FEDERER WILL NEVER SIGN WITH UNIQLO!!!

I

ik_ben_groot

Guest
Not watching the match, but is the Fed camp wearing anything Nike?
 
H&M are Uniqlo's direct competition.

They are big in Europe.

Uniqlo is Japan's version of Zara, H&M. Low cost casual clothing.

We buy a lot of H&M for the kids.......as they tend to grow out their clothes. One season and it's gone.
I totally get that but the context of his post was a bit confusing.

BR
 

Ante1899

New User
Wow! Triggered?

We can agree to disagree. Yes, when you leave a company that you’ve been with for 20 years for more money, one that isn’t interested in tennis, I’m more than justified to see that as greedy. If you don’t, that’s fine. His charity work is nice of course.

PS - he pulled the same stuff with the Basel tournament director. ‘Pay me what I think I’m worth or rlse’. They caved in; Nike didn’t.
Now, I get your point and to be honest, I also wished he would have stayed with Nike. But it's more or less the same with all these sports superstars. They built a life style that to maintain even after the end of your sports career is costly (to say the least). They need a strong and steady cash flow to keep it up. Do I like that (this whole development in general)? No, not at all. But that's how the business is. I don't blame Fed and I don't see him differently. I always liked him as a player and person (as much as one can tell from his interviews). All in all, I think only very few people in his shoes would have turned down that deal. If UNIQLO offers they same to Rafa at the end of the year, than you will certainly see the two most iconic players of the last decade in gear from a non-sports comany ...
 

joekapa

Legend
Now, I get your point and to be honest, I also wished he would have stayed with Nike. But it's more or less the same with all these sports superstars. They built a life style that to maintain even after the end of your sports career is costly (to say the least). They need a strong and steady cash flow to keep it up. Do I like that (this whole development in general)? No, not at all. But that's how the business is. I don't blame Fed and I don't see him differently. I always liked him as a player and person (as much as one can tell from his interviews). All in all, I think only very few people in his shoes would have turned down that deal. If UNIQLO offers they same to Rafa at the end of the year, than you will certainly see the two most iconic players of the last decade in gear from a non-sports comany ...
Lacoste has Novak........you seem to forget.

Nadal will not be leaving Nike......be sure of it. He is nowhere near as high maintanance as Federer.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Wow! Triggered?

We can agree to disagree. Yes, when you leave a company that you’ve been with for 20 years for more money, one that isn’t interested in tennis, I’m more than justified to see that as greedy. If you don’t, that’s fine. His charity work is nice of course.

PS - he pulled the same stuff with the Basel tournament director. ‘Pay me what I think I’m worth or rlse’. They caved in; Nike didn’t.
I’m not sure greedy is the right word for deals regarding sponsorship. A sponsorship is purely a business deal. It would be pretty silly for any athlete to just take whatever they were offered by a company and not push for more or test the market for what they could get.

Really, there’s a better case to be made that Nike was greedy. They’re a multi billion dollar company for whom Roger has created millions of dollars in revenue and they won’t match the offer of a comparitvely small company.
 

natalia

Hall of Fame
Honest question : WHY do you care? Why is important for you what mark exactly is wearing someone?
What the change of an outfit sponsor changes in your life?
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I’m not sure greedy is the right word for deals regarding sponsorship. A sponsorship is purely a business deal. It would be pretty silly for any athlete to just take whatever they were offered by a company and not push for more or test the market for what they could get.

Really, there’s a better case to be made that Nike was greedy. They’re a multi billion dollar company for whom Roger has created millions of dollars in revenue and they won’t match the offer of a comparitvely small company.
Sorry, plenty of athletes take less in both salary (Brady and KD come immediately to mind - I could probably come up w many more) as a sign of loyalty. So I’ll agree to disagree w you too. Endorsement deals are usually private so we’ll probably never know.
 

joekapa

Legend
I’m not sure greedy is the right word for deals regarding sponsorship. A sponsorship is purely a business deal. It would be pretty silly for any athlete to just take whatever they were offered by a company and not push for more or test the market for what they could get.

Really, there’s a better case to be made that Nike was greedy. They’re a multi billion dollar company for whom Roger has created millions of dollars in revenue and they won’t match the offer of a comparitvely small company.
Well maybe, just maybe.......Federer was not selling as much as you think he was.
Same as Nadal, when there was talk of him going to Joma (I think he should have, with stock options).
 

Ante1899

New User
Lacoste has Novak........you seem to forget.

