ESPN first take debate over Serena/Sharapova Endorsement $$

Soianka

Hall of Fame
No, I asked you if you personally felt that performance should be the only factor towards endorsement and market value. You personally told me no.

Don't backtrack now and say that it's simply a mirror of what society wants. You personally don't feel that performance should be the only factor in market value. Therefore lamenting over what society and consumerism wants boils down more to the fact that they seem to place different values on non-performance related things than you do.
I didn't say it was a reflection of what society wants. You are having some reading comprehension issues.
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
No you are a disrespectful idiot (normally I don't say this to people but since you have no respect neither shall I).

You have a general comprehension problem.
The point I am debating is the perceived "racism" against Serena brought up in this thread.

Tiger Woods was mentioned.
A. He is a minority, just like Serena.
B. He plays and individual sport, just like Serena.
C. He plays a sport that is historically and predominantly played by Caucasian people, just like Serena.
Yet he was the most endorsed athlete on the planet at one time.

Tiger Woods is proof that being a minority does not keep you from being endorsed as well, or more than, Caucasian counterparts.

You want to refute this fact to push your own agenda.

You also like to be disrespectful which is an indicator of having no substantial argument.
Once again, you show that your reading skills are sub par: I didn't call you a name, I said that you made an incredibly stupid statement, and you did: mentioning Mayweather as a high endorsement earning athlete, which I notice you carefully avoided addressing, shows that, like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, your comparison re: Woods was almost as stupid: comparing Serena, who has out performed Pova in every way imaginable, but earns far less, to Woods, who was NOT out-performed during his prime(when he had the bulk of his endorsements) is so stupid as to be laughable. If you can't figure out the difference between those two situations, then, there is nothing more to be said, is there?
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
I didn't say it was a reflection of what society wants. You are having some reading comprehension issues.
Here's what you said...

I think these things are sort of like a mirror and tell us something about society and also about the people who make these sorts of decisions.
So "sort of like a mirror and tell us something about society" != "reflection of what society wants"...

Okay. I think one of us has a comprehension problem here, but it's more like you have a comprehension issue with the English language.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
Popularity and marketability are not a reflection of quality, it makes no sense to argue about who deserves more sponsorship money. Sponsorship is not a reward, it's a calculated business decision.

To me personally Serena is more attractive physically, but Maria has somewhat better demeanor.

Either way, I would never buy anything based on endorsements, but realize that a lot of people do.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Either way, I would never buy anything based on endorsements, but realize that a lot of people do.
You do buy a lot of things based on endorsements. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves.

You may not buy them because "oh so and so uses/endorses this product, I should buy it." But rather, a lot of these products would not be in the public eye, or would not have as many users, or would not be compared/rated by reviewers/websites if they were not marketed and endorsed. The ripple effect of endorsements and commercial marketing is huge, and to act like you individually are never affected by them is akin to claiming that you are not affected by the environment around you.
 

dlk

Hall of Fame
Popularity and marketability are not a reflection of quality, it makes no sense to argue about who deserves more sponsorship money. Sponsorship is not a reward, it's a calculated business decision.

To me personally Serena is more attractive physically, but Maria has somewhat better demeanor.

Either way, I would never buy anything based on endorsements, but realize that a lot of people do.
The first sentence is spot on. I disagree on the second statement (but more of personal opinion vs. reality). I do buy based on endorsements, but I get what you're saying (e.g., You like Serena's game, but you're not gonna go out and buy/use a Wilson).
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
You do buy a lot of things based on endorsements. Anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves.

You may not buy them because "oh so and so uses/endorses this product, I should buy it." But rather, a lot of these products would not be in the public eye, or would not have as many users, or would not be compared/rated by reviewers/websites if they were not marketed and endorsed. The ripple effect of endorsements and commercial marketing is huge, and to act like you individually are never affected by them is akin to claiming that you are not affected by the environment around you.
Well you're agreeing with me.

I don't buy things based on endorsements.

I'm not saying I try to avoid products that get endorsed. I don't care why there are reviews of products, as long as I find those reviews/ratings trustworthy.

