennis budget at Nike is a mere pimple on the proverbial 'large mammal's' rear end. For what the Rory contract is allegedly for, Nike would have to shutter the entire tennis operation.

+1 on DJoker being impossible to negotiate with. Why do you think he went to ST in the first place? So his family could get distribution rights in Serbia. He also got all of them jobs with ST basically.

Each division gets a certain amount of dollar to work with. As big as Nike is not everything is a blank check. Normally I would agree with you, but the interesting thing here is that Nike has dropped a lot of player without signing many new ones.

smoledman
01-06-2013, 09:19 PM
+1 on DJoker being impossible to negotiate with. Why do you think he went to ST in the first place? So his family could get distribution rights in Serbia. He also got all of them jobs with ST basically.

Each division gets a certain amount of dollar to work with. As big as Nike is not everything is a blank check. Normally I would agree with you, but the interesting thing here is that Nike has dropped a lot of player without signing many new ones.

Nike is a corporation like any other, they have to answer to the shareholders as to declining profits.

Prostaffer
01-06-2013, 09:20 PM
On the topic of Nike Golf, what do you guys think of the crossover suitability of Nike Golf apparel for tennis?
I exclude their golf shirts for the reason I dislike the traditional oversized billowey sleeves (presumably to aid one's golf swing?) but the materials are the same aren't they? And their designs are tasteful enough for streetwear. I'd buy Nike Golf polos in a heartbeat if they had normal/small armholes and a regular polo fit.
Mainly, I'm asking about their golf shorts, which look great and are also a great fit for the street. There usually seems so much more cool stuff in the Nike Golf section of a sports store.

The golf short and pants they make are the best hands down. I'm not one to say something that blatant.

However, I have worn Nike Tennis polos to the course. I prefer the more athletic cut of the Tennis gear. In recent years they have improved the fit of their stuff. The TW stuff was actually the closest to a tennis fit, but the prices are out of this world. IMO you are better off buying tennis polos on sale than a golf polo.

Bobby Jr
01-07-2013, 02:03 AM
..For what the Rory contract is allegedly for, Nike would have to shutter the entire tennis operation.
I'm not sure the numbers are quite what they seem with these sort of deals. Federer is a far more known sporting entity and better known per se globally.... the devil is in how these deal are arranged. Rory might have signed for 10 years for a figure like $200m... that would make his deal $20m/yr which is not far off, perhaps less, than what Federer is touted to be getting.*

Golf marketing is also a longer gameplan than tennis given how long the careers are, and it's typical for players to go in and out of medium term (1-3 years) form much moreso than a sport like tennis. I would bet that the up-front deals golf players get are actually smaller than what the top tennis guys get except the golf guys have bigger incentives so they can smoke it in a good year. Golf imagery has little sex appeal or street value unlike tennis so results are more directly linked to marketing clout than tennis. So Rory's deal could, in effect be "theoretical money" which he actually still has to earn through performances.

Additionally - having been privy to the details of a sporting (team) sponsorship deal some years ago from the brand side - some numbers you see touted in the media about sponsorship deals are certainly best-case scenario numbers which apply if the team/player achieves X, Y and Z. Many football (soccer) team sponsorship deals work like this - a performance based amount. I don't see why other sports wouldn't adopt similar thinking give or take any sport-specific nuances and operating practices.

Nike golf revenue in 2011 was $623 million (4% down on the previous year)... Another of Nike's affiliate brands, Converse, had over $1.1 billion. Golf isn't as big as you think and certainly not big enough to be writing Rory a cheque for $200m. Nike in it's entirety had revenue of $20.9 billion in 2011. Golf is less than 3% of their revenue.

Nike tennis is not an affiliate so their numbers are harder to come by. Given how many more people play tennis and how many more tennis clubs there are than golf courses globally I wouldn't be surprised if Nike tennis was bigger than golf. A look at their top sponsored players indicates they have money to spend - either because the business is big or because they put more of their marketing budget into player sponsorship (as a ratio).

