Federer Shoe Updates

gino

Hall of Fame
#1
Anybody know what the deal is with his shoe contract?

He wore the Vapor X through the end of season, but doesn't seem to have any firm relationship with Nike ironed out.

Wondering what will happen here, would be a travesty if they lost him on a simple shoe deal
 

Nostradamus

Talk Tennis Guru
#3
it would make sense that roger swtich to Asic shoes or perhaps, his buddy Stan will get him to use yonex shoes. his knee is getting old and he needs shoes with great cushioning
 
#5
Federer is in a tight situation with his shoe choices here.

If he leaves Nike (which will be surprising), he cannot go to Yonex, Head, Prince, and Babolat for the reason PBODY99 mentioned.

That leaves Wilson (can they produce an adequate for his needs shoe?), Mizuno, K-swiss, and NB (can they afford him?), Asics (can they afford him/do they need him after signing Novak?), and, of course, Adidas, which is the most likely candidate, because they have the finances and the know-how, and is a matter of marketing strategies, when it comes to signing him.

Still, it is odd that Nike isn't selling Federer’s shoes, so that must mean something.

:cool:
 
#6
My bet is he stays with Nike. They have the rights to his logo and familiarity in working with each other. If I was Fed's agent, I am using the Uniqlo move for leverage and securing Nike for shoes with a better-paying and long-term contract.
 
#7
My gut says Nike also, but I never saw him leaving either. I don't think they're selling them until they secure a contract.
 
#9
No way he changes from Nike at this late in the game. Just not worth it to him for a few extra mil. He can make that in a day playing an Exo or holding up some product.

Only way I can see him changing is to stick it to Nike for not letting him have his logo.
 
#10
My bet is he stays with Nike. They have the rights to his logo and familiarity in working with each other. If I was Fed's agent, I am using the Uniqlo move for leverage and securing Nike for shoes with a better-paying and long-term contract.
You are assuming that Nike wants to have him on their roster, even if only for a shoe contract. My sources tell me that there is a new Nike Tennis management team and that they have a differing plan moving forward, vs. the previous Nike Tennis team. If his agent were able to use the Uniqlo move as leverage, that would assume an attitude at Nike Tennis that would not have allowed Roger to walk to begin with. I'm not saying that RF would not be a great brand ambassador for Nike shoes (or any company for that matter). All I'm saying is that it has to be a fit for the specific vision of any potential company looking to sign him.
And they make these decisions from largely financial perspectives, rather than a fanboy perspective.
 
Last edited:
#12
You are assuming that Nike wants to have him on their roster, even if only for a shoe contract. My sources tell me that there is a new Nike Tennis management team and that they have a differing plan moving forward, vs. the previous Nike Tennis team. If his agent were able to use the Uniqlo move as leverage, that would assume an attitude at Nike Tennis that would not have allowed Roger to walk to begin with. I'm not saying that RF would not be a great brand ambassador for Nike shoes (or any company for that matter). All I'm saying is that it has to be a fit for the specific vision of any potential company looking to sign him.
And they make these decisions from largely financial perspectives, rather than a fanboy perspective.
Is there anyone else that brings in more money that Federer? Just look at the proliferation of the RF97 and all of his rackets. I'd be surprised to learn his gear isn't the number one seller.
 
#17
I'm still shocked he isn't wearing Nike apparel. It just doesn't feel the same watching him play in Uniqlo gear. It sometimes feels like there is an imposter out there on the court. Some athletes you just identify with a brand.
I agree. There's just something weird about it. It's like you're watching a bargain brand Federer, or a cheap knock-off version. I wonder if his opponents somehow feel it subconsciously too. Anderson, Millman, Coric, Zverev; probably not feeling much of an aura from him these days.
 
#18
I don't know though, I mean even Tiger and Nike stayed together despite that incident and how badly his game and his injuries were.
For all we know, Nike might have traded his loyalty for a support in a difficult situation.

It is not uncommon that athletes feel grateful to their sponsors when they were supporting them when they were down.

There was no such a thing in Federer’s case.

Really, the speculations like the above, that Federer’s aura is generated by the brand he wears...... do people really believe in such things?

The athletes are walking billboards.

They have no other connection to their sponsors, regardless of what even the athletes and companies themselves say.