I don't care who gets the money I pay for a product that I like. The ripple effect means I still may end up buying those products eventually, but not based on the endorsements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
C

Chadillac

Guest
If the target demographic is predominantly black, do you think Sharapova would have as much endorsement?
Why are you still trying to have an intelligent conversation using logic? These people need it to be about race so they can have their daily pity party, its not serena's fault that she doesnt have as many endorsements as sharapova, it has nothing to do with her, she dindu nuffin wrong :)
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Well you're agreeing with me.

I don't buy things based on endorsements.

I'm not saying I try to avoid products that get endorsed. I don't care why there are reviews of products, as long as I find those reviews/ratings trustworthy.

I don't care who gets the money I pay for a product that I like. The ripple effect means I still may end up buying those products eventually, but not based on the endorsements.
If the ripple effect starts with the product being endorsed, then yes, you are buying them based on the endorsements. Not directly, but it is based on the endorsement. Which is exactly what I'm saying. People who say "I don't care what products are endorsed" are losing sight of how consumer decisions are often multiplier effects based on small initial impetuses.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
If the ripple effect starts with the product being endorsed, then yes, you are buying them based on the endorsements. Not directly, but it is based on the endorsement. Which is exactly what I'm saying. People who say "I don't care what products are endorsed" are losing sight of how consumer decisions are often multiplier effects based on small initial impetuses.
A purchase is a decision. That decision is based on endorsements if it's directly at least partly affected by the endorsement.

If my purchase is based on specs and reviews of a product that is in the public eye thanks to endorsements, then my purchase decision is not based on endorsements, but rather on the detailed specifications and reviews/ratings of said product.

Obviously there's a great difference between the 2 scenarios.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
A purchase is a decision. That decision is based on endorsements if it's directly at least partly affected by the endorsement.

If my purchase is based on specs and reviews of a product that is in the public eye thanks to endorsements, then my purchase decision is not based on endorsements, but rather on the detailed specifications and reviews/ratings of said product.

Obviously there's a great difference between the 2 scenarios.
Your personal decision is not based on the endorsement.

You may not have the opportunity to make that personal decision if not for the endorsement.

Thus, because of the endorsement, you had the opportunity to buy the product even if you did not take the endorsement into account. In marketing terms, this makes no difference than if people bought the product simply because they saw someone endorse it. This great difference exists in your mind only.
 

dlk

Hall of Fame
I understand both sides on this argument, but is merely semantics. I would guess most normal people would subscribe to the basic sense of "I buy a product because someone I like or trust uses it," not the more complex version of "in a round about way, we are subjects to endorsements, whether we like it or not."
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
Your personal decision is not based on the endorsement.

You may not have the opportunity to make that personal decision if not for the endorsement.

Thus, because of the endorsement, you had the opportunity to buy the product even if you did not take the endorsement into account. In marketing terms, this makes no difference than if people bought the product simply because they saw someone endorse it. This great difference exists in your mind only.
It makes a massive difference. Because I have options. I will say no if I don't like a product, even if it's endorsed. I can choose among various brands.

For me endorsement makes a product a slight possibility. Obviously some form of marketing is necessary for any product, otherwise I cannot even know it exists.

Whereas for people that base their purchase on endorsements, they already make their purchase decision without knowing the product details and comparing brands.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
It makes a massive difference. Because I have options. I will say no if I don't like a product, even if it's endorsed. I can choose among various brands.

For me endorsement makes a product a slight possibility. Obviously some form of marketing is necessary for any product, otherwise I cannot even know it exists.

Whereas for people that base their purchase on endorsements, they already make their purchase decision without knowing the product details and comparing brands.
You're still not quite understanding what I'm trying to say.

Endorsements are made for the purpose of visibility. It's a way to draw attention to the product. The vast majority of free thinking people in the world are going to take the exact same stance as you are. They are not going to use a product just because they see Random Celebrity X use it. They're going to buy the product if it has a proven record of being quality, is well reviewed/received by trustworthy sources, and gets the job done in a satisfactory manner.

