Roger Federer's Uniqlo $30 million dollar contract has been exaggerated

Elektra

Professional
Some important details about the split between Roger Federer and Nike and the start of the Swiss player's co-operation with Uniqlo have emerged. According to the Sports Business Journal reporter Daniel Kaplan, Federer's earnings are fewer than what the media had earlier reported.

'Federer-Uniqlo deal (is) nowhere near $30 million a year,' Kaplan revealed on Twitter.'It's $10 million a year, Nike offered $5 million a year and only if he was playing. Uniqlo guaranteed for a decade.' Kaplan also added: 'The $5 million is a guarantee, then I am sure Nike had built in bonuses for performance.

They have Maria (Sharapova) and Serena (Williams) deals coming up if they outbid Uniqlo is would set parameters for those deals,' wrote Kaplan, adding that now that Nike doesn't have to pay Federer anymore. In 2010, Sharapova signed a $70 million, eight-year contract with Nike which expires this year.

'The $30 million a year made no sense, a number put out there to justify losing the RF logo and putting him in what is seen in some quarters as a discount brand,' Kaplan claimed. Federer believed that in the end he and Nike would have found a solution.


The Swiss wore the American brand products also after March 1, when the contract expired, in Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, then in Stuttgart and Halle.

the $5 mil is a guarantee, than i am sure Nike had built in bonuses for performance.

they have Maria and Serena deals coming up, if they outbid Uniqlo is would set parameters for those deals https://t.co/pDMXA2uqo4 — daniel kaplan (@dkaplanSBJ) 5 luglio 2018

Nike had a right to match, so inevitably the reality will filter out.

The 30 mil a year made no sense, a number put out there to justify losing the RF logo and putting him in what is seen in some quarters as a discount brand https://t.co/HzZfsTfR8i — daniel kaplan (@dkaplanSBJ) 5 luglio 2018

Have on good authority Federer Uniqlo deal nowhere near 30 mil a year.

Its 10 mil a year, Nike offered 5 mil a year and only if he was playing. Uniqlo guaranteed for a decade — daniel kaplan (@dkaplanSBJ) 5 luglio 2018

https://www.**************.org/tennis/news/Roger_Federer/57421/surprising-details-emerge-about-roger-federer-s-contract-with-uniqlo/
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
That's an article on a clickbait site based on a tweet from some guy who claims to be a reporter but doesn't work for anyone. And the top reply is from an ESPN reporter saying this:

I don’t have the same sources you do. You really you think Nike would let Federer walk over $5M a year — playing guarantee or not? And you think Federer would leave over that same $5M a year?
https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1014994297823940610
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
Some important details about the split between Roger Federer and Nike and the start of the Swiss player's co-operation with Uniqlo have emerged. According to the Sports Business Journal reporter Daniel Kaplan, Federer's earnings are fewer than what the media had earlier reported.

'Federer-Uniqlo deal (is) nowhere near $30 million a year,' Kaplan revealed on Twitter.'It's $10 million a year, Nike offered $5 million a year and only if he was playing. Uniqlo guaranteed for a decade.' Kaplan also added: 'The $5 million is a guarantee, then I am sure Nike had built in bonuses for performance.

They have Maria (Sharapova) and Serena (Williams) deals coming up if they outbid Uniqlo is would set parameters for those deals,' wrote Kaplan, adding that now that Nike doesn't have to pay Federer anymore. In 2010, Sharapova signed a $70 million, eight-year contract with Nike which expires this year.

'The $30 million a year made no sense, a number put out there to justify losing the RF logo and putting him in what is seen in some quarters as a discount brand,' Kaplan claimed. Federer believed that in the end he and Nike would have found a solution.


The Swiss wore the American brand products also after March 1, when the contract expired, in Indian Wells and Miami tournaments, then in Stuttgart and Halle.

the $5 mil is a guarantee, than i am sure Nike had built in bonuses for performance.

they have Maria and Serena deals coming up, if they outbid Uniqlo is would set parameters for those deals https://t.co/pDMXA2uqo4 — daniel kaplan (@dkaplanSBJ) 5 luglio 2018

Nike had a right to match, so inevitably the reality will filter out.

The 30 mil a year made no sense, a number put out there to justify losing the RF logo and putting him in what is seen in some quarters as a discount brand https://t.co/HzZfsTfR8i — daniel kaplan (@dkaplanSBJ) 5 luglio 2018

Have on good authority Federer Uniqlo deal nowhere near 30 mil a year.

Its 10 mil a year, Nike offered 5 mil a year and only if he was playing. Uniqlo guaranteed for a decade — daniel kaplan (@dkaplanSBJ) 5 luglio 2018

https://www.**************.org/tennis/news/Roger_Federer/57421/surprising-details-emerge-about-roger-federer-s-contract-with-uniqlo/
I am so relieved. Uniqlo attire will cost me one third of what I thought it would.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
That's an article on a clickbait site based on a tweet from some guy who claims to be a reporter but doesn't work for anyone. And the top reply is from an ESPN reporter saying this:

I don’t have the same sources you do. You really you think Nike would let Federer walk over $5M a year — playing guarantee or not? And you think Federer would leave over that same $5M a year?
https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1014994297823940610
Maybe.