Nadal will not be leaving Nike......be sure of it. He is nowhere near as high maintanance as Federer.
@Rafa - True, but that's because he won't be offered such a contract. He is marketing-wise not in the same league as Fed. But if for instance Adidas offers twice as much as Nike, then I won't be surprised to see him with 3 stripes on his shoulders. It's not about loyality, it's just business. They probably see their sponsors as some kind of - though to some extent they cherry-pick - employer that pays them. That's why they "need" to attend one or the other event, do some photos/video, and of course wear their stuff. I doubt that they feel that they owe their sponsors loyality as they probably see it that way that they "work" for their money. So if another "employer" offers more than the current, switch ...

PS: Though it's a worn-out phrase, but that's what happens every day. You would do the same job at another company if they pay you more. It's just the scale that is very different. How often do you think the discussions go on in football when one player leaves for another club. I am on a football forum as well and even though it happens every summer/winter, the discussion goes on and on. This is no different.

PPS: One more thing to add on Rafa: What do you think will his manager do when they start re-negotiating his next contract? He will point to what UNIQLO pays Fed and insist that Rafa is more or less in the same league and that they want more than before. That said, this is nothing new for the likes of Nike, Adidas etc.
 
Last edited:

EllieK

Professional
STOP THE NONSENSE!!!

Does anyone here really think he'll sign with them?! I'm willing to bet my life savings that he will not. Hell, I'll even throw in a kidney. Not sure what I'd do with an extra kidney though.
Say bye bye to your kidney
 

joekapa

Legend
@Rafa - True, but that's because he won't be offered such a contract. He is marketing-wise not in the same league as Fed. But if for instance Adidas offers twice as much as Nike, then I won't be surprised to see him with 3 stripes on his shoulders. It's not about loyality, it's just business. They probably see their sponsors as some kind of - though to some extent they cherry-pick - employer that pays them. That's why they "need" to attend one or the other event, do some photos/video, and of course wear their stuff. I doubt that they feel that they owe their sponsors loyality as they probably see it that way that they "work" for their money. So if another "employer" offers more than the current, switch ...

PS: Though it's a worn-out phrase, but that's what happens every day. You would do the same job at another company if they pay you more. It's just the scale that is very different. How often do you think the discussions go on in football when one player leaves for another club. I am on a football forum as well and even though it happens every summer/winter, the discussion goes on and on. This is no different.
You seem to forget one thing.

Rafa has his academies to think about. Any sponsorship of him, will de-facto mean money pumped into his academies. Whether that be balls, equipment or apparel.

He already has Tommy Hillfinger.

He will certainly need a sports apparel company to shell out some money. Whether that be Nike, or Joma for that matter.

So I would bet that Rafa would take less money, in the future, if it means that it would also mean sponsoring his tennis academies (and it's rising stars).

Rafa, imho, has been much smarter than Federer when it comes to sponsorship. For one main reason. He hasn't marketed to the "up-market" jet set.
 

Ante1899

New User
@joekapa - Don't know if he is really smarter than Fed business wise. I mean he got him for the opening of his academy, and I think that (besides their respect for each other) he did that because he knew Fed would creater even more media attention. It's business in the end. I agree that Rafa probably won't sign with a non-sports brand. I just say, that if Adidas offers more then I think he will switch. That said, I doubt that Nike wants to lose Rafa as well and that's why they will reach an agreement. But then, it was not a big deal when Rafa switched from Armani to Hilfiger. It's fair to say that Fed's switch is a new dimension but basically no different to what has happened million times before. But I agree once more, at least for the tennis world this is a shocker and I am sure that some people in Portland are currently not on good terms with Fed (but then again, others are probably lined up to take the shoe deal) ...

So, smarter? I don't think so. It's just different they have different objectives ...
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Sorry, plenty of athletes take less in both salary (Brady and KD come immediately to mind - I could probably come up w many more) as a sign of loyalty. So I’ll agree to disagree w you too. Endorsement deals are usually private so we’ll probably never know.
I guess I just don’t see why you would side with the multi-billion dollar company over the athletes. I know Fed is so rich it seems like overkill to try to get more, but Nike is a huge corporation.

I think Nike should have offered him a lifetime deal that was less money per year. I think if they just offered to continue his 7 mil/year indefinitely he would have taken it. That would have been about a 350 million dollar deal. Not crazy considering LeBron got a lifetime deal worth a billion.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Well maybe, just maybe.......Federer was not selling as much as you think he was.
Same as Nadal, when there was talk of him going to Joma (I think he should have, with stock options).
I don’t really have an idea of how much he was selling. My point is just that it makes more sense to call the multi-billion dollar corporation greedy for choosing not to pay him than to call the athlete greedy for trying to get the best deal he can.

I wouldn’t really call either greedy though. Both sides had to act in what they believed was their best interest.
 

joekapa

Legend
I don’t really have an idea of how much he was selling. My point is just that it makes more sense to call the multi-billion dollar corporation greedy for choosing not to pay him than to call the athlete greedy for trying to get the best deal he can.