The people making marketing decisions are not ignorant of this fact either. The point of investing in marketing and getting endorsements is purely to raise the visibility of their product. If it directly leads to people buying it because they absolutely *hearteyes* the celebrity and needs to have everything they have, great. But that's neither the purpose nor the intent.

In other words, you act like you're the exception to some kind of rule, when it's not. The vast majority of consumers are likely just like you, and the way marketing departments measure their success is how many people buy their product because of the visibility the endorsements they pay for grants. Endorsements are made specifically for people who have the ability to choose the product they want among various brands.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
I don't agree that endorsements are simply about visibility. There needs to be some sort of emotional attachment for them to work. Otherwise they could just use any other form of advertising instead, which would be a lot cheaper.

Racket adverts extolling the virtues of a flexy frame, solid twist weight, good vibration dampening etc would provide visibility but zero care for most people who base their decisions on irrational factors, eg endorsements.

Irrational customers are the best customers.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
I don't agree that endorsements are simply about visibility. There needs to be some sort of emotional attachment for them to work. Otherwise they could just use any other form of advertising instead, which would be a lot cheaper.

Racket adverts extolling the virtues of a flexy frame, solid twist weight, good vibration dampening etc would provide visibility but zero care for most people who base their decisions on irrational factors, eg endorsements.

Irrational customers are the best customers.
These things are implied with the endorsement. Sure, you could talk about the qualities of the frame, the vibration dampening, the bounce of the strings, etc. but most of the technical specifics are not something the average consumer needs to know (or care). They care if the racquet works well, is durable, feels natural, generates power, etc.

This is implied when they see a top player using the racquet and doing well with it. Obviously they would not use the racquet if it had a terrible frame and worthless strings. These consumers may well look at the reviews and see that others agree it's a good racquet and then choose to buy it.

The idea that endorsements are for people who are irrational and only buy things because their favorite celebrity is endorsing them is patently false. And if you believe it, you would not do well in a marketing department.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
These things are implied with the endorsement. Sure, you could talk about the qualities of the frame, the vibration dampening, the bounce of the strings, etc. but most of the technical specifics are not something the average consumer needs to know (or care). They care if the racquet works well, is durable, feels natural, generates power, etc.

This is implied when they see a top player using the racquet and doing well with it. Obviously they would not use the racquet if it had a terrible frame and worthless strings. These consumers may well look at the reviews and see that others agree it's a good racquet and then choose to buy it.

The idea that endorsements are for people who are irrational and only buy things because their favorite celebrity is endorsing them is patently false. And if you believe it, you would not do well in a marketing department.
Huhh? A top player using it and doing well with it? Implying imaginary attributes is exactly what I'm talking about.

Very few top players use the rackets they endorse. Those implications are an illusion.

Not all forms of marketing target irrational customers. Endorsements do.

I remember an interview with Sampras a while ago, when he talked about switching from the small Wilson to a larger Babolat. He was obviously getting paid to talk good about Babolat, and was totally generalizing, saying stuff like he wished he had switched to Babolat sooner, Wilson was bad for his game and hard on his body. He conveniently missed mentioning that he could have just switched to a more suitable, more modern Wilson frame.
That is endorsement.

You bet I would not do well in a marketing department. I much prefer doing productive work.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Huhh? A top player using it and doing well with it? Implying imaginary attributes is exactly what I'm talking about.

Very few top players use the rackets they endorse. Those implications are an illusion.

Not all forms of marketing target irrational customers. Endorsements do.

I remember an interview with Sampras a while ago, when he talked about switching from the small Wilson to a larger Babolat. He was obviously getting paid to talk good about Babolat, and was totally generalizing, saying stuff like he wished he had switched to Babolat sooner, Wilson was bad for his game and hard on his body. He conveniently missed mentioning that he could have just switched to a more suitable, more modern Wilson frame.
That is endorsement.

You bet I would not do well in a marketing department. I much prefer doing productive work.
Are you trolling me and being dense intentionally?