Actually, the fact that Nike didn't match the offer shows that pretty clearly.

:cool:
 
#19
Really, the speculations like the above, that Federer’s aura is generated by the brand he wears...... do people really believe in such things?
:cool:
It's the psychology of clothing. Some brands convey confidence and energy, like Nike. Muted colours are conservative and less threatening. Like pale pink. And contrasting colours can also send a certain message. The higher the degree of contrast such as wearing ultra vivid hot orange shoes and white shirt (AO 2017 Nike kit) can create a very powerful image. It's subconscious but it's very real. People have a certain mental imagine of Uniqlo, and it's not that of a strong powerful athlete. They are not even known for sports at all. They are known as cheap conservative/casual that you buy in a mall for your Dad. Ask any advertising exec or psychologist; this stuff matters when it comes to auras.
 
#20
It's the psychology of clothing. Some brands convey confidence and energy, like Nike. Muted colours are conservative and less threatening. Like pale pink. And contrasting colours can also send a certain message. The higher the degree of contrast such as wearing ultra vivid hot orange shoes and white shirt (AO 2017 Nike kit) can create a very powerful image. It's subconscious but it's very real. People have a certain mental imagine of Uniqlo, and it's not that of a strong powerful athlete. They are not even known for sports at all. They are known as cheap conservative/casual that you buy in a mall for your Dad. Ask any advertising exec or psychologist; this stuff matters when it comes to auras.
Diadora must be the most powerful image-maker in tennis, together with Hydrogen and H&M.

Not.

:cool:
 
#21
I'm still shocked he isn't wearing Nike apparel. It just doesn't feel the same watching him play in Uniqlo gear. It sometimes feels like there is an imposter out there on the court. Some athletes you just identify with a brand.
This is how I felt when Agassi started wearing Adidas. It just didn't feel the same. And I feel exactly like this watching Fed wear Uniqlo, not that there's anything wrong with the brand. Just doesn't feel the same. But, with that being said, I still love Fed.
 
#22
It's the psychology of clothing. Some brands convey confidence and energy, like Nike. Muted colours are conservative and less threatening. Like pale pink. And contrasting colours can also send a certain message. The higher the degree of contrast such as wearing ultra vivid hot orange shoes and white shirt (AO 2017 Nike kit) can create a very powerful image. It's subconscious but it's very real. People have a certain mental imagine of Uniqlo, and it's not that of a strong powerful athlete. They are not even known for sports at all. They are known as cheap conservative/casual that you buy in a mall for your Dad. Ask any advertising exec or psychologist; this stuff matters when it comes to auras.
I'm sorry but this is one of the silliest things I've read on this forum.. I would be willing to bet you'd have a hard time finding even one touring pro, especially in the top 100, say anything about their opponents clothing affecting the aura they exert.
 
#24
Diadora must be the most powerful image-maker in tennis, together with Hydrogen and H&M.

Not.

:cool:
Think about the images of those brands. What do they make you think of. H&M? They are by far the biggest of the three brands you mentioned. The brand has to at least be big to give a sense of dominance. Have you ever been into an H&M store? Does "athletic" spring to mind? Didn't think so.

However, go into a Nike Town. It reeks of athletic confidence and energy. They've tried very hard to make it that way. Then you add in a dominant athlete like a Michael Jordan or a Federer and the mix is very powerful.
 
#25
I'm sorry but this is one of the silliest things I've read on this forum.. I would be willing to bet you'd have a hard time finding even one touring pro, especially in the top 100, say anything about their opponents clothing affecting the aura they exert.
Really. OMG, I can't believe you guys aren't aware of this stuff. But then I guess like most touring pros, it's not your job to know that. It's subconscious.
 
#26
Think about the images of those brands. What do they make you think of. H&M? They are by far the biggest of the three brands you mentioned. The brand has to at least be big to give a sense of dominance. Have you ever been into an H&M store? Does "athletic" spring to mind? Didn't think so.

However, go into a Nike Town. It reeks of athletic confidence and energy. They've tried very hard to make it that way. Then you add in a dominant athlete like a Michael Jordan or a Federer and the mix is very powerful.
You said that they rely on the psychology of the image to produce the aura.