I wouldn’t really call either greedy though. Both sides had to act in what they believed was their best interest.
The problem was tjhat Feder thought he had the selling power of Ronaldo, and that tennis was a huge sport, when it ain't.

That was the problem.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
The problem was tjhat Feder thought he had the selling power of Ronaldo, and that tennis was a huge sport, when it ain't.

That was the problem.
Do you have the numbers on this? Kind of seems like you’re just speculating. Also seems a little off topic. I was pointing out how it’s odd that people tend to view an individual as greedy rather than a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Seems fine in the end. Nike is not paying more than they want and Federer got a better deal than Nike would offer.
 

joekapa

Legend
Do you have the numbers on this? Kind of seems like you’re just speculating. Also seems a little off topic. I was pointing out how it’s odd that people tend to view an individual as greedy rather than a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Seems fine in the end. Nike is not paying more than they want and Federer got a better deal than Nike would offer.
It's called common sense. I mentioned earlier, that Fed, Nadal and Djokovic have approx 5m followers on their instagram account.

Messi, and Ronaldo both have 100m on average.

Who are more popular ?

Walk into a sports store (in Europe)......how much tennis apparel do you see compared to soccer, and basketball ?

Tennis is popular, but still can be considered a "niche" sport.

Federer overplayed his hand, because the market was not big enough for him to sell his line ......

If you ever see a soccer fan wearing a Federer/Rafa/Novak top in the stands of Bernabeu......come and tell me, or send me a screen shot.

Also, as I said earlier. Federer painted himself into a corner, marketing wise. He doesn't appeal to the common man. He went for high profile brands, which have paid off......but have no future.

I will also say this. He has no real personality. Nothing. Zilch. No glimpse to who the "real" Roger Federer is. He has been carefully concocted by his publicists. That for me was a big no, no. He is no movie star (doesn't have the looks of one anyway), but a sports star. Sports stars NEED to be more authentic. Federer isn't.
 

Yoneyama

Hall of Fame
Uniqlo has a presence here in Australia too. Their clothes are miles ahead of Nike in terms of value for money.

I think it is just the American cohort who seem to not know what it is... or you guys do, and are just in denial about it lol.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Uniqlo has a presence here in Australia too. Their clothes are miles ahead of Nike in terms of value for money.

I think it is just the American cohort who seem to not know what it is... or you guys do, and are just in denial about it lol.
Their stores have started to spring up. I go to Asia so I’ve known about them for a while.

Were you able to get every shirt/shorts that Nishikori or Djokovic wore? I’ve never had much luck in Asia - they usually have 1 or 2 of the plain shirts in a tiny area. I’ll be better with this if Uniqlo is actually going to go all in for tennis - competition is a good thing.
 

Phantasm

Semi-Pro
Their stores have started to spring up. I go to Asia so I’ve known about them for a while.

Were you able to get every shirt/shorts that Nishikori or Djokovic wore? I’ve never had much luck in Asia - they usually have 1 or 2 of the plain shirts in a tiny area. I’ll be better with this if Uniqlo is actually going to go all in for tennis - competition is a good thing.
i've been able to get djokovic and nishikori gear. It's never too heavily advertised though I think. Uniqlo has never hard pushed any of their athlete's apparel, even the Adam Scott stuff. They strictly want to keep their image of a lifewear brand and not a sports brand. I think it really is a strong move towards putting themselves out there for 2020 Tokyo Olympics with having the country boy and one of the greats rocking Uniqlo gear in front of the world stage.
 

Frisbeepop

New User
What does Berdych’s H&M line have to do with uniqlo. Am I missing something?

BR
H and M are a fashion brand with minimal athlete legacy. Signs an ATP player [Berdych]. Has reasonable availability for a couple of seasons. Done for brand awareness rather than a push into tennis.

Uniqlo are a fashion brand with minimal athlete legacy. Signs a big ATP player [Djokovic]. Has poor availability for a couple of seasons. Done for brand awareness rather than a push into tennis.

Uniqlo signs Federer for megabucks over Nike. Is Uniqlo availability going to improve? Is it a push into tennis or for brand awareness? Think it’s relevant. H and M had plenty in store across UK for a lesser name in Berdych, can’t say the same for Uniqlo Djokovic and Nishikori clothing.

You could bring Under Armour into the conversation as they took on Murray and Sloane Stephens then barely released or didnt release the clothing/shoes they wore. Only now seems to be releasing ladies tennis clothing without a big name attached.