Of course some players don't use every item they choose to endorse. There's also plenty that do use the equipment they endorse. But most of the time, before giving their endorsement, they have the opportunity to make sure that it's of a certain minimum level of quality. It's damaging for their reputation and their market value to endorse stuff that later comes under scrutiny. How does that affect the general idea that an endorsement is an acknowledgement of legitimacy?

Again, you're acting like you're some special snowflake in regards to not buying things "simply because it's endorsed", as if there's a large contingent of people that do buy items simply because they're endorsed (hint: there isn't). As for your arrogance in thinking that marketing is entirely nonproductive, I'm guessing with that (lack of) mind for business, you probably aren't likely to do well in commerce in general. There's really no point in continuing a conversation with someone who either refuses to listen or is incapable of understanding.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Years ago, people were talking about how shameful it was that Zina Garrison was the #4 player in the world and had no clothing or shoe endorsement.

Similarly, years from now, this topic will be another shameful and embarrassment piece of trivia trotted out when talking about sexism and racism in sports in times past.
Navratilova, whilst ranked higher than 4 was without an acceptable clothing contract for a time. Evert cd practically name her price. Endorsements rarely go to those less marketable to the general consumer. Not a fan of Sharapova or Williams but those paying out exorbitant sums of money must feel it's worth it for the revenue gained. Right or wrong.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
So let me get this straight....you want to have "diversity" and morality legislated.
Shbeals, if human history has taught only one thing, its that a system of fair, objective consideration (or laws) need to be in place because man often falls short--and in many cases, aggressively seeks the opposite of morality and diversity.

Answer this: you say, "diversity and morality legislated," but what is morality to a progressively functioning society? Did man have the moral character to NOT steal from each other? To NOT resort to racial / tribal / nationalistic oppression and/or crimes against others? To NOT suppress women from occupying the same professions or vote like men? To NOT (as in some societies) sexualize children for prostitution and marketing (both in the allegedly "advanced" United States)?

If laws do not step in, there's no historically demonstrated major ("advanced," if you will) society where the total absence of law resulted in a far-reaching, effective moral code. If it exists, please provide the example.


You are in favor of lawyers raking in huge money for themselves in favor of "diversity"
Revealing comment. Your first line is an attack on "lawyers raking in huge money." That is straight from the talking points of Right Wing politicians & their supportive media. That ilk despises lawyers for stepping in to represent those who otherwise would have no recourse or voice. Again, go back to what makes a progressively functioning society. The Right Wing seeks to eliminate any defense of those who threaten their interests (in a society they do not control), or are not part of the "favored class" (whether economically, sexually, racially, etc.) , which serves a population in what acceptable way?

You mention "disturbing," I submit that nothing is more disturbing (considering its long, destructive history) than the absolute denial of bias, the manipulation of communication to enforce said bias, and a defense against suppression which uses false, or frankly evil systems of "value" to make imbalanced judgements against the individual or greater body.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
One indicator is Facebook the most popular social networking tool on the planet.
Serena Williams: 3.6 million likes
Maria Sharapova: 15.1 million likes

This could be an indicator of why sponsors seem to endorse Maria more heavily than Serena.
Nonsense, as both were already well into ancillary contracts before the commercial prevalence & influence of Facebook (which was not instant by the time Maria was already being built up before winning her 1st major in '04)--so again, it goes back to the main argument of those who attack Serena's character:

Maria Sharapova's history of cursing out audiences, cheating on-court with her father, trash talking opponents, belittling press members, and screaming is also fact. This is not hidden national security files, but public record material. Further, just as the reasons two people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements get two very different business responses is also fact.

The heart of this issue is why?

Again, you cannot have two cases of people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements objectively lead to two different results.

Why?
 

Shbeals

Rookie
Shbeals, if human history has taught only one thing, its that a system of fair, objective consideration (or laws) need to be in place because man often falls short--and in many cases, aggressively seeks the opposite of morality and diversity.

