The possible explanation for players leaving Nike...

[Prostaffer]

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...-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 isn’t. 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]

Wozniacki's sleeping with the enemy.

[Bartelby]

Nike golf seems to do everything, Nike tennis just clothes and shoes. That would make a huge difference to potential revenue.

[XFactorer]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

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.

[Vertiz]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by benraschke

...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.

[Prostaffer]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

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]

Originally Posted by Prostaffer

+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.

[vandre]

Originally Posted by Prostaffer

+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]

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

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

..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)

[novak.20v]

Originally Posted by benraschke

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.

[Bobby Jr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[canny]

Originally Posted by MAXXply

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.

[Prostaffer]

Originally Posted by MAXXply

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.