Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by Carsomyr, Aug 5, 2017.
These legacy type marketing arrangements and potential contracts are interesting.......
There is a basketball parallel even staying within Nike as an example but Federer shouldn't consider himself in the same position of negotiating leverage as Jordan or Lebron were in sorting out their contracts.
No doubt Godsick has it all in hand as he is one of the most brilliant sports marketing minds ever.
There are examples of tennis players forging their own very unique and completely separate companies (not just sub-brands) after retiring. Federer may or may not be interested in doing that.
The biggest concern for Nike would be losing Federer as a brand asset.
Federer is miles ahead of James in terms of global appeal with the 25+ affluent market. It's not even a close comparison.
Not sure how he went from sporting agent to "one of the most brilliant sports marketing minds ever" but he surely does have it in hand regardless. Any future deal we find out about they would have been working on for ages, perhaps even years, before we even heard of it. Nothing, I mean nothing, Federer does in relation to partnerships is rushed or done ad hoc. That is precisely why you have a manager like Godsick - to move away from operating like that.
I bet Fed ends up with Athletic DNA!!
They already have Rampras.
From what I can tell, Lebron and Jordan have significantly more value to Nike in every measurable capacity. Not to say Federer is not enormously valuable, but just that Lebron and Jordan are in another stratosphere. But I don't have a dog in the fight, so I would welcome correction. I would be fascinated to see the numbers pointing to Fed being way out in front in terms of overall value to Nike and as a tennis fan I would find it reassuring.
I must admit in the case of Godsick I never thought of him as just a sporting agent so I wouldn't be able to express the transformation to "one of the most brilliant sports marketing minds ever" in quite those terms. There have been some great essays and articles on him and the impression I get is we are dealing with a certifiable genius with a mind like a steel trap.
Greedy Fred should be able to finagle a few hundred mil off this one.
in terms of market share tennis isn't any smaller than basketball, revenue wise it is but in terms of fanbase and potential customers it definitely isn't.
Lebron: American male teens/youth and those globally aspiring to that sort of style and generally confined to fans of basketball and periphery (American urban music/streetwear culture etc). Lifespan of his bit-time marketability: 5 years, maybe a few more. There's always another Lebron in the pipeline (and he's still eons behind Jordan).
Federer: global appeal to men and women who have much higher than average disposable income by comparison to James. It's a much larger and more lucrative market all things considered. Lifespan of his marketability: odds are no-one comes along for 20+ years who both achieves as much as Federer and does it in the manner he has which is what makes his appeal so much greater than his peers (Nadal, Djokovic etc) and most well-known athletes in other sports.
Federer is the Jordan of this era - a unicorn of sports marketing. Lebron is more like Djokovic - a great achiever but not remotely in the same ballpark for long-term, broader appeal for whatever reason.
Godsick was an agent at IMG for 20-odd years iirc. Hard to know really how great a sports marketer he really is, he might just be a great representative of those he looks after. Agencies like IMG would surely engage marketing specialists like large companies generally do when they want to do something killer - I can't see why Team8 wouldn't likely do the same.
They don't have rampras anymore he is a mizuno guy
Who's their guy now? Brian Baker?
Sadly no! They need a new guy to push sales forward, getting Federer would be a start to making up for the loss of Rampras.
Fedr is already considered top 5 athlete ALL TIME. No way Nike loses him, lifetime contract.
rf should become a nascar and charge $10,000 per square inch of advertisement room on his match clothes. he'll be all sorts of crazy colors with ads from home depot, lowes, rolex, steak n shake, ramen noodles, alien gaming computers..but wimbledon wouldnt dare throw him out for not wearing white clotherers. they cant pass up the opportunity to televise his last slam win in 2018 wimbledon.
Nike should dump Federer now. They'll always have Tomic and Nick won't they ?
Like @Bobby Jr said, RF has a global appeal, where there is tons more money. LeBron has the US and small pockets around the larger metropolitan areas globally, but far less spending power than RF's fan base.
Nike would be moronic to let Roger go at the end of their agreement.
I say lifetime contract, personal label "RF".
The problem is that some are equating marketability with actual sales. Federer, Nadal and Serena are the tennis face of Nike; I get that.
Sadly, tennis sales are down. According to Forbes revenues in tennis decreased in 2016 8.1%. Think about it. As must as we all love tennis and tennis a global sport of a lifetime; it's still a small piece of the sports world pie.
