Most marketable American player: Sloane Stephens or Madison Keys

Elektra

Elektra

Professional
Once Serena Williams retires from tennis, the great American tennis hope will rest on Sloane Stephens or Madison Keys. They both got great games, weapons, amazing talent, and both well spoken young women?

Which young player do you think will be the most marketable American player once Serena Williams retires?

stephens_keys_kt51riia_yueip6x2.jpg
 
As of right now I'd have to say Madison Keys.

I think Sloane has just as much talent but her consistency has been painful lately where it seems Keys is starting to carve out some nice results here and there. Best of luck to both women though, hope they both do well!
 
I think Sloane because she's got personality. Keys on the other hand doesn't seem to entertain like the media would like her to.
 
The one who ends up having the best results. So it really depends.

Right now it looks like Keys is the more consistent player, and I think her game more easily translates to all different surfaces. Sloan is a better player on clay, but on grass her game seems limited. Keys has bigger weapons I think than Stephens. Also Stephens really needs a new coach and more consistency (like what Keys did when she started working with Lindsay Davenport).
 
captainbryce said:
The one who ends up having the best results. So it really depends.

Right now it looks like Keys is the more consistent player, and I think her game more easily translates to all different surfaces. Sloan is a better player on clay, but on grass her game seems limited. Keys has bigger weapons I think than Stephens. Also Stephens really needs a new coach and more consistency (like what Keys did when she started working with Lindsay Davenport).
Click to expand...

Question was for most marketable...

Sharapova doesn't have better results but makes more money than Serena.

Neither have the looks (sorry just the way that the world is)... But I think Sloan is more marketable.
 
Last edited:
Well part of being marketable is about the way you look unfortunately. It's not fair but it's true. So in that case I would say Sloane is more marketable because she is more conventially pretty. Both have good potential as players.
 
Elektra said:
Once Serena Williams retires from tennis, the great American tennis hope will rest on Sloane Stephens or Madison Keys. They both got great games, weapons, amazing talent, and both well spoken young women?
http://img.pandawhale.com/144923-South-Park-guys-I-think-wed-be-UE5I.jpeg.

Which young player do you think will be the most marketable American player once Serena Williams retires?

stephens_keys_kt51riia_yueip6x2.jpg
Click to expand...

Neither on account of the colour of their skin. That's the kind of world we live in. Sponsors would sooner market CiCi Bellis before either of these two.
 
Miss Stephens is often very cute, and seems to also have some personal charisma. Also considering the fact that the hype around her when she broke through was way beyond anything Keys has seen, I'd say Sloane has the most marketing potential. (I don't mind Keys at all either, for that matter)

Sloane+Stephens+Arrivals+Nickelodeon+Kids+DrIUQGAKrghl.jpg
 
Part of being marketable is being consistent and having above average results. CiCi Bellis is till a junior and she don't have the weapons to make impact on a game that is all about power. Madison and Sloane both have power and can hold there serve which is why they are the most talked about. Unless the women's game goes back to finnese game once Serena goes retirement, CiCi does not fit into the conversation right now.
 
Elektra said:
Part of being marketable is being consistent and having above average results. CiCi Bellis is till a junior and she don't have the weapons to make impact on a game that is all about power. Madison and Sloane both have power and can hold there serve which is why they are the most talked about. Unless the women's game goes back to finnese game once Serena goes retirement, CiCi does not fit into the conversation right now.
Click to expand...
You are correct, it is jumping the gun to lump a junior with the pros. Nevertheless, Cici Bellis is white which is a HUGE point in her favour in terms of marketability in the US. I guarantee if Cici Bellis goes pro and gets within the top 50 she will be leagues more marketable than Stephens or Keys and maybe even reaching Venus levels. The American media has been searching for their ethno-centric female player since Davenport retired.
 
Inanimate_object said:
You are correct, it is jumping the gun to lump a junior with the pros. Nevertheless, Cici Bellis is white which is a HUGE point in her favour in terms of marketability in the US. I guarantee if Cici Bellis goes pro and gets within the top 50 she will be leagues more marketable than Stephens or Keys and maybe even reaching Venus levels. The American media has been searching for their ethno-centric female player since Davenport retired.
Click to expand...
You are right, even when she had that huge win over Dominka Ciblukova last year, we could see Madison Ave ready to give this girl endorsement deals. Then Zarina Diyas shut down the hype in her second round match. If the game goes back to being finesse game, she can probably rivial Eugenie Bouchard in being the most marketable because they act more like tomboyish cute girls then sex objects. Through there appeal they will be appeal to a broader audience then Anna Kournikova and Maria Sharapova who were pushed for their looks and sex appeal. CiCi will get endorsements from brands like Pepsi but she can only make a dent if the game goes back to being more finesse driven and there is no Serena Williams.