Answer this: you say, "diversity and morality legislated," but what is morality to a progressively functioning society? Did man have the moral character to NOT steal from each other? To NOT resort to racial / tribal / nationalistic oppression and/or crimes against others? To NOT suppress women from occupying the same professions or vote like men? To NOT (as in some societies) sexualize children for prostitution and marketing (both in the allegedly "advanced" United States)?

If laws do not step in, there's no historically demonstrated major ("advanced," if you will) society where the total absence of law resulted in a far-reaching, effective moral code. If it exists, please provide the example.




Revealing comment. Your first line is an attack on "lawyers raking in huge money." That is straight from the talking points of Right Wing politicians & their supportive media. That ilk despises lawyers for stepping in to represent those who otherwise would have no recourse or voice. Again, go back to what makes a progressively functioning society. The Right Wing seeks to eliminate any defense of those who threaten their interests (in a society they do not control), or are not part of the "favored class" (whether economically, sexually, racially, etc.) , which serves a population in what acceptable way?

You mention "disturbing," I submit that nothing is more disturbing (considering its long, destructive history) than the absolute denial of bias, the manipulation of communication to enforce said bias, and a defense against suppression which uses false, or frankly evil systems of "value" to make imbalanced judgements against the individual or greater body.
I think you are misreading what I am saying just a bit. Of course we need laws in place to protect people, their property, and their rights. And of course there are immoral people who fall short obeying these laws. Always have been, always will be. What I'm saying is you can't legislate people's behavior through victimless crime laws. Drinking, smoking, gambling, prostitution, drug use, etc all fall under the category of victimless crimes. History has shown us that " morality" laws don't work and they never will. As far as diversity?? How do you legislate that? Force people to live together? Force people to like each other? It either happens naturally or not at all. As I stated in an earlier post, the quota laws and the affirmative action laws put in place have turned out to be racist in reality and in fact are demeaning to the people they are trying to help.

Your Right Wing comments are laughable. Who has more of a stranglehold on the media? Yes, the Left wing and their twisted agenda. What's funny is, I'm as far from Right Wing as I am from Left Wing. I think both factions have it wrong. I'm Libertarian and disagree with both of them. Socialism and social engineering don't work and they never will. Tens of millions of people have died under the crushing heel of Socialism. Anyway, enough said. This is supposed to be about tennis right?
 

cknobman

Legend
Once again, you show that your reading skills are sub par: I didn't call you a name, I said that you made an incredibly stupid statement, and you did: mentioning Mayweather as a high endorsement earning athlete, which I notice you carefully avoided addressing, shows that, like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, your comparison re: Woods was almost as stupid: comparing Serena, who has out performed Pova in every way imaginable, but earns far less, to Woods, who was NOT out-performed during his prime(when he had the bulk of his endorsements) is so stupid as to be laughable. If you can't figure out the difference between those two situations, then, there is nothing more to be said, is there?
LOL no you cannot see the truth.

Yet again you are disrespectful which shows a severe lack of class and intelligence.

Tiger Woods was the #1 money earner of 2014 @$55 million dollars. A whopping 98.8 percent of that came from ENDORSEMENTS.
He out earned every single golfer on tour despite having a terrible season.
The next 2 highest earners Phil Mickelson ($50.7 milleion) and Rory McIIroy ($49.1 million).
Oh and whaddaya know they are both white!

So before you call peoples reading skills sub par, statements stupid, and claiming they don't know what they are talking about maybe JUST maybe you should CHECK YOUR FACTS.

Source: http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/...014-endorsements-comprising-almost-99-percent

As stated many times there is much much more than race involved when it comes to Serenas lack of endorsements.
To be quite frank the people that make these claims are the ones who should be considered racist.

Everyone knows there is racism in the world, there is no denying that. Point is in the case of Serenas endorsements race has little, if anything, to do with it.
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
Though Serena has displayed horrible on court sportsmanship throughout the years, one of the biggest factors in not being #1 in endorsements, is her lack of charisma. She's just not someone who has that magnetism that can pull people in from all demographics. Ali, Tiger, Jordan, Evert, Nicklaus... Sharapova, all greats of their sports who had sparkling personalities, wit, charm and charisma.
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
LOL no you cannot see the truth.