If you need further proof: in Southern California, in the city of Torrance recently opened a Nike store. Torrance is in an area known as the South Bay which has produced some tennis players of note; Tracy Austin, Pete Sampras. Between them more than a few slams were won. The point of my long winded rant is this. That Nike store had one type a tennis shoe available and it was not a shoe that Fed, Rafa or Serena wears. And don't get me started on the clothing. Yet every kind of basketball shoe was available.
My point is that Federer is worth a ton of money, but if you think Nike is going to cut an 9 digit check to any tennis player is delusional. The sales does not support it and last checked Nike is a "For Profit" company.
Don't compare to Basketball and tennis.
Market share is much smaller than tennis. Even if Federer might have global appeal, Fed can't sell more shoes than Lebron shoes.
What about shirts, jackets, hats?
Yeah, they will. Phil Knight and Fed are pals. The prestige halo effect of a Nike/Fed relationship is huge. He's the tennis version of Jordan, and you don't lose those to anyone.
Same thing, Nike tennis sells more than any other tennis apparel companies but still revenue is very small.
You can read Nike annual or quarterly earning report. Tennis is not even on their list. It's just in other category.
Similar to Apple Watch. We knows exact number of iPhone, mac computer, iPad sales but Apple Watch is very small portion of apple's earning so it's in other category.
Jordan brand sells almost three times better than Nike Basketball division.
between basketball (Jordan and Nike basketball combine) and tennis...I guesstimate that Basketball is x20 higher revenue than tennis.
I already said earlier that I prefer to see RF brand but unfortunately tennis market is too small.
Paying millions dollars to fed for lifetime contract with his own brand, won't be able to make money for Nike.
Business is business. Nike can offer revenue sharing with fed's own brand but the number will be embarrassing comparing to Jordan brand.
If I were Nike, I will take different approaches to Federer.
Making premium lines and put him as a face of Nike tennis premium line division.
Really??? So Nike gave the worst contract in history for the fed's first contract because they were pals hahaha.
Still can't believe that Fed signed contract without anyone for his first Nike contract.
So I guess Roger is headed to the poor house because Air Jordans and Lebrons sell a ton?
Pals or not, unless Phil Knight is cutting a $100,000,000 from this person account, he can't justify to is board of directors paying Federer that kind of money. It's nothing personal, it's business.
It's a business decision to align yourself with the GOAT.
Business decision are based on outcomes. As great as Federer is, it's very doubtful that Nike has not sold $100M with a RF stuff. This is not a slight against Federer. How many times have you seen non-tennis players or fans where Federer stuff? You will see more people in Stan Smith adidas.
As I said above, the tennis market is not remotely the extend of Federer's marketability. You only need to look at the other brands Fed endorses already gobally to get an idea that his market appeal is vastly broader than Lebrons. It's not even remotely close. The basketball wear market is highly focused among younger people, Americans and those who aspire to or are inspired by the whole hip-hop/street crossover basketball has. That market is actually pretty limited in global market terms - we just see a lot of it because it overlaps a lot with the sort of people passionate about tennis/fashion/youth/music culture. As soon as you hit 30 years old most of the entire world would never again buy into that style except in a sort of clutching-to-youth ironic fashion sense. And while Jordan is the leader in that market, Lebron is nothing. All those people you see over 30 who have the odd pair of classic Jordans - they are not switching to Lebron ever.
That is where Federer differs. The whole affluent, high disposable income, post-30 global market he is as recognisable, revered and universally liked as much any person who ever played sport and lightyears ahead of the likes of Lebron. He's not going to sell them tennis shorts or zebra patterned polos - but he is going to have a close association with ranges which do appeal to that market the likes of which no basketballer can ever hope to match. He is from Switzerland, he's white (make no mistake how much that matters to a lot of the world - especially in parts of Asia), he's a wholesome family good-guy, he is the basically undisputed greatest tennis player ever (in marketing terms). Lebron is a legend but in marketing terms he's a medium-term proxy for the next Jordan having not come along yet.