Shows how the player ranges aren’t that important to the brands.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
On a side note, even if Uniqlo is not that interested in becoming a tennis clothing supplier, how do they NOT have Fed's exact outfit for sale online right now? Seems like the obvious marketing strategy.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Really, there’s a better case to be made that Nike was greedy. They’re a multi billion dollar company for whom Roger has created millions of dollars in revenue and they won’t match the offer of a comparitvely small company.
Uniqlo is hardly small; Nike was pragmatic - they went as high as they could justify (note: neith @joekapa or I ever said Nike is a perfect company - we’re just defending them for making the right call in this case). Blindly matching outrageous bids is a fools errand. Nike knows what Fed’s ability to move product is - at least when he’s playing. And Fed obviously chased the money; Uniqlo has no technology that is going to put Fed in better gear.
 

Badabing888

Hall of Fame
STOP THE NONSENSE!!!

Does anyone here really think he'll sign with them?! I'm willing to bet my life savings that he will not. Hell, I'll even throw in a kidney. Not sure what I'd do with an extra kidney though.
I hope for your sake your life saving is only $1? And as for your kidney well if you’re donating it there are a lot of peeps out there on dialysis that will be happy to take it as long as it’s healthy.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
I hope for your sake your life saving is only $1? And as for your kidney well if you’re donating it there are a lot of peeps out there on dialysis that will be happy to take it as long as it’s healthy.
If OP has like tons of student loans his life savings could be negative, so he maybe made money. Shame about the kidney.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Uniqlo is hardly small; Nike was pragmatic - they went as high as they could justify (note: neith @joekapa or I ever said Nike is a perfect company - we’re just defending them for making the right call in this case). Blindly matching outrageous bids is a fools errand. Nike knows what Fed’s ability to move product is - at least when he’s playing. And Fed obviously chased the money; Uniqlo has no technology that is going to put Fed in better gear.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. Nike has to do what is best financially. I just don't think it's wrong for Fed to do the same.
 

Yoneyama

Hall of Fame
Their stores have started to spring up. I go to Asia so I’ve known about them for a while.

Were you able to get every shirt/shorts that Nishikori or Djokovic wore? I’ve never had much luck in Asia - they usually have 1 or 2 of the plain shirts in a tiny area. I’ll be better with this if Uniqlo is actually going to go all in for tennis - competition is a good thing.

I am from Newcastle, no Uniqlo here but a couple hours away in Sydney there is. I can't remember exactly if there was Nishi or Djoko stuff there but I do recall those forest green Nishi polos being on the au website last year, last time I went was in 2015. But there Polos and casual jackets are excellent and well priced. Much better than H&M which is it's main competitor here.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Sorry, plenty of athletes take less in both salary (Brady and KD come immediately to mind - I could probably come up w many more) as a sign of loyalty. So I’ll agree to disagree w you too. Endorsement deals are usually private so we’ll probably never know.
Affiliations with a sports team/city are different to an endorsed brand. Brady/KD etc did so to win the biggest prizes by having the team, coaching team or prospects around them. A clothing sponsorship is neither here nor there for any properly represented athlete - as Federer certainly is. It is business - short term or long term considerations obviously apply depending on the deal but it's us, not the athletes, who care what they wear when it is their business to make hay while they have something valuable to sell to a brand.
 

onehandbh

Legend
STOP THE NONSENSE!!!

Does anyone here really think he'll sign with them?! I'm willing to bet my life savings that he will not. Hell, I'll even throw in a kidney. Not sure what I'd do with an extra kidney though.
Please msg me for banking wire transfer information.
 

martini1

Hall of Fame
Uniqlo was very ineffective when they had Djokovic. Very little money was spent on marketing and the shirts were often too generic. In the beginning the quantity they produced was also extremely low (were they trying hunger marketing?). It was a total waste on the deal. I hope they would design something cool with the Fed line. And yes, at least I think there will not be $90+ tennis shirts anymore.
 

flanker2000fr

Professional
STOP THE NONSENSE!!!

Does anyone here really think he'll sign with them?! I'm willing to bet my life savings that he will not. Hell, I'll even throw in a kidney. Not sure what I'd do with an extra kidney though.
On the flipside, it is perfectly possible to live a normal life with just one kidney.
 

joekapa

Legend
Uniqlo was very ineffective when they had Djokovic. Very little money was spent on marketing and the shirts were often too generic. In the beginning the quantity they produced was also extremely low (were they trying hunger marketing?). It was a total waste on the deal. I hope they would design something cool with the Fed line. And yes, at least I think there will not be $90+ tennis shirts anymore.
You can forget about them pushing a "Federer line". Federer's stuff will have similar distribution to what Novak, and Nishi have.

He is a "Brand Ambassador". What that entails is some product development, especially in casual wear, and a lot of advertising work. Their business is casual wear......not sportswear......
 
Top