Yet again you are disrespectful which shows a severe lack of class and intelligence.

Tiger Woods was the #1 money earner of 2014 @$55 million dollars. A whopping 98.8 percent of that came from ENDORSEMENTS.
He out earned every single golfer on tour despite having a terrible season.
The next 2 highest earners Phil Mickelson ($50.7 milleion) and Rory McIIroy ($49.1 million).
Oh and whaddaya know they are both white!

So before you call peoples reading skills sub par, statements stupid, and claiming they don't know what they are talking about maybe JUST maybe you should CHECK YOUR FACTS.

Source: http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/...014-endorsements-comprising-almost-99-percent

As stated many times there is much much more than race involved when it comes to Serenas lack of endorsements.
To be quite frank the people that make these claims are the ones who should be considered racist.

Everyone knows there is racism in the world, there is no denying that. Point is in the case of Serenas endorsements race has little, if anything, to do with it.
I can't see the truth? And, who, exactly determines what THAT is? YOU? You keep desperately running away from the fact that you made a complete and utter fool of yourself by claiming that Mayweather was a top earning endorser in an individual sport; he's a top earner, alright, THE top earner by most people's estimates, but not from endorsements, which is the main subject of this thread-that's where the you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about part comes in, and why you've refused to even address it in multiple posts since I pointed it out. You've already shown that your reading comprehension is abysmal:


Tiger(who DOES earn a lot from endorsements and is, like Pova, a poster child for undeserved endorsement money: he, too, has an unsavory character, and hasn't won **** since before the lovely "car accident" that Thanksgiving weekend)

As for Tiger, there was NEVER a golfer, black or white, who was heavily out earning Woods while far under performing him on the golf course-quite the opposite, as mentioned, Woods hasn't won a major since 2008, but, those sponsors, presumably, are appealing to the clueless fans who still bellow, "Get in the HOLE!" while he in the midst of not even making the cut for the umpteenth time.


As the above shows, I never said, or even implied, that Woods doesn't make a ton of money from endorsements, he does despite not performing the opposition in terms of Slams(see, that's what the phrase "quite the opposite" refers to), although, at least, in his case, there was a significant period of time when he WAS better. and significantly so, than his main rivals, which, of course, can NOT be said for Pova. Woods was a ***** even before his serial philandering was exposed, he tacitly endorsed the bullying conduct of his caddy, who all but assaulted anybody who dared make noise during his backswing-though, it a sweet bit of irony and/or karma, said caddy has gone elsewhere and has made snappy comments about Woods, and whereas it was once considered all but inevitable that he would break JN's all time Slam record, it is now abundantly clear that his chances of doing that are even more extinct that Nadal's of catching Federer. Go take a reading course, and come back next year.
 

MonkeyBoy

Hall of Fame
If h2h's are what should determine endorsements, then Nadal should be making more than Federer.

Sharapova makes more than Serena in endorsements because of her poster girly looks. This may be indirectly related to race (as in, what is deemed as most attractive is influenced by a caucasian-centric culture) but it is not intrinsically related to race.
 

cknobman

Legend
I can't see the truth? And, who, exactly determines what THAT is? YOU? You keep desperately running away from the fact that you made a complete and utter fool of yourself by claiming that Mayweather was a top earning endorser in an individual sport; he's a top earner, alright, THE top earner by most people's estimates, but not from endorsements, which is the main subject of this thread-that's where the you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about part comes in, and why you've refused to even address it in multiple posts since I pointed it out. You've already shown that your reading comprehension is abysmal:


Tiger(who DOES earn a lot from endorsements and is, like Pova, a poster child for undeserved endorsement money: he, too, has an unsavory character, and hasn't won **** since before the lovely "car accident" that Thanksgiving weekend)

As for Tiger, there was NEVER a golfer, black or white, who was heavily out earning Woods while far under performing him on the golf course-quite the opposite, as mentioned, Woods hasn't won a major since 2008, but, those sponsors, presumably, are appealing to the clueless fans who still bellow, "Get in the HOLE!" while he in the midst of not even making the cut for the umpteenth time.