Til then Sloane and Madison are the only ones who got the weapons and ability to hang with Serena Williams while she is still active.
 
eelhc said:
Question was for most marketable...
Click to expand...
I can read, thank you!

eelhc said:
Sharapova doesn't have better results but makes more money than Serena.
Click to expand...
Sharapova is white and blonde. She doesn't have to have talent to be successful. Black people do (especially in a sport like tennis)

eelhc said:
Neither have the looks (sorry just the way that the world is)... But I think Sloan is more marketable.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your superficial opinion. The reason the world is the way it is has largely to do with people like you.
 
Sysyphus said:
Miss Stephens is often very cute, and seems to also have some personal charisma. Also considering the fact that the hype around her when she broke through was way beyond anything Keys has seen, I'd say Sloane has the most marketing potential. (I don't mind Keys at all either, for that matter)

Sloane+Stephens+Arrivals+Nickelodeon+Kids+DrIUQGAKrghl.jpg
Click to expand...
Posting as a heterosexual woman, I can't help but think that Miss Stephens is one hell of a beautiful lady.
Pretty darn "marketable" I'd think, but I'd rather see her racket doing the talking. ;)
 
Both Stephens and Madison are attractive from a marketing stand point. If either wins a major and KEEPS THE HEAD ON STRAIGHT, they will make a fortune because they are American. At the moment, they both are likeable and they need to work to stay this way.
 
Speaking of american girls, game wise I really enjoy Keys and Vandeweghe.In the looks deparment Riske and Davis are too cute.

On topic I have no idea ???
 
The big advantage that both girls have over the Williams sisters, is that they are both high class. Meaning that they never carried themselves with a chip on their shoulder like the Williams sisters and they don't have the ghetto hoodrat throughout. Sloane and Madison are both well spoken young ladies who don't come across has standoffish like Venus and Serena when they first came out. That is partially the reason why I think if one of theme were to win a grandslam they would make more money then Serena on their endorsement deals because they can appeal to wide mainstream audience.
 
Elektra said:
The big advantage that both girls have over the Williams sisters, is that they are both high class. Meaning that they never carried themselves with a chip on their shoulder like the Williams sisters and they don't have the ghetto hoodrat throughout. Sloane and Madison are both well spoken young ladies who don't come across has standoffish like Venus and Serena when they first came out. That is partially the reason why I think if one of theme were to win a grandslam they would make more money then Serena on their endorsement deals because they can appeal to wide mainstream audience.
Click to expand...
That "chip" on Venus Williams' shoulder is the only reason why men and women are being rewarded equal pay at slams. EVERY WTA player on tour since 2007 owes a huge debt to Venus Williams and her "standoffish" behaviour to say nothing of her class and professionalism when trying to achieve equality of pay on the tennis pro circuit. So quick to bite the feeding hand...
 
Elektra said:
The big advantage that both girls have over the Williams sisters, is that they are both high class. Meaning that they never carried themselves with a chip on their shoulder like the Williams sisters and they don't have the ghetto hoodrat throughout. Sloane and Madison are both well spoken young ladies who don't come across has standoffish like Venus and Serena when they first came out. That is partially the reason why I think if one of theme were to win a grandslam they would make more money then Serena on their endorsement deals because they can appeal to wide mainstream audience.
Click to expand...
lol the media will treat them the same way that they've treated both serena and venus. And whats so ghetto about both sisters. You percieve their no nonsense attitude with the term ghetto.
They actively changed the sport when they came on the tour and the reason players like maria/ivanovic and wozniacki even have big sponsership deals like nike and co.
Sloane and keys have yet to even do anything noteworthy on tour while at the same age serena and venus were already both accomplished and admired around the world.

Fact is both players are probably going to end up as journey women. They don't have the confidence or mental toughness, athletic talent, IQ or drive to even dominate.
 
