Djokovic’s sponsor Lacoste to ‘review events’ around Australian deportation

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't talk to him and at least get a sense of what he's thinking in terms of how long he's willing to sit out.

Professional players are nothing but walking billboards, and if he's not going to be on TV wearing their clothes at the big events he no longer has any value to them.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The people who pay Federer are unconcerned. I think Lacoste doesn't want their label to be associated with political causes.

Djokovic had been successfully avoiding the issue of covid until the Australian Government decided to make him a whipping-boy.

They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't talk to him and at least get a sense of what he's thinking in terms of how long he's willing to sit out.

Professional players are nothing but walking billboards, and if he's not going to be on TV wearing their clothes at the big events he no longer has any value to them.
 

onefineday

Hall of Fame
Lacoste in a way got some of their money's worth at the AO because those shots of Djokovic on RLA went all over the world.
But, this won't happen again. He won't get anywhere near any more tennis stadiums where you need the vax.
 

guanzishou

G.O.A.T.
NEWS.com.au: ‘What value’: Novak’s $42 million headache.


If at any time, in the opinion of Sponsor, Athlete becomes the subject of public disrepute, contempt, or scandal that affects Athlete's image or goodwill, then Company may, upon written notice to Athlete, immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement and Athlete's services hereunder, in addition to any other rights and remedies that Sponsor may have hereunder or at law or in equity."


 
Last edited:

lim

Professional
this would be the dumbest move they ever made. they weren't even relevant prior to 2017 pre nole.
is Daniil really going to be the face of Lacoste lol
 

T007

Hall of Fame
Djoko yet again trying to copy Federer who convinced Uniqlo and On to pay him intentionally not to play tennis :confused:
He owns a 4% share in On Shoes...he isn't getting pay cheques for it.

Federer invested 60 million back in 2018 today those shares worth over 300 million.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
Companies make rational business decision, so it's pretty obvious that his contracts are going to get reassessed given how much of a polarizing figure he has become, and that he might not be playing much tennis in 2022.

I expect some of his other sponsors to do the same, starting with Peugeot, being a French company, seeing the hardening position of the French Government on vaccination issues.
 

chrischris

G.O.A.T.
The people who pay Federer are unconcerned. I think Lacoste doesn't want their label to be associated with political causes.

Djokovic had been successfully avoiding the issue of covid until the Australian Government decided to make him a whipping-boy.
He needs to take the vaccine, thats all.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
NEWS.com.au: ‘What value’: Novak’s $42 million headache.


If at any time, in the opinion of Sponsor, Athlete becomes the subject of public disrepute, contempt, or scandal that affects Athlete's image or goodwill, then Company may, upon written notice to Athlete, immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement and Athlete's services hereunder, in addition to any other rights and remedies that Sponsor may have hereunder or at law or in equity."



As I mentioned in an earlier post, it’s a standard clause for these contracts. Also standard would be reduction clauses. They’re paying him to, among other things, be on the court wearing their clothes. If he isn’t doing that the money gets reduced. Not surprisingly. ;)
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
These kinds of clauses are probably why Djokovic stopped talking about his vaccination status, and then Scott Morrison dumped a bucket of dung on his head.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
The people who pay Federer are unconcerned. I think Lacoste doesn't want their label to be associated with political causes.

Djokovic had been successfully avoiding the issue of covid until the Australian Government decided to make him a whipping-boy.
Uniqlo made their deal knowing Fed was going to retire soon, that was a key to the contract and why Fed went with them over renewing with Nike.
 

Lorenn

Hall of Fame
Corporate vindictiveness rears its inevitable head.

I think they pay him to play and model their gear. If he is not playing and going to miss most of the season. They like put it out hoping to stop the calls.

These contracts typically provide for a base amount + bonuses. The base is often subject to minimum play and other reduction clauses. In addition, the contract will provide the sponsor with the option to terminate the agreement under certain conditions such as the athlete being inactive for a certain amount of time or any situation that brings the athlete into public rebuke, scandal, etc…

They want to sit down and talk.

Not all contracts are the same. He might've been able to negotiate a favorable contract considering his status. I do agree they just want to talk and see what he is thinking about the current season. HAving lawyers read the contract and ponder their options.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Will be interesting how his schedule shapes out. Lacoste and Peugeot not huge brands in various parts of the world he might be leaning into moving forward. If say it's Wimbledon-USO, Eastern Europe, etc.
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
Will be interesting how his schedule shapes out. Lacoste and Peugeot not huge brands in various parts of the world he might be leaning into moving forward. If say it's Wimbledon-USO, Eastern Europe, etc.

Because you think that his commercial value has improved recently, and that he'll be able to get better endorsements than the ones he currently has?
 

tennis4me

Hall of Fame
Is Nole's predicament worse than Sharapova's Meldonium or other athletes' WADA violation? Nike stood by Sharapova after the incident.
 

killerboss

Professional
Ironically, the people most crying about cancel culture are the ones that want unabetted capitalism. If they feel Djokovic is no longer beneficial to their bottom line, what is the purpose of keeping him as a brand ambassador?

I'm about as far away from a conservative as you can get but this is very much cancel culture (removing his sponsorship because of self righteousness/people demanding it). Cancel culture is often done by elitist conservatives anyway, who would probably claim to be against it.

The "company values" thing is a classic defence of cancel culture, along with "He resigned, he didn't get sacked" and my personal favourite "stop trying to cancel cancel culture"
 
from
nlbH37Rw_400x400.png


to

mickey.jpg


the Novak Djokovic story - on Netflix soon
 

Cupcake

Hall of Fame
Is Nole's predicament worse than Sharapova's Meldonium or other athletes' WADA violation? Nike stood by Sharapova after the incident.

Yes, I think much worse. Novak exposed people knowing he was positive. While many don't believe the pandemic exists, there are many others who know someone who has died or gotten very sick from it, or been sick themselves. Or are staying home, or lost their income... That carries more weight than an athlete that pops a few pills.
 

MugOpponent

Hall of Fame
Ironically Novak has probably never been more marketable. He's never been able to build a core audience because Roger and Rafa foiled each other perfectly and took all the fans. Now Novak has a niche audience firmly in his corner, the people who have lost their businesses and freedom due to government insanity.
 

killerboss

Professional
At least you're sensible to right-wing propaganda. The cries about "cancel culture" come from people that wanted to boycott Starbucks because they stopped having red cups for Xmas.

Cancel culture is very much real and should be condemned by anyone with an ounce of forgiveness in their hearts (in this case there is nothing to actually forgive seeing as Djokovic didn't commit any crimes). A lot of conservatives would ignore it or do it when it suits them. A lot of these companies actually doing it are actually rich, elitist conservatives. That's one of the many differences between me and a conservative.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
They wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't talk to him and at least get a sense of what he's thinking in terms of how long he's willing to sit out.

Professional players are nothing but walking billboards, and if he's not going to be on TV wearing their clothes at the big events he no longer has any value to them.

And yet Lacoste has signed a contract with Djokovic.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Maybe because they can't just "drop someone" when they have a contract with him?
You know, such a paper signed by both parties.
But maybe they have an vaccination clause in it in Djokovic's case.....o_O

All sports contracts have an escape clause for behavior not in the public interest as well as morality clauses. A conviction is not needed - substantial allegations admitted to a court of law are enough.
 
Top