(*all things considered we have no way of knowing how accurate his supposed endorsement fee is - it may be he gets another $2m every time he wins a major or re-reaches the #1 ranking - it wouldn't surprise me at all given how creative IMG deals famously can be)

Alchemy-Z
01-07-2013, 03:15 AM
Its a good chance for them to push into golf...Nike has been with Tennis...and quite established even if they pulled some from it it wouldn't matter.

if they dropped everyone except Fed/Rafa/Sharapova/Serena they would probably still make $$

Babolast
01-07-2013, 06:54 AM
Nike makes money from tennis...

It would cost $5 - $10 to make a tennis crew and they bump the price to $80.

The amount of profit is insane.

Al Czervik
01-07-2013, 11:05 AM
Bobby, I think you're a great poster, but there is no way Fed's deal is anywhere near Rory's ballpark. They are paying Rory some Tiger like money. I would bet that Roger is barely Top 10 in the Nike stable. You definitely have Tiger ahead of him, surely LeBron, probably Kobe, probably Lance (well, not anymore), 3-5 baseball players, 3-5 American football players, a couple of soccer players, etc, etc.

Prostaffer
01-07-2013, 02:12 PM
In 2008 the rumor was Roger got 10-years at $13m per.

That is lower than Rory, but a lot of what they are paying for is potential.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/01/20080128/This-Weeks-News/Nike-To-Keep-Federer-With-10-Year-Deal.aspx

Part of the appeal for young Rors is that he is popular in Asia. In China the game is expected grow versus the rest of the world.

Why do you think Nike held onto Kobe despite Lebron outselling him in the US? They kept him a focal point because he sold very well in China.

I have read many reports where golf is shrinking, yet tennis also has players exiting every year. Which sport has more growth potential? The one where guys buy one racquet and a few kits? Or the one where they have to buy 14 sticks plus clothes?

Bobby Jr
01-07-2013, 02:16 PM
Bobby, I think you're a great poster, but there is no way Fed's deal is anywhere near Rory's ballpark. They are paying Rory some Tiger like money. ..
I don't know about that. Valuing endorsements is a tricky thing which factors in lots of quantifiable things as well as having a witchcraft component to them - the magical x-factor valuing.

If you look at some key components:

Size of sport (numbers playing): Tennis wins
TV viewed time: tennis wins
Famousness of Fed vs McIlroy: tennis wins
Globally (or widely) known achievements Fed vs McIlroy: tennis wins

but then...
Average price of gear: golf wins
Average wage/disposable income of fan/player: golf wins
Time left in career Fed vs McIlry: golf wins (by miles > 15+ yrs vs 2-4)

then getting a little esoteric...
The global, mainstream media publicity value to Nike of another major win by either: tennis wins (whether or not you can compare the value of sales from a win or not is probably another magic calculation Nike has)

Now, if you take as fact the numbers we've seen bandied about for Federer's annual Nike deal they seem to be about $15m per year. That's not too dissimilar a ballpark as the supposed numbers McIlroy has been associated with if his deal is $200m over 12-15 years (which would be a Tiger Wood length sort of deal). As I said above also - we really don't have any idea what Federer actually gets and it could be higher if his deal has performance bonuses or has any links to sales numbers (esp considering he has the RF brand which we know he at least partly owns himself).

Consider another important factor which would also be in the equation. While golf gear costs a lot more on average than tennis gear the overall, global publicity for Nike from Federer winning Wimbledon for example is much more than McIlroy winning any golf major/masters. Whether the sports see the same spike in sales percentage-wise is another thing. It may be that the higher spending golf players buy their big ticket items less often on average, or more.

Golf has also had a dearth of new talent which brands can rely on to perform year after year until, it seems, McIlroy. That's one factor that has given him so much value imo - he has tons of years left in his career - 15 perhaps or more - so is ripe for the picking by any major golf brand so there is a demand-based number added into the equation which values him. His deal could easily be a 15 year deal which would make $200m a smaller deal than Federer's on an annual basis but greater overall.

vandre
01-07-2013, 02:37 PM
+1 on DJoker being impossible to negotiate with. Why do you think he went to ST in the first place? So his family could get distribution rights in Serbia. He also got all of them jobs with ST basically.



just like he did with head.

kaku
01-07-2013, 02:56 PM
I was at a Nike store and noticed that their tennis section had been replaced by golf. In fact, I think I saw more golf than football + basketball combined

XFactorer
01-07-2013, 04:35 PM
I was at a Nike store and noticed that their tennis section had been replaced by golf. In fact, I think I saw more golf than football + basketball combined

That would be a smart business decision IF golf makes more money for them in that particular area. As much as we're fanatic about tennis on these forums, we're the 1% in the tennis world.

