Does Djokovic has the worst luck in terms of sponsorship money?

[ellipticality_224]

Originally Posted by NJ1

I wouldn't go that far, Murray's reached the final of the last 3 consecutive majors. Djokovic may be slightly ahead, but they seem to be the top two (will have to see how Nadal's knees hold up) so as bad decisions go I've seen a lot worse.

Hell, he practically bankrupted an entire clothing company with his 2011 phenom year

[Relinquis]

Originally Posted by dimeaxe

"According to Forbes, Novak Djokovic pocketed $20.6 million in the first 6 months of 2012, but just £9 million come from sponsorship deals. If we exclude prize money, in 2011 Roger Federer earned $45 million, followed by Nadal (25), Sharapova (22) and Djokovic (20)."

http://www.ubitennis.com/english/spo..._federer.shtml

20 mill. a year is not that bad.

have to love forbes' silly reporting. £9 million is equal to $14 million. So 'just' 14 out of the 20 million dollars came from sponsorship, i.e. the vast majority of his income.

[dr325i]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

have to love forbes' silly reporting. £9 million is equal to $14 million. So 'just' 14 out of the 20 million dollars came from sponsorship, i.e. the vast majority of his income.

What I am interested in is where the other ~$6M came from...
He made north of $12M from the prize money...

[goran_ace]

Don't blame Forbes' reporting. That Ubi guy didn't read the Forbes article correctly.

#61 Novak Djokovic

Total earnings: $20.6 million
Salary/winnings: $11.6 million
Endorsements: $9 million

Djokovic had one of the most successful years in the history of tennis in 2011. He won three Grand Slam titles and a record $12.6 million in prize money. He signed an incentive-heavy, 10-year deal with Italian clothing company Sergio Tacchini in 2009, but Tacchini fell behind on the payments in 2011 as Djokovic’s success triggered significant bonuses. Djokovic and Tacchini parted ways in May and the world’s number one player signed a new clothing deal with Japan’s Uniglo.

[Adidas_Anderson]

But thanks to that i got ST Djokovic line much cheaper then the original price lol... Waiting for the AO 2012 jacket

[_skunk_]

Are you all tax agents, otherwise it cannot be explained such a morbid interest in Djokovic finances.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by goran_ace

Don't blame Forbes' reporting. That Ubi guy didn't read the Forbes article correctly.
...

And the Forbe's articles can only really be roughly indicative in any case - there is simply no way they can know specifics of many of the deals sportspeople may have.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by martini1

Noel only made $18mil including winnings in 2011.

http://www.therichest.org/sports/hig...-players-2011/

Considered he won 3 slams and tons of titles in that year $18mil including winnings is nothing compared to Fed and Rafa.

Fed made $47 mil without winning a major in 2011. Now we know why he is better off staying on tour for a few more years!

Dude, you do know that when Federer was 25 (2005), he made less money from endorsements than Agassi and Sharapova, right? He was way more of a champion than Agassi and Sharapova that year, went 81-4, 2 grand slams, and still made less money.

Djokovic's earnings will rise rapidly over the next few years.

[martini1]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

Dude, you do know that when Federer was 25 (2005), he made less money from endorsements than Agassi and Sharapova, right? He was way more of a champion than Agassi and Sharapova that year, went 81-4, 2 grand slams, and still made less money.

Djokovic's earnings will rise rapidly over the next few years.

What's all that have to do with age, and 2005??
Djoker will make more if he stays on course in winning titles, but 2011 and 2012 were the years he could have made a lot more had the deals his team made played out a little bit better. Nothing can change that.

[Madhoshi22]

Originally Posted by ec51

I am "into" watches and do understand how high end movements are made, FWIW and I still do not understand what you are saying.

As an owner of both a Rolex and an AP I think I can help. Usually, as in Rafa's RM, the higher price is attributed to the complexity of the movement, such as the tourbillon that was stolen and whatnot. In the case of AP, the movements are beautiful, hand finished, really a work of art. Rolex's movements are no slouch either, they're really the workhorse and really what built the brand. No doubt the iconic look of the oysters and such played a part, however, what good is a watch that doesn't run? Quite honestly the only thing I've noticed between my AP and Submariner is that the AP's power reserve is longer. Both keep very good time.

With AP I think the price hike comes due to the brand exclusivity and prestige. AP is recognized as one of the first watch companies, and as such, have maintained everything on a smaller scale. Rolex is a huge hit, and is seen everywhere. To think of an analogous situation, a Rolex to a Seiko or Citizen is a good comparison. You pay for the quality of the Rolex, but also for the exclusivity. Then you go to AP and Rolex, same situation.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by martini1

What's all that have to do with age, and 2005??
Djoker will make more if he stays on course in winning titles, but 2011 and 2012 were the years he could have made a lot more had the deals his team made played out a little bit better. Nothing can change that.