I gave you an example with companies that are beating Nike in that game, to which you respond with something completely different.

OK, so, now it is the industry that the company is most developed in?

But that stipulates that the opponents of the Nike athletes are versed in the differences between the companies on a corporate level, which I find hard to believe.

You, however, are getting closer to something I agree with, and that is that the opponents are intimidated by the relentless winning some of these athletes are capable of.

Noone was scared of or respected Bernard "the tank engine" Tomic, regardless of the fact that he was wearing Nike.

Everyone respected Djokovic, regardless of the fact that he was wearing Sergio Tacchini, when he was steamrolling his opponents.

:cool:
 
#27
For all we know, Nike might have traded his loyalty for a support in a difficult situation.

It is not uncommon that athletes feel grateful to their sponsors when they were supporting them when they were down.

There was no such a thing in Federer’s case.

Really, the speculations like the above, that Federer’s aura is generated by the brand he wears...... do people really believe in such things?

The athletes are walking billboards.

They have no other connection to their sponsors, regardless of what even the athletes and companies themselves say.

Actually, the fact that Nike didn't match the offer shows that pretty clearly.

:cool:
I disagree. Because like I said, there are some players you just identify with certain brands.

I can't imagine Fed playing with anything other than a Wilson racket and the same for Rafa, except with Babolat.

Can you imagine the NFL using another ball besides Wilson? The NBA with Spalding? MLB with Rawlings?
 
#28
[
You said that they rely on the psychology of the image to produce the aura.

I gave you an example with companies that are beating Nike in that game, to which you respond with something completely different.

OK, so, now it is the industry that the company is most developed in?

But that stipulates that the opponents of the Nike athletes are versed in the differences between the companies on a corporate level, which I find hard to believe.

You, however, are getting closer to something I agree with, and that is that the opponents are intimidated by the relentless winning some of these athletes are capable of.

Noone was scared of or respected Bernard "the tank engine" Tomic, regardless of the fact that he was wearing Nike.

Everyone respected Djokovic, regardless of the fact that he was wearing Sergio Tacchini, when he was steamrolling his opponents.

:cool:
Plenty of us thought some (many) of those outfits were hideous. The level of his game in 2011 was outrageous, but so were many of his outfits. The difference is that Novak never had much brand loyalty with regards to apparel companies to begin with. He's played for Adidas, Sergio Tachinni, Uniqlo, and now Lacoste. He switched from Wilson to Head back years ago, and now he's wearing Asics shoes when he used to wear Addias for years. Point being that when a player makes that many changes, it's hard to identify them with a specific brand.
 
#29
I'm sorry but this is one of the silliest things I've read on this forum.. I would be willing to bet you'd have a hard time finding even one touring pro, especially in the top 100, say anything about their opponents clothing affecting the aura they exert.
He's not entirely wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=aur...hrome..69i57.597j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Piggyback off what @Rhino said; Tell me the atmosphere and tone is the same when you go into a Nike store as opposed to Men's Wearhouse...
 
#31
Shoes is very different from apparels because of “fit” issue. Federer has strong preference for fit of his shoes in my opinion. If he wants new shoe company, he needs to test many custom shoes before making his decision but we have not seen any other shoes except Nike. Also I don’t think he will sign a contract before he sees and tests shoes.
I will be very surprised if fed changes Nike shoes and I am not sure that relationships between fed (agent) and Nike get better nowadays. Obviously Nike might not want to overpay and Fed (agent) wants more money plus RF logo... very hard to settle these issues from both sides.
 
#32
I disagree. Because like I said, there are some players you just identify with certain brands.

I can't imagine Fed playing with anything other than a Wilson racket and the same for Rafa, except with Babolat.

Can you imagine the NFL using another ball besides Wilson? The NBA with Spalding? MLB with Rawlings?
What you say shows that the marketing strategies of the companies (in this case Nike's) work.

They want you to believe that Federer really likes Nike and their products, when in reality there are better products than Nike even for tennis, so the only link establishing the "liking" are the money both sides agreed on.

There is no loyalty based on liking. There is loyalty based on fulfilling contractual obligations, and if those say that the athlete also has to promote the positive image of the company, then you will see the athlete praising their products, doing goofy commercials and wearing their stuff off-court, despite of there being a gazillion other better options out there.