BreakPoint
01-08-2013, 12:11 AM
Nike makes money from tennis...

It would cost $5 - $10 to make a tennis crew and they bump the price to $80.

The amount of profit is insane.
The total cost of a product is not just what it costs to make. You have to add in so many other costs into it (e.g., marketing, distribution, R&D, admin, taxes, etc.). Then you also have to add in the costs of all the products that don't sell and have to be liquidated before the next season's products arrive. Besides, Nike doesn't sell their products to the consumer for retail price. They sell their products for wholesale price to retailers, which is approximately half of retail price.

BreakPoint
01-08-2013, 12:16 AM
I was at a Nike store and noticed that their tennis section had been replaced by golf. In fact, I think I saw more golf than football + basketball combined
The Nike Factory Stores near me don't even have tennis sections any more. And Golfsm*th stores have gotten out of the tennis business altogether.

axel89
01-08-2013, 04:03 AM
The Nike Factory Stores near me don't even have tennis sections any more. And Golfsm*th stores have gotten out of the tennis business altogether.

yeah i could never find any tennis stuff here in VA but i went to california and i picked up a lacoste andyroddick polo and a fed shirt

Prostaffer
01-10-2013, 04:36 PM
Take this into account too.

Go to a golf course on the weekend and people wear polos. Nice ones. Granted there are public municipal parks where guys are out there in an old beat up polo, but it is usually a golf shirt nonetheless.

I go to USTA tourneys and see guys in soccer jerseys and everything else. Show up to a class or drill in a fed shirt and you look silly. The $15 practice tee works best or even a nice v-neck. I imagine the golf apparel world is vastly bigger let alone the hard goods side of it.

The only thing that tennis players really buy a ton of is shoes.

MAXXply
01-10-2013, 09:09 PM
The golf short and pants they make are the best hands down. I'm not one to say something that blatant. However, I have worn Nike Tennis polos to the course. I prefer the more athletic cut of the Tennis gear. In recent years they have improved the fit of their stuff. The TW stuff was actually the closest to a tennis fit, but the prices are out of this world. IMO you are better off buying tennis polos on sale than a golf polo.

I visited my local golfing chain today. They were major Nike Golf apparel stockists. As a non-golfer, it was a revelation. I noticed Nike offers a slimfit shirt range that is generically labelled "Sport", as opposed to "Tour Performance". So I'm presuming the Sport range is designed with an eye to crossover non-golf uses. The detailing is great, even if it's still just Dri-Fit stuff.

The shorts, as you say, are excellent and in my climate, a much better option for streetwear. Nike Golf, here I come :)

Bobby Jr
01-10-2013, 09:39 PM
I randomly went into a Nike store where I am today and, for the first time, they have a big tennis gear display with the whole Federer and Sharapova ranges - and even some Rafa t-shirts. I must say the Aussie open polo shirts for Federer are sweet. Great cut, cool construction with all the mesh bits and the zip etc.

magnut
01-10-2013, 10:43 PM
Nike is not stupid. Tennis is shrinking and the profit potential just isnt there anymore. In this economy they are going to market to the upper class as they are the ones who can afford to drop big money on nike gear.

Is it really bad that Nike is pulling back from tennis? I dont think so. I like different brands in the sport. I see Diadora is marketing shoes again. Thats nice. Maybe some new companies will enter the market and some of the older ones will come back.

Nike probably wont push hard into tennis again until a new super crop of American players comes into play ala Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc. Isner and Harrison are not really marketable like those players were.

honestly though I have not been a big fan of Nike in years. I liked there stuff in the mid to late 90s. After that....meh. They used to make pretty classy tennis clothes that looked great and felt great. I wouldnt shell out the money for it but it was nice stuff.