The point is that Federer went through two amazing seasons (2004, 2005) without picking up massive contracts. It was not until January 2008, pretty much the start of Federer's downfall relative to his peak form, that Federer singed a lucrative nike contract that was worth over 100 million dollars for 10 years IIRC. The lifetime endorsement deal with Wilson- Signed sometime mid-2006.Over 2 years after he became number 1. 15 Million dollar rolex endorsement-signed mid 2006.

And if you look at some of Federer's even bigger deals, they came way after he peaked as tennis player. Mercedes Benz- 2010. 30 million dollar deal with Moet & Chandon- End of 2012. Credit Suisse- 2009. 16 million dollar Jura deal- 2008.

Djokovic's team has not done anything wrong. It took a while for both Federer and Nadal to buff up their endorsement portfolios and it will most likely take Djokovic time as well. Djokovic has done very well for himself, and nothing can change that.

[martini1]

Federer is Federer, Djoker is Dojker. This thread is not about what contract Fed got in 04 and 05. Different time in tennis and way off topic.

The ST deal was a blunder. They did not do enough background check on ST's financials and they should always have faith on their man winning it big in the coming year. May be not 3 slams, but at least 2. Simple business school thinking and they just dropped the ball.

[Rjtennis]

Originally Posted by martini1

A company owned by a rich man does not make a company loaded up with cash when compared to Adidas or Nike. Uniqlo is small potato compared to Nike.

Nole could have gone with anyone, I'm sure Uniqlo was just the best paying suitor. Just because they are not Nike doesn't mean he is not making huge Nike like money. What does the size of the company have to do with anything and Uniqlo is fairly large outside of the US I'm sure he got a huge signing bonus and got paid hefty termination fee with ST as well. Djokovic is doing very well! I'm not sure why you are trying to argue the point that he isn't.

ST just couldn't afford him over the long term, but he still got paid. There would have been lawsuits filed otherwise.

[sosa09]

Originally Posted by The Meat

AO, French Open, Wimbledon, and U.S Open.

How the hell are there 5 majors?

He means that djokovic won 4 of 5 GS in 2011 and beggining of 2012.

In 2011, AO - RG - WIMBLEDON - USO

In 2012, AO


Understand?

[High street sw19]

I'm pretty sure the day's of specialist tennis brands are on the way out, it's all about media branding. If Nike was relying on RF and it's players to pay for it's lopsided tennis budget by selling tennis gear to the very small tennis market they would be bankrupt. Players now day's (nerds excepted) cannot support the industry costs, especially now that racquet production is all "off shore" in two or three Asian manufacturers and no longer in house.

[PhrygianDominant]

probably already mentioned but Djokovic is allegedly impossible to negotiate with. He always wants to work in stuff with his family into the deal, but that's just what I heard.

[martini1]

Originally Posted by Rjtennis

Nole could have gone with anyone, I'm sure Uniqlo was just the best paying suitor. Just because they are not Nike doesn't mean he is not making huge Nike like money. What does the size of the company have to do with anything and Uniqlo is fairly large outside of the US I'm sure he got a huge signing bonus and got paid hefty termination fee with ST as well. Djokovic is doing very well! I'm not sure why you are trying to argue the point that he isn't.

ST just couldn't afford him over the long term, but he still got paid. There would have been lawsuits filed otherwise.

I read Fast Retailing's (uniqlo's parent co.) financial reports. Not even close compared to Nike. Guess what, Nike is also pretty big outside of the US too.

It's not about Djokovic doing well compared to an average player on tour looking for any sponsor money day in and day out. It's about his luck (and timing) when doing great in 2011 and yet got very little sponsor money compared to the others.

[lawlaw]

Uniqlo wanted to add a brand ambassador. Novak, and just about any player, can be bought out of a contract if the money is right. ST thought their clothing would fly off the shelves and paid a silly fee to get a player in the top 4. The collection didn't fly off the shelves, not a great surprise if you saw their collection and price points. Instead of being stuck servicing his payments, Uniqlo came along at the right time to relieve them of a financial burden. The company/founder has the cash and their aim is not to sell tennis clothes, they retail highly affordable casual wear and Novak is simply an championship winning ambassador for their huge global chain of stores. Novak got paid very well, Uniqlo seem happy with the deal = winners all around.

Easy.

[martini1]

The problem with ST is their manufacturing and distribution pipeline is way too slow. They could not capitalize on any of the Djoker success. Then they basically ran out of money to pay the bonuses for every slam he won.

The truth is there is more than ST just letting him go. They must have some undisclosed agreement after that. Yes, Uniqlo did sign him after that when they want a bigger star than just Nishikori. But the strange thing is Uniqlo has yet mass market the Djoker line to the world, especially after he made the USO final and then winning this year's AO. If they only want a face to go with the brand logo but never gonna sell an exclusive line, both parties would end up making less, especially for Djoker because he could get a nice percentage off every item sold with his name on it. Like RF and Rafa line.