of couitrse there is always going to be talk of money and deals when it comes to these stories but i can assure 100% that Rolex do NOT pay athletes.
whether you think that is right, wrong, funny or mad it is 100% FACT.....
...you also have to consider that a guy like Roger has well over 250M in the bank so the cash is not all that important to him. he wants to be associated with a particular family of brands and rolex is one of them.
I think there is a saying which goes something like:
the truth is still the truth even if no-one believes it.
I don't think FACT means what you think it means. I accept that you say who you are and think you know what you know but I cannot find any article which says Rolex don't pay their endorsed sportspeople as you attest yet can find many which pretty heavily imply they
do pay Federer and signed him to a long endorsement deal. Notwithstanding, without being a senior employee of Rolex's - a company which isn't even based in the USA - you cannot possibly know as a
FACT what you are claiming.
Nor can I for that reason so I sought out anecdotal and specific writings which attempted to get to the bottom of it. As posted above one of the mentions about the Rolex deal is in Federer's own book which, as far as I can guess, would be somewhat reliable considering it quotes his mother, father, his agent and himself.
Not that it's a major point, but at the time of the alleged deal Federer did not have 250m in the bank and it is mentioned a couple of places (including article which IMG is quoted in) that he re-signed with IMG in-part because he wasn't getting what he ought to considering his increasing achievements. The Rolex deal happened when he resigned with IMG who (I'm just guessing), you as an insider would know well, wouldn't waste much if any time on sponsorships which would earn them no money.
Great kudos or not, Federer was already with another watch brand. You're saying he switched to be associated with a brand who offered him nothing other than a few watches and some supposed coolness factor while he offered them the image clout of one of the cleanest personas and undeniable talents and ongoing list of achievements in the history of sport? That's sounds more naive than it does insider knowledge to be honest. The logic there doesn't stack up - whether you factor in some esoteric hallmark brand association or not - , nor does it fit with the simplest explanation which is that they likely do pay for his services.
There is
no brand a competently managed sportsperson wants to be associated with for free when another also highly respected brand is offering money for it (Maurice Lacroix is a pretty darn swish brand - far more niche than Rolex and also Swiss even).
The cynic in me finds it a little convenient that your responses progressively add more and closer involvement with the agent/brand and friendships/acquaintances with certain people privy to deals as if to add more credibility to your point of view. Well, that's a chumps line of debate in my experience and adds nothing to the debate other than in a 'my dick is bigger than yours' sort of way. I've posted a number of articles on the topic which aren't consistent with what you say you know about Rolex's goings-on. So, really, who would you trust in this as an outsider - multiple articles of different sources (including Federer's own book and articles credible enough to have sourced quotes from his agent) or a person who says:
'I just know, right. I'm mates with that guy' which is effectively what we have here?
Anyway, short of saying "this is who I am and here are my credentials" this wont get resolved here. Onwards and upwards! Good luck.