Man of steel said:
lol the media will treat them the same way that they've treated both serena and venus. And whats so ghetto about both sisters. You percieve their no nonsense attitude with the term ghetto.
They actively changed the sport when they came on the tour and the reason players like maria/ivanovic and wozniacki even have big sponsership deals like nike and co.
Sloane and keys have yet to even do anything noteworthy on tour while at the same age serena and venus were already both accomplished and admired around the world.

Fact is both players are probably going to end up as journey women. They don't have the confidence or mental toughness, athletic talent, IQ or drive to even dominate.
Click to expand...
Crip Walking, and flashing gang signs in milk commercials just scream class. Threatening to kill a line judge is nice too.
 
mbm0912 said:
Crip Walking, and flashing gang signs in milk commercials just scream class. Threatening to kill a line judge is nice too.
Click to expand...
Haha doing a dance that is done in most every nightclub and is a part of everyday pop culture is classless.
Fool sit down. The majority of white people didn't even know what she was doing or what it was called.
And what milk commercial are you even talking about. And are people like you still bringing up that line judge incident. Well the white people are the cause of slavery/racism and the destruction of entire civilisations through millenia's. Bit rich coming from people like you talking about class.
 
Man of steel said:
lol the media will treat them the same way that they've treated both serena and venus. And whats so ghetto about both sisters. You percieve their no nonsense attitude with the term ghetto.
They actively changed the sport when they came on the tour and the reason players like maria/ivanovic and wozniacki even have big sponsership deals like nike and co.
Sloane and keys have yet to even do anything noteworthy on tour while at the same age serena and venus were already both accomplished and admired around the world.

Fact is both players are probably going to end up as journey women. They don't have the confidence or mental toughness, athletic talent, IQ or drive to even dominate.
Click to expand...

I never said that they were ghetto as people, their throughout is considered ghetto among an uppity mainstream tennis audience. Wearing spandex suits, blonde hair weaves, transparent shorts, etc.

No doubt they are icons, but so is Floyd Mayweather and he has no endorsements deals. The Williams sisters continue to make less in endoresements then Sharapova, and Li Na because of their behavior on the court through their career.

I am saying if Madison and Sloane were to win one grandslam, they will probably earn a lot of money through endorsers because that are not controversial or polarizing.
 
Elektra said:
I never said that they were ghetto as people, their throughout is considered ghetto among an uppity mainstream tennis audience. Wearing spandex suits, blonde hair weaves, transparent shorts, etc.

No doubt they are icons, but so is Floyd Mayweather and he has no endorsements deals. The Williams sisters continue to make less in endoresements then Sharapova, and Li Na because of their behavior on the court through their career.

I am saying if Madison and Sloane were to win one grandslam, they will probably earn a lot of money through endorsers because that are not controversial or polarizing.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with it. Sharapova is a case of a PR rep's wet dream. A tall, slender white female, classically attractively, without excessively muscular physique who speaks perfect English without an accent and who is a very successful tennis player. You could market her with your eyes closed. Li Na is the only player from the East-Asian region to be very successful on the WTA circuit, and by this, she inherits an enormous amount of endorsement deals and spotlight. Sharapova and Li Na's successful endorsement profiles have nothing to do with their on-court behaviour nor do the Williams sister's less substantial sponsors have anything to do with theirs. Quit making something out of nothing. It should be quite obvious why a classically attractive white athlete makes more from endorsement money than a muscular black woman. And it has very little to do with what they do and very much to do with market prejudices.
 
Elektra said:
I never said that they were ghetto as people, their throughout is considered ghetto among an uppity mainstream tennis audience. Wearing spandex suits, blonde hair weaves, transparent shorts, etc.

No doubt they are icons, but so is Floyd Mayweather and he has no endorsements deals. The Williams sisters continue to make less in endoresements then Sharapova, and Li Na because of their behavior on the court through their career.

I am saying if Madison and Sloane were to win one grandslam, they will probably earn a lot of money through endorsers because that are not controversial or polarizing.
Click to expand...
Haha boxing is completely different to other sports. They get their money from PPV and most endorsement companies have contracts with PPV. He's earned more than maria and serena's net worth combined in just 1 fight.

And are you telling me maria doesn't have just as bad behaviour than serena. With her god awful constant screaming that put off the majority of viewers and tennis fans alike. Her "allez up your effing ass" to the crowd. Her cold unfriendly attitude toward the rest of the players.
And li na is hardly an example to use. She was always going to make millions. Considering she's the first ever chinese player to win majors. Most of her endorsements are from china which has a bigger GDP than even America. Hell she has a larger following on weibo than sharapova, nadal and federer have on fb.