You identify an athlete with that brand, because he wore it long enough and won enough to remember him.

Who remembers that MJ was actually an Adidas fan?

Noone, because Nike paid him handsomely and long enough throughout his career to wear their apparel and more importantly, kicks, and then gave him a brand, so that that association stays forever.

:cool:
 
#33
[


Plenty of us thought some (many) of those outfits were hideous. The level of his game in 2011 was outrageous, but so were many of his outfits. The difference is that Novak never had much brand loyalty with regards to apparel companies to begin with. He's played for Adidas, Sergio Tachinni, Uniqlo, and now Lacoste. He switched from Wilson to Head back years ago, and now he's wearing Asics shoes when he used to wear Addias for years. Point being that when a player makes that many changes, it's hard to identify them with a specific brand.
You are talking about aesthetics, but the conversation is about aura, so, no matter how ugly those outfits are to you, Djokovic's aura went through the roof, and I don't think that wearing any other outfit would have made any difference one way or the other.

And see how short the memory of the people is: Djokovic didn't left ST because he didn't like their apparel/thought that there is better apparel elsewhere. He left them because they couldn't pay him.

Same will happen with Lacoste, if they cannot/don't want to pay him.

I am amused by the myriad of people that are siding with a corporation and talk about loyalty towards it, when it is clear that the same corporation literally screwed him twice in that department: once with his first big contract, and twice by refusing to match an offer, or at least offer him legacy (they did a lousy job with his RF brand, outside of their co-branded products, and even with them, were giving him mostly bland outfits).

Oh, and, to top it off, now they are creating problems for him to take his logo back.

How is that for "loyalty"?

:cool:
 
#35
You are talking about aesthetics, but the conversation is about aura, so, no matter how ugly those outfits are to you, Djokovic's aura went through the roof, and I don't think that wearing any other outfit would have made any difference one way or the other.

And see how short the memory of the people is: Djokovic didn't left ST because he didn't like their apparel/thought that there is better apparel elsewhere. He left them because they couldn't pay him.

Same will happen with Lacoste, if they cannot/don't want to pay him.

I am amused by the myriad of people that are siding with a corporation and talk about loyalty towards it, when it is clear that the same corporation literally screwed him twice in that department: once with his first big contract, and twice by refusing to match an offer, or at least offer him legacy (they did a lousy job with his RF brand, outside of their co-branded products, and even with them, were giving him mostly bland outfits).

Oh, and, to top it off, now they are creating problems for him to take his logo back.

How is that for "loyalty"?

:cool:
Actually, the clothing you wear can send a very profound message in many cases. Certain colors send different messages as well. I mean I'm not debating how well a player plays in a certain outfit or saying that a player would play better if he was wearing a certain brand. All I'm saying is that Federer wearing Nike seemed to go together like peanut butter and jelly. Seeing him in Uniqlo or anything else just feels weird. He may go on to win a another grand slam or two, but he just doesn't look the same wearing the Uniqlo stuff.

As for the logo thing, that's something between Fed and Nike. The thing about logos are that you tend to profit off them. I feel like he and his team are sort of spinning the story that they're just initials, when that RF logo has sold so much Nike gear for many years. For Fed to walk away from Nike for more money, I can't say I blame Nike for not giving him a logo that they own and profit from. It's one of the things that he should have considered (and maybe did) when he left for Uniqlo.
 
#36
Actually, the clothing you wear can send a very profound message in many cases. Certain colors send different messages as well. I mean I'm not debating how well a player plays in a certain outfit or saying that a player would play better if he was wearing a certain brand. All I'm saying is that Federer wearing Nike seemed to go together like peanut butter and jelly. Seeing him in Uniqlo or anything else just feels weird. He may go on to win a another grand slam or two, but he just doesn't look the same wearing the Uniqlo stuff.

As for the logo thing, that's something between Fed and Nike. The thing about logos are that you tend to profit off them. I feel like he and his team are sort of spinning the story that they're just initials, when that RF logo has sold so much Nike gear for many years. For Fed to walk away from Nike for more money, I can't say I blame Nike for not giving him a logo that they own and profit from. It's one of the things that he should have considered (and maybe did) when he left for Uniqlo.
Isn't it funny?

