Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by rovex, Jan 22, 2011.
I would say it probably varies from player to player depending on what company combination they have.
3 million dollar head deal for 5 years
25 million , 10 year deal with sergio tacchini
you tell me ?
Quite a sum of money lol but thats not a whole lot from head.....
i would excuse fed, nadal, murray and djok for obvious reasons...but where did you get those figures?
i could only find details for a 10 year deal with tacchini, not money terms
it was posted on the novak djokovic to sergio post. 2.5 million a year
Guess it's clothing then. I know Murray is getting 5 million a year from adidas, and federer 13 million! :shock:
Roger gets 13 mil from adidas even though he's with nike? Holy sh*t he's the man!
He also get 3 millon from Fred Perry and 7 million from Fila. He doesnt get any money from Nike. Fed wears everything where Mirca bought for him from garage store
i honestly have no clue what that means.
lol @ rovex's catch on the punctuation
In my opinion Murray isn't a Marketing oriented player, guys like Monfis, Verdasco could enhance sales more than Andy.
Clothing will be more in my thoughts :S
well i would say for clothing, but mostly because companies that make clothes are bigger and richer than racket producing companies,so there budget for sponsorship is bigger
i would say clothing..
I read somewhere players are given a base amount of money when they sign with a sponsor and then they have to abilty to make more money depending on how many units of clothing they sell.
Players like her vadasco will do well with sponsors because he has his own style. I.E Faux hawk and pink shirt. It just works for him because he has swagger like Justin Beiber
that makes no sense when you have multiple players endorsing the same shirt, and you cant really track that type of thing.
it would work in fed and nadal's situation..but not too many others.
i could understand a bonus though for performance
Well alot of the top players for a brand have their own sublines... Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Verdasco, Blake (not even a top play for Fila) etc.
still though, Fed makes 13 mil a year from Nike? I wonder how many hundreds of millions he has put away.. he should have donated 10000 dollars for every ace he made in the AO.. he's loaded..
they have other players also endorsing the line, no?
edit: i mean murray may be the only one wearing the polo...but others wear the same thing in a crew. No other player wears rafa stuff or rf stuff is what i'm saying.
In almost every case it would be clothing that pays more - way more.
Reason: there are dozens of items that the company can design/sell and produce generally without inventing anything new to make the most of the sponsorship. Racquets however for most people are a one-off purchase which happens only every 3 or more years.
Hahaha, but he really is the man :neutral:
How much money does Verdasco get for wearing his hair the way he does ?
I know when Blake cut his hair about 8 odd years ago he either lost 100,000 or 1,000,000
Dunno but he must be an Ed Grimley fan, http://colinandiva.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/edgrimley.jpg
Anyone knows how much Rolex pays to Fed for using their watches???
Est. 1.5 million a year or 15 million for 10 years
Read Wozniacki getting over 1M just from ProActiv
rolex do not pay ANY of their athletes (including Roger) - their proposiotion is around image and heritage. a player who lljnks with rolex has the machine behind them in terms of advertising and PR etc. they do get a number of watches per year (value dependfant on level of profile etc)
generally speaking, clothing deals dwarf rackets, roughly 4 or 5 to 1 in terms of ratio but in a few cases like Roger and wilson it is a bit closer but not on equal terms by any means.
you may ask how i know this... i used to be an agent to several players and now work with brands like Rolex, Nike and others.
LOL... There is no way Federer or other top athletes would endorse any for-profit company to help their image or some heritage proposition as you say.
More to the point, if you were a top sportsperson would you accept that deal from Rolex while they were happy to pay for naming rights sponsorship at sporting events such as the Shanghai Masters?
From an article about IMG/Federer's sponsorship in 2007 and his move from endorsing Maurice Lacroix to Rolex:
I don't think if it was less it'd amount to a few watches.
The article also says Federer sponsorship (in 2007 at least) cost $2-$5m per year for non-tennis related brands.
His Wilson deal is reported to be US$2m per year for the duration of his career (ranking pending) and a lower, ongoing amount post-retirement. His Nike is worth about $10m per year...