And you mentioning keys and sloane would act less controversial. Serena and venus were thesame when they were both sloane and keys age. They did absolutely nothing wrong except express who they were. Yet they still got backlash, racism and vile comments hurled at them when they were younger than those 2 are now. But they had the confidence to win which people didn't like. Tennis fans saw that 2 african american women were dominating the sport which drew in a large crowd. Whether if you didn't like them or not they got huge endorsement deals at the time. The biggest in fact.

Sloane and keys don't have the treatment that serena and venus has because the world has moved on since. Also due to the fact that neither have done anything significant in their career and quite frankly might never achieve the accomplishments that venus and definitely serena have achieved.
 
Inanimate_object said:
That has nothing to do with it. Sharapova is a case of a PR rep's wet dream. A tall, slender white female, classically attractively, without excessively muscular physique who speaks perfect English without an accent and who is a very successful tennis player. You could market her with your eyes closed. Li Na is the only player from the East-Asian region to be very successful on the WTA circuit, and by this, she inherits an enormous amount of endorsement deals and spotlight. Sharapova and Li Na's successful endorsement profiles have nothing to do with their on-court behaviour nor do the Williams sister's less substantial sponsors have anything to do with theirs. Quit making something out of nothing. It should be quite obvious why a classically attractive white athlete makes more from endorsement money than a muscular black woman. And it has very little to do with what they do and very much to do with market prejudices.
Click to expand...

Of course marketing is discriminatory, if it was all performanced base in a perfect world Serena would be making a lot more. Marketers/endorsers want certain people who can convery and represent their brand effectively without controversey. The Williams sisters on court behavior does factor into why they get less money and like you have said they are not considered as attractive as Sharapova. Look at Roger Federer, he continues to be the highest paid because he carries himself with class and rarely has tempers and fits on the court which is why he is so admired and loved. Novak is the #1 player in the world but his Serbian roots and his on court antics is partially why he is not as widely received.
 
Inanimate_object said:
That has nothing to do with it. Sharapova is a case of a PR rep's wet dream. A tall, slender white female, classically attractively, without excessively muscular physique who speaks perfect English without an accent and who is a very successful tennis player. You could market her with your eyes closed. Li Na is the only player from the East-Asian region to be very successful on the WTA circuit, and by this, she inherits an enormous amount of endorsement deals and spotlight. Sharapova and Li Na's successful endorsement profiles have nothing to do with their on-court behaviour nor do the Williams sister's less substantial sponsors have anything to do with theirs. Quit making something out of nothing. It should be quite obvious why a classically attractive white athlete makes more from endorsement money than a muscular black woman. And it has very little to do with what they do and very much to do with market prejudices.
Click to expand...
This.
Endorsement deals are completely different when it comes to men and women. Mens endorsements are mostly on achievements and what the player has done in their career. Fed has been the top earner because he's the most successfull in the sport. Tiger has been the most endorsed in his sport even though both haven't won anything significant. Same with Schumacher, jordan, lebron(as of now) ronaldo and messi. These men have the best achievements in sport. And are recognised all over the world.
When it comes to women achievements are barely even taken into account. Do you really think if serena was fed and maria was nadal and serena had 21 majors while maria has 5 that maria would still be earning more than serena.
The world still judge women but how they look. Which is extremely wrong when it comes to sports as it should have anything to do with how you look. But thats the way it goes.
 
You guys should google track and field star Lolo Jones, then you would understand where I am coming from. Anytime you deal with women sports there are always going to be a lot of grey area in how female athletes should be treated and be rewarded on their performance. You guys should keep making the same arguement because I know and it is unfair but you got to know how the game is played in who they pick as the marketer's dream.
 
Stephens is a good player but lacks mentally. Theoretically, she can go toe to toe with Williams on a good day, but the desire that Williams has is sadly missing from Stephens. Williams comes through in a clutch. Stephens disappears.

Keys is a bit of a beampole server but can beat anyone on her day. Suspect her attitude is better than that of Stephens, but without the consistent groundies. On the whole though, she's probably more likely to win a major than Stephens. Keys is the sort of player who could be a non-factor for ages then suddenly pop up and win Wimbledon just by holding serve.

Right now, I would say Keys is top ten material, Stephens top twenty. I'm guessing America wants better?