I looked into Federer’s outfits in the last couple of years, and I could swear that they are basically the same stuff as Uniqlo now, if you look at them for what they are:

1) signature piping/framing on both
2) mostly solid colours
3) lack of much detailing

That is when Nike didn't produce absolute atrocities, of course.

Yet, Federer and Nike go like "peanut butter and jelly", and Uniqlo and Federer look "odd".

I understand what is going on with the logo.

I am amused that the ongoing negotiations about it don't ring a bell to those claiming "loyalty", or rather that it seems that some people consider that a one-way street.

:cool:
 
#37
Isn't it funny?

I looked into Federer’s outfits in the last couple of years, and I could swear that they are basically the same stuff as Uniqlo now, if you look at them for what they are:

1) signature piping/framing on both
2) mostly solid colours
3) lack of much detailing

That is when Nike didn't produce absolute atrocities, of course.

Yet, Federer and Nike go like "peanut butter and jelly", and Uniqlo and Federer look "odd".

I understand what is going on with the logo.

I am amused that the ongoing negotiations about it don't ring a bell to those claiming "loyalty", or rather that it seems that some people consider that a one-way street.

:cool:

He's rocked the swoosh since before I started watching tennis... I'm only speaking from my opinion. Obviously you have yours and it's different from mine. That doesn't mean either of us are wrong. It's our perception of what we see.

Although, I will say that if you look at some of Fed's Wimbledon outfits, like from 2005-2007, I seriously doubt Uniqlo would ever do anything like that for him.
 
#39
He's rocked the swoosh since before I started watching tennis... I'm only speaking from my opinion. Obviously you have yours and it's different from mine. That doesn't mean either of us are wrong. It's our perception of what we see.

Although, I will say that if you look at some of Fed's Wimbledon outfits, like from 2005-2007, I seriously doubt Uniqlo would ever do anything like that for him.
Nice to see a balanced reply here instead of the usual internet one-upmanship.

Nike spent 4 or 5 decades successfully cultivating an image of energy and athleticism, whereas Uniqlo at this point will remain synonymous with cheap mall-wear for Dads for quite some time I would think.
There is a saying that if you’re ever intimidated by someone, just imagine them sitting on a toilet.
 
#40
Nice to see a balanced reply here instead of the usual internet one-upmanship.

Nike spent 4 or 5 decades successfully cultivating an image of energy and athleticism, whereas Uniqlo at this point will remain synonymous with cheap mall-wear for Dads for quite some time I would think.
There is a saying that if you’re ever intimidated by someone, just imagine them sitting on a toilet.
"Come on Rhino, you're acting crazy out there, man!" :-D


I do agree with you about Uniqlo though. They are probably a force to be reckoned with in Asian countries, particularly Japan, but elsewhere in the world (United State and Europe especially) they just don't have that same cachet as Nike or Adidas.
 
#47
This is rather fanciful. For Nike Federer was a tennis player. For Uniqlo Federer is a lifestyle brand.

Uniqlo paid more for Federer because he has long-term value selling fashion beyond his playing days.


It is even worse, because Agassi wasn't a possible "greatest of all time"candidate and a player with spotless resume.

Federer is.

Perhaps Nike was hedging its bets in case someone surpasses Federer in his claim, but either way, they really tried to screw him up.

Good that Uniqlo came along at the right time.

:cool:
 
#48
This is rather fanciful. For Nike Federer was a tennis player. For Uniqlo Federer is a lifestyle brand.

Uniqlo paid more for Federer because he has long-term value selling fashion beyond his playing days.
I was commenting in the light of the talk about loyalty and all that jazz.

Either people accept that it is all business (which it is), or considerations of who owes whom what should go both ways, in which case the topic of Federer’s status will inevitably come up.

:cool:
 
#50
Back to the topic of shoes, my guess is that part of why he's still wearing Nike is to generate good will in hopes of an eventual deal that let's him take ownership of RF logo.
Yeah, nah. The only way goodwill goes in this situation is Nike begging/paying him to not go elsewhere. He is one man - the most powerful brand in the history of tennis - and there are tons of shoe companies, any of which would pick Federer up in a heartbeat and launch a signature version for him.
 
Top