(references below fyi)
Maybe being a agent has changed somewhat since you were one.
well to be honest you are entitled to your opinion - it is wrong in this case and i have 1st hand experience of working with Rolex for several years in this particular field.
the way that deals are structured for "event" sponsorships are different to those of athletes and delivfer a very different ROI (retun on investment). with tournamanents for example Rolex receive massive amounts of TV and press exposure through on court branking and clocks and TV replays on challenges etc.
with players the way that exposure is generated is via rolex paid for advertising and PR initiatives - thus very different.
they pride themselves on only associating with few athletes and with thiose that understand the rolex brand.
whetehr you take this on board or not, believe it or not is your chopice, the simple truth of the matter is this is FACT.
i have worked ion the sports marketing and sponsorship industry for 13 years and have been an agent and a brand consultant and worked for IMG for nearly half that time...
I believe you know what you're talking about but on the Rolex point it appears you're wrong. Multiple articles talk about his deal - one which couldn't possibly have come about without a lot of money being forked over - not in the least because he was already with competition brand.
The point about sponsoring events is that no astute agent or player would enter into such a product deal when they see large for-profit organisations, such as tournaments, promoting the hell out of a brand and where money is involved. It simply would not happen.
If you're talking about ROI with regards to the tournaments I'd hazard a guess that having Federer endorse a product would gain more relevant exposure than a tournament like the Shanghai Masters - not to mention being far more consistent with their brand values (a great person is better than a nondescript event).
I'm basing what I say on over 15 years working in strategy for ad agencies including involvement for years with Playstation, Apple, Nissan, Nivea, Adidas and others.
May as well add this since it's relevant and pretty indicative to the Rolex sponsorship topic.
From this article which got the info from his own book The Roger Federer Story :Quest For Perfection: http://www.zimbio.com/Mirka+Vavrinec/articles/i-MwvPXNBEg/Federer+s+Business
Do you think he'd dissolve a lucrative contract to enter a (effectively) free one with Rolex?
From Rolex themselves then perhaps?
When asked about their business activities and marketing Rolex spokesperson Virginie Chevailler, said:
Considering how famously secretive they are, do you really think you have a thorough overview on their sponsorship policy? I doubt anyone at IMG other than the few specific people involved in Federer's affairs have any access whatsoever to any of his sponsorship non-public goings-on.
The same article also says:
That passage is not definitive but certainly from an article which is based on information from Rolex themselves and certainly implies some sort of deal. Again, I doubt an endorsed player would participate in major branding work without compensation beyond a few watches.
Article here FYI: Rolex Remains Geneva's Largest Employer (10 December 2010)
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.
i agree that this is a different approach and in 99 out of 100 cases this would certainly not be the norm but in the case of rolex it is.
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. Wimbledon is very dear to his heart and rolex is so integral with that event that it makes sense to partner with them from his personal perspective.
just as a final point - Roger's agent Tony is a very close pal of mine, we shared offices together and worked together for a long time on [projects for both Rolex and Roger (separately and together). whilst i will not dibvulge exact deal parameters, suffuice to say i know them cos i worked on it myself!!!
It's different from pro to pro. The majority of pro's don't get paid for using racquets and they may only have a very "small" clothing contract. It really depends on how far up the food chain you are in terms of rankings.
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.
how can you say that when he has posted numerous other articles saying otherwise? various sources > hear say
No way federer doesn't get paid by Rovex.
While Rogisbestever has been in the business he/she is either misinformed or Rolex have changed the way they do things.
Even Caroline Wozniaki signed a paying deal with Rolex early last year.
Article link: Wozniaki Signs Deal With Rolex
Another article from 2006 states that Federer paid to get out of his Maurice Lacroix deal two years early to sign with Rolex. No mention is made of it just being a guess and it even includes comments from Maurice Lacroix themselves which, to me, again confirms Rolex paid a hefty sum to get Federer on board.
Article link: Time for a change: Federer signs with Rolex
As a complete aside and back on the original topic I found this article announcing Roddick's Babolat deal extension - September 2009 - which netted him $10m for a four year deal.
Roddick signs $10M extension with Babolat
Since your background is great, What is your personally ranking of players in term of improving sales and enhancing brand value?
I mean it is obvious about Roger, Rafa, Nole I am not sure how good is Murray, Davidenko, Verdasco... any opinion? I alwas think (could be obvious) that personality is better than results :shock:
Need more Roo fighters.
Separate names with a comma.