The premium non-tennis lines Nike started doing with Fed while back are the litmus test here for Nike. They'll have been testing the water for a few years and his recent resurgence has given them ample scope to start his post-career relationship on a roll. They know he's got the whole golf-chic market tied up, the middle age warrior market tied up.. etc. Basketball might be front and centre in terms of it's place in youth/music culture influence on fashion but the market is way more limited than people seem to think.
All that said - for all we know post-tennis Fed could be an extremely private guy who isn't interested in doing lots of ongoing hawking of products. He could turn into a Jimmy Carter-like guy who shuns most of it to focus on family and his charitable work.
You're thinking far too narrow. The broader impact an endorsement like Federer's has on a brand goes well beyond selling specific items like his RF themed clothing/shoes. To account for the value and success of their relationship by looking at tennis revenue alone, or how much RF gear is sold missed the point of endorsement completely. If not for Jordan, Federer, Serena and all those other athletes over the years Nike wouldn't have sold nearly as many running shoes, warm-ups, glasses etc etc - most of which have no connection to the athlete's specific sport.
Successful businesses have a narrow view of their relationships and how it beneficial to both parties.
People hear about how much money LeBron James is making with Nike and think "Federer is more valuable than LeBron". What they don't hear or realize that the deal inked by Nike with LeBron has a lot to do with projected sales. And the money LeBron or Jordan make is tied to sales of their respective items. As much we may not want to believe this: Tennis is a niche sport. There was a great boom in the 70s, but it's been on the decline since the mid 80's despite Sampras, Agassi, William Sisters, Sharapova, Federer and Nadal. Any legitimate sport business publication will tell you this. But use your own eyes. Go to the remaining brick and mortar sporting goods store and look at the tennis shoe selection. Then go to Footlocker and ask for a pair Vapors.
Federer make ink a lifetime deal with Nike, but it won't be for the amount of money you think. And Federer is not dumb; he knows how much he can get and what is the tipping point. I sure he is not going to compare himself to LeBron or Jordan.
Side note: the most valuable shoe sporting the RF logo were a tennis shoe version of Air Jordan. Think about that.
No, they don't - not in cases like this. They think as broadly as they can and determine what will/wont work and where they hit a point of diluting the association. in that respect Federer has a vastly bigger global marketing appeal than Lebron (without restating what I said above.)
Not exactly. It also factors in the niche market value they have and the competitive environment. If you want an athlete in a closer, more competitive market, you have to be prepare to pay more regardless that it might come with a much lower return on investment compared to a comparable athlete in another sport (or market).
Yes but, by omission, you greatly oversell the size of the post-career basketball endorsement market for the sport per se and for a specific athlete like Lebron. Jordan doesn't factor into the comparison as he transcended the sport into pop culture 20 years ago. Lebron simply wont do the same.
Well, no. It'll be the shoes he wore at his last major or some other milestone event. If you're talking commercial terms then those Jordan/RF hybrids were the least commercial value for Nike since they made so few. It was only down to a matter of supply and hype that created that artificially high price. It is, in effect, an almost irrelevant example in terms of this - but to go with your example: how come I see people who looked like they've never watched basketball in their life wearing them? It wasn't an affinity for basketall - it was the hype and the easy capacity to spend the money demanded for them. That there is demonstrative of the power of Federer in a global, affluent, more mature (age-wise) market. And he (Godsick at least) knows it well.
Interesting posts. Don't you guys think that nike messed up by not creating a shoe that's easily recognizable as Roger's shoe? I'm not even going way back to Stan Smith's shoes (even though those were not even designed initially for him, ha.) I'm thinking something more like John McEnroe's Air Trainer 1, even though nike messed it up too by not sticking with it. Maybe adidas' Novak Pro will be a classic 20 years form now, who knows? I just don't see the Vapor 9.5 perceived as THE Federer shoe.
I agree with Roger having the broad-based appeal to 30+ more affluent types across the world. If anyone thinks Roger's next deal isn't going to have 8 zeros, they're deluding themselves.
Fed could start his own brand and forget about Nike
at worst he could go downhill like a lead balloon and
end up with Mizuno clothing & Golden Mizuno Racquet
but instead of that Mizuno vulture he could have a goat
Noticed the RF on Fed's shorts- is that the first time? Usually just on the shirt sleeve and jacket.
Yes. It started from Wimbledon.
I thought it's good idea around 2010 but as soon as I saw shorts in this year with RF logo on shorts but felt it's a little too much.
Separate names with a comma.