As the above shows, I never said, or even implied, that Woods doesn't make a ton of money from endorsements, he does despite not performing the opposition in terms of Slams(see, that's what the phrase "quite the opposite" refers to), although, at least, in his case, there was a significant period of time when he WAS better. and significantly so, than his main rivals, which, of course, can NOT be said for Pova. Woods was a ***** even before his serial philandering was exposed, he tacitly endorsed the bullying conduct of his caddy, who all but assaulted anybody who dared make noise during his backswing-though, it a sweet bit of irony and/or karma, said caddy has gone elsewhere and has made snappy comments about Woods, and whereas it was once considered all but inevitable that he would break JN's all time Slam record, it is now abundantly clear that his chances of doing that are even more extinct that Nadal's of catching Federer. Go take a reading course, and come back next year.

Your response shows your complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

Woods, was heavily out performed by his peers in 2014 (he was not even ranked in top 30 at year end) yet he still made more money than everyone else on tour. Over 98% of that being endorsement money.
A clear, factual, and provable fact that a minority can make much much much more endorsement money than Caucasian counterparts in and individual sport primarily and historically played by Caucasians.

Sharapova while being outplayed by Serena is the #2 tennis player in the world.

You have been clearly and definitively proven wrong on this specific point.
Your argument is weak and not based on facts.
Please find something to refute my fact besides speculation, conjecture, and opinion.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If h2h's are what should determine endorsements, then Nadal should be making more than Federer.

Sharapova makes more than Serena in endorsements because of her poster girly looks. This may be indirectly related to race (as in, what is deemed as most attractive is influenced by a caucasian-centric culture) but it is not intrinsically related to race.
This is true.

Also greater player and endorsement earnings are not linear. Sharapova earns more than Serena is not an anomaly. Messi is a better soccer player than Ronaldo but the former made LESS in endorsements. Tiger Woods cheating scandal and hasn't won a major in the last 6 years made 50 million in endorsements. Derek Rose made more than Peyton Manning.

And it's not that Serena is dead last in endorsement earnings. Compare to only female athletes, Serena is the 2nd highest paid in endorsements. Second! If it wasn't for Sharapova who is a rightful #1 for being attractive/model figure and more marketable, Serena would be ranked #1 and everyone would say she's overpaid.

Black American athletes are well supported.
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
If h2h's are what should determine endorsements, then Nadal should be making more than Federer.

Sharapova makes more than Serena in endorsements because of her poster girly looks. This may be indirectly related to race (as in, what is deemed as most attractive is influenced by a caucasian-centric culture) but it is not intrinsically related to race.
Don't be coy, it's NOT just the head to head: 21-5 in Slams, number of years-and weeks-at Number One , and, last time I checked, twice as much money earned ON COURT are all factors that are overwhelmingly in Serena's favor, which is NOT the case with Nadal in any of those categories. Your last sentence is surprisingly reasonable.
 

svijk

Semi-Pro
just seeing this video,, both smith and bayless dished out a lot pc bs....the comparison to male atheletes was also misplaced......fact is male atheletes are marketed for their physical prowess to sell shoes and gear and female atheletes are marketed for overall appeal. also, serena still makes 13 mill yet the debate sounded like she makes nothing. tennis being a global sport, its no surprise someone like sharapova is at the top of this list
 

