Originally Posted by Al Czervik
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
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.