Bobby Jr
01-11-2013, 02:59 AM
Nike is not stupid. Tennis is shrinking and the profit potential just isnt there anymore....

Is it really bad that Nike is pulling back from tennis? I dont think so. ...

Nike probably wont push hard into tennis again until a new super crop of American players comes into play ala Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc....
Who says tennis is shrinking? From what I see they're pushing the tennis ranges as much, if not more, than in recent years.

Stores in Melbourne, Singapore, Bangkok and NZ I've seen in the past 3-4 months have all had significant tennis displays - some for the first time that I recall seeing them there (Bangkok and Singapore).

rabidranger
01-11-2013, 05:55 AM
Nike is not stupid. Tennis is shrinking and the profit potential just isnt there anymore. In this economy they are going to market to the upper class as they are the ones who can afford to drop big money on nike gear.

Is it really bad that Nike is pulling back from tennis? I dont think so. I like different brands in the sport. I see Diadora is marketing shoes again. Thats nice. Maybe some new companies will enter the market and some of the older ones will come back.

Nike probably wont push hard into tennis again until a new super crop of American players comes into play ala Agassi, Sampras, Courier etc. Isner and Harrison are not really marketable like those players were.

honestly though I have not been a big fan of Nike in years. I liked there stuff in the mid to late 90s. After that....meh. They used to make pretty classy tennis clothes that looked great and felt great. I wouldnt shell out the money for it but it was nice stuff.

I think the state of American tennis plus the lack of marketable foreign players is a key factor in Nike's decision to cut back. Tennis today is a hodge podge of risers and fallers from the four corners of the globe-very few of which are even remotely recognizable to the average American.

magnut
01-11-2013, 08:32 AM
Tennis is just not a big money sport in America. The overwhelming majority of players dont even watch it. Numbers are also down for people entering into the game.

This isnt even worth argueing about fellas. Sports involvment in general is way down in America. Kids just dont have as much interest anymore in sports let alone finding one and actually sticking with it. Its the video game/internet effect.

Nike pulling out from tennis is a good thing for the sport. Anytime big sponsors leave a sport its a good thing. Half the reason this sport (or any sport) has gone downhill has been the effect of companies like Nike.

XFactorer
01-11-2013, 09:51 AM
Nike pulling out from tennis is a good thing for the sport. Anytime big sponsors leave a sport its a good thing. Half the reason this sport (or any sport) has gone downhill has been the effect of companies like Nike.

Elaborate?

magnut
01-11-2013, 10:26 AM
Elaborate?

Basketball.

Bobby Jr
01-11-2013, 11:54 AM
This isnt even worth argueing about fellas. Sports involvment in general is way down in America...

Nike pulling out from tennis is a good thing for the sport....
It is worth arguing about apparently.

Can you show me one piece of reliable information which shows Nike is retrenching in the business of tennis?

I don't call a couple of basically irrelevant for their marketing purposes players coming to the end of their contract periods and not being resigned evidence of much.

You could even view it another way - maybe tennis is getting more popular and demand for upcoming or players just outside the locked-out top guys has increased so companies are making more plays for them.

BreakPoint
01-11-2013, 12:11 PM
Nike pulling out from tennis is a good thing for the sport. Anytime big sponsors leave a sport its a good thing. Half the reason this sport (or any sport) has gone downhill has been the effect of companies like Nike.
Huh? How can money leaving a sport be good for the sport?

West Coast Ace
01-11-2013, 05:33 PM
Nike pulling out from tennis is a good thing for the sport. Anytime big sponsors leave a sport its a good thing. Half the reason this sport (or any sport) has gone downhill has been the effect of companies like Nike.Can't wait for your 'workers of the world, unite' speech...


I don't call a couple of basically irrelevant for their marketing purposes players coming to the end of their contract periods and not being resigned evidence of much.This. Nike basically took flyers on a few guys after locking up Fed and Nadal. Didn't work out and they're moving on. No reason to make sweeping 'the end is near' (for Nike Tennis) comments. I doubt Nike would be offering up the Custom V9's and 4.3's if they were about to get out of the sport.

lolminraise
01-11-2013, 06:08 PM
All my non-tennis friends know only federer, nadal, sharapova, and serena. And guess what they all wear...?