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
Though Serena has displayed horrible on court sportsmanship throughout the years, one of the biggest factors in not being #1 in endorsements, is her lack of charisma. She's just not someone who has that magnetism that can pull people in from all demographics. Ali, Tiger, Jordan, Evert, Nicklaus... Sharapova, all greats of their sports who had sparkling personalities, wit, charm and charisma.
lol sharapova has a personality and charisma.....haha good one...
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
she is a waaaaaaaaaay better looking than rihanna
Agree, Rihanna is ridiculously overrated. Beyonce may be debatable, but personally I like fit women and Beyonce is pretty average in that regard.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
Sharapova is a poor communicator. She often has no idea what question she is asked, replies with some irrelevant stuff. May be a language issue, but I think her head is somewhere in Lala land. Has minimal sense of humour. Not a very pleasant character.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
If the target demographic is predominantly black, do you think Sharapova would have as much endorsement?
There is more to this statement than it appears. The black population is roughly 12-13% in the usa, id say the black population in tennis is around 10% (i see 1 black player for every 9 where i play). There just isnt enough demograph for serena to cater to since she is open about he racial opinions and other contraversial beliefs. Jordan had the best line in reguards to his opinions on political matters, republicans buy nike's too. You cant call the majority of your audience a racist while crip walking and expect them to support you.

Marketers know what they are doing, serena's 2nd in endorsements only because she is such a great player. Sharapova on the other hand doesnt draw lines in the sand, dividing her consumer base.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I notice you often reference history while ignoring serena's.

There is a reason she doesnt make as much, it has been explained many times.
Not at all, hence my:

Maria Sharapova's history of cursing out audiences, cheating on-court with her father, trash talking opponents, belittling press members, and screaming is also fact. This is not hidden national security files, but public record material. Further, just as the reasons two people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements get two very different business responses is also fact.

The heart of this issue is why?

Again, you cannot have two cases of people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements objectively lead to two different results.

Why?
In talking about "unsavory behavior" from both, Serena is obviously referenced, which brings us back to:

Maria Sharapova's history of cursing out audiences, cheating on-court with her father, trash talking opponents, belittling press members, and screaming is also fact. This is not hidden national security files, but public record material. Further, just as the reasons two people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements get two very different business responses is also fact.

The heart of this issue is why?

Again, you cannot have two cases of people, both female, both professionals of the same sport, both with unsavory behavior with the same kind and/or number of elements used to make image/character judgements objectively lead to two different results.

Why?
None of the blinders-on Sharapova-lovers in this thread dare address the facts as presented above. They cannot acknowledge Sharapova's terrible behavior / acts at all, and pretend it is all about Serena.

Do you think there can be any rational discussion with those who either post outright lies, a gross ignorance of history and marketing, all to damn Serena?
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Don't be coy, it's NOT just the head to head: 21-5 in Slams, number of years-and weeks-at Number One , and, last time I checked, twice as much money earned ON COURT are all factors that are overwhelmingly in Serena's favor
That is true. Just look at this convenient earnings chart again--


As noted earlier, Sharapova's real job does not live up to manufactured, ancillary activities. Even players who retired when she was a child (ex. Boris) earned nearly as much in a period where players were not getting anywhere near current era (21st century) paydays. For all of her stalkers' hype, they have no explanation for this, rather, they are avoiding it.
 

britam25

Hall of Fame
Perhaps you should ask yourself 2 questions:
1. What compels you to spew out a diatribe like this? Why so defensive? Why does it annoy you so much?
2. Why do more people have you blocked on this forum than any other user?
No, what I ask myself is, what kind of person says they aren't going to post again, then lies like scum and infects the forum with their bile-and what kind of person constantly makes racially tinged attacks(while stupidly, and constantly stating that the supposed coming punishment of a player they despise(who constantly butchers and out performs another player they slurp over)without a shred of proof. A SOS, that's what kind of person...
 
Last edited:

Midaso240

Hall of Fame
No, what I ask myself is, what kind of person says they aren't going to post again, then lies like scum and infects the forum with their bile-and what kind of person constantly makes racially tinged attacks(while stupidly, and constantly stating that the supposed coming punishment of a player they despise(who constantly butchers and out performs another player they slurp over)without a shred of proof. An SOS, that's what kind of person...
LOL you don't get it do you? I don't take this seriously like you do,it achieves nothing writing some novel on here which 99% of people won't even read anyway. I mainly go into Odds & Ends,which is free of trolls such as yourself thankfully. Occasionally I will click on new posts and see what is going on,but it doesn't really bother me whether I see a thread such as this or not...
 
Top