Well, the good news is, once Cici Bellis kicks her father into touch and actually starts playing more tournaments and building her physique, she should be better than both. Not in Williams' league, but certainly America's next major champion; an all court baseliner with solid hands and a steely attitude. Sort it out, Cici.
 
Elektra said:
You guys should google track and field star Lolo Jones, then you would understand where I am coming from. Anytime you deal with women sports there are always going to be a lot of grey area in how female athletes should be treated and be rewarded on their performance. You guys should keep making the same arguement because I know and it is unfair but you got to know how the game is played in who they pick as the marketer's dream.
Click to expand...
Then whats this bringing up sloane and keys getting more endorsement deals than serena and venus when you know some other bimbo will come along and get more endorsement deals than them even if both might be more accomplished in tennis than said bimbo. Its the same prejudice and bias happening all over again.
 
Elektra said:
The big advantage that both girls have over the Williams sisters, is that they are both high class.
Click to expand...

There was nothing "high class" about Stephens outing herself as a bitter sociopath in her online staking / attacks against Serena Williams. Anyone observing that saw it as unwarranted and uncomfortable (to say the least). When things did not go her way, the true side emerged. Moreover, she's not transcending the sport like Venus/Serena, and certainly not bringing world attention to tennis in a way that makes her one of those "one name" stars so recognized today. Even f she won a major that is unlikely to happen, thus her market value may be rather average in the grand scheme of things.
 
lol where were all of y'all when I said all this stuff about Serena and Sharapova in another thread!? People, including Chris Everett, actually think Sharapova has a better brand than Serena and that her PR team goes and searches for these contracts where as Serena's does not. I was done trying to convince them, especially since many don't understand the concept of what it was that I was talking about.

But back to the topic. I think it could go either way. I believe Agassi (Sloane) was more marketable than Pete (Madison). Federer (Madison) is more marketable than Nadal (Sloane). Weird analogy but do you get it? It will be interesting to see who has the better career. Sloane started off well, got off track, seems to be turning it around. Madison is in a good spot right now, just waiting for the breakthrough. But both are losing matches that make you scratch your head...
 
Bothsidesx2hands said:
lol where were all of y'all when I said all this stuff about Serena and Sharapova in another thread!? People, including Chris Everett, actually think Sharapova has a better brand than Serena and that her PR team goes and searches for these contracts where as Serena's does not. I was done trying to convince them, especially since many don't understand the concept of what it was that I was talking about.

But back to the topic. I think it could go either way. I believe Agassi (Sloane) was more marketable than Pete (Madison). Federer (Madison) is more marketable than Nadal (Sloane). Weird analogy but do you get it? It will be interesting to see who has the better career. Sloane started off well, got off track, seems to be turning it around. Madison is in a good spot right now, just waiting for the breakthrough. But both are losing matches that make you scratch your head...
Click to expand...

I think Nadal has massive appeal but since his English is a bit fuzzy and not perfect it holds him back from getting more endorsements from English speaking countries.

Maria Sharapova massive appeal also comes from the fact that her popularity is big in the smaller Eastern European countries and Asia. Serena Williams has not targeted those areas enough, I think Eastern Europe is a little bit xenophobic and backwards but Serena Williams can make a lot of money by targeting Asisan market, did you guys see how popular she was at WTA Championships in Singapore last year.

If one of them were to win a grandslam, I think they would make a lot of money cause they are likable and speak so well they can easily do commericals and appeal to young kids. I do think that the media has more favorabilty to Sloane because she already beaten Serena and they know that she is one of the few players on the tour who can challenge Serena.

Madison got a better mentality, stronger weapons but she will have to win a major grandslam or WTA title for them to really see her in a different light then how they see Sloane. Madison has never beaten Serena or Sharapova and that is the one edge that Sloane will continue to have over Madison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheMaestro1990
Keys vs Stephens - Who will win the US Open final?
Replies
45
Views
3K
Red Rick
Red Rick
Elektra
Which young generation player male and female do you think will be the most bankable and marketable player in the future of the sport
Replies
13
Views
951
skaj
skaj
V
Madison Keys married Bjorn Fratangelo
Replies
8
Views
943
vokazu
V
AngieB
2014: The Emergence of Sloane Stephens
Replies
1
Views
809
Crose
Crose
NaomiKonjuhPotapova
  • Poll Poll
USO Final [15] Madison Keys vs. [PR] Sloane Stephens
7 8 9
Replies
405
Views
20K
eelhc
eelhc
Back
Top