View Single Post
Old 11-25-2012, 06:00 AM   #53
dr325i's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: TX
Posts: 5,197

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr View Post
Because he was, as you say, a rising star. Rising stars are nothing compared to stars. Once Federer and Nadal were made complete lock-outs so far as clothing/shoe sponsorship goes the next rung down were a dime a dozen punts - most of which haven't paid off. The companies entering into these arrangements know most deals wont pay off in a huge way but it's the cost of business they have to pay if they want to snare the next big thing which also includes an element of keeping them out of their competition's hands also. Once Murray had some level of success I imagine he got other offers, or just the one, that Fred Perry simply couldn't match (or, in the least, justify in their budget).

Murray was a particularly special case - which ANYONE with any marketing nous could tell you regardless of his results. He was the UK's next big hope.... that made him more valuable for a sponsor than anyone from a backwater European country.

Nishikori, again, it a special case. He's Japan's only (male) tennis player of any note for 15-odd years. That means something, especially in such an insular country as Japan with a huge and unique domestic market. There is no doubt at all that he is paid to wear Adidas shoes. The Uniqlo stores have Adidas shoes on display in the tennis-wear section and on the posters. That is not by any random chance or the result of some free product.

So far as the Murray wearing Nike shoes thing goes, that's neither here nor there - nothing more to it than him requiring specific traits in a shoe for those tournaments. And, more specifically, it's of zero significance in the whole Djokovic wearing Adidas scenario.
hmm, I am not sure I understand your explanation that Murray, a #4 at the time, a member of the "Big 4", was considered just a Rising star, whereas, lets say, quite a few others, Simon, for example (to stay away from your "special cases") was sponsored by adidas and clearly NOT a potential of Murray...
The significance/parallel is that Djokovic and Murray were/are top athletes, Murray is far more marketable (overall) and yet, just because one is 2 spots above the other you firmply claim the differences...

"Which anyone with Marketing nous..." -- I told you, I have been doing marketing (portion) while you were in the Middle school, so, lets not go there.

This is more to hear your way of thinking...without going back the route of the previous few posts...
dr325i is offline   Reply With Quote