But when did Uniqlo make this $30M/yr offer? If it was March why didn’t Fed sign then? No way Nike was going to get close to that; he’s close to retirement and RF gear isn’t selling. Uniqlo is bringing him in for a completely different reason - brand ambassador, not moving billboard for tennis gear.

And Rovell is usually solid - but he’s wrong - Nike would let $5M/yr decide it - it was double their bid.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
Maybe.

But when did Uniqlo make this $30M/yr offer? If it was March why didn’t Fed sign then? No way Nike was going to get close to that; he’s close to retirement and RF gear isn’t selling. Uniqlo is bringing him in for a completely different reason - brand ambassador, not moving billboard for tennis gear.

And Rovell is usually solid - but he’s wrong - Nike would let $5M/yr decide it - it was double their bid.
Nike was already paying him 10 since 2008. Insane to think they'd suddenly cut in half.

But the real point is that he's a legit journalist who's quoting his sources. And multiple outlets repeated the same number. These guys don't make stuff up. You're gonna ignore all that because of some random tweet?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
But when did Uniqlo make this $30M/yr offer? If it was March why didn’t Fed sign then? No way Nike was going to get close to that; he’s close to retirement and RF gear isn’t selling. Uniqlo is bringing him in for a completely different reason - brand ambassador, not moving billboard for tennis gear.
Maybe he did sign in March. Maybe the ongoing discussions Fed mentioned at Stuttgart were about a shoe deal or getting back the use of the RF logo. The devil is in the detail of what these guys say - or rather details they don't say.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
This tweet is not at all convincing and it seems designed to justify Nike's decision more than anything else.
 

MasturB

Legend
If the rumors are true about Nike phasing out tennis line and cutting it out altogether in a few years makes no sense to keep paying Fred top dollar for it when he's on the verge of retirement. Even keeping it as a legacy line like Jordan makes no sense, if they plan on getting out of tennis in general.
 

oldmanfan

Legend
$30million needs to be put into perspective.

UniQlo founder, Tadashi Yanai, is worth about $23billion.

$30million is 0.13% of his net worth, so $300million (over 10 years) is only 1.3% of his current net worth.

In other words, if your bank account has $1000, would you sign Roger Federer, one of the biggest names in all of sports, for $0.13 a year and lock him down for 10 years totaling $1.30? Yes, to UniQlo's founder, a $300million contract is equivalent to 'ONE dollar and thirty cents' in a $1000 bank account.

It's a bargain for UniQlo.

EDIT:
Some folks seem to focus too much on the $30million instead of 'WHY' it is this amount.

UniQlo's objective: To sign Roger Federer as Global Brand Ambassador to help expand their business.

They can't get Federer to leave Nike with small/similar bids to his current contract amounts. So, $30million happens to be the amount that made Nike not want to match.

It's a business decision that UniQlo happily made and was rewarded with the services of one Mr. Roger Federer.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
As extravagant as this seems, it's probably what he is worth.

I can't see his profile falling off the radar due to retirement.

It didn't really happen to David Beckham either, so fashion gives you more longevity than sport.

Total fake news. Swiss media and the Basler Zeitung saw the contract and confirmed, per Luthi. It's 30 million bucks a year for 10 years and that's all she wrote.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
$30million needs to be put into perspective.

...UniQlo's objective: To sign Roger Federer as Global Brand Ambassador to help expand their business.
Yep, and when you see which movie/music celebs get paid to front fashion brands it stands to reason that Federer's management (along with Anna Wintour and his close associations with Moet, Mercedes etc) have long been shaping up a post-career plan for him from being a mostly sports icon to an icon for the ages.

If costs half a million dollars to get some social media influencers to plug your product on Instagram to give people some perspective of just how much someone like Federer could make as the global face of a brand given his reputation and respect, regardless that his social media followers count might be low by comparison. Most of the biggest names have followers who are mostly utterly worthless commercially except to them.

People don't seem to think too deeply about it. Federer is very well known and, more to the point, can be made to be even better known off the back of his past sporting achievements - something which fades really quickly for actors unless they keep making decent films. They get superseded pretty quickly or fade into the pack of other actors or singers peddling brands. In a sportsperson the dynamic seems different - there is a higher level of authenticity and gravitas built into their reputation than for most actors or singers because of how they came to their fame: by struggle and achievement. To many brands that would resonate much more deeply with how they see themselves in the market and what their name stands for.

Someone like Federer doesn't come along very often as a "greatest of all time" and is still killing it in the last bit of their career breaking records on a monthly basis. Jordan is basically the last athlete who comes close to this level of greatness, gravitas and universal respect. That is what Uniqlo see in Federer - something they think they can't get from anyone else short of making George Clooney 20 years younger and making him the greatest of all time as some half-decent sport.

$10m/year seems the low end of what it would cost to get this sort of person to be the global face of your fast growing business.
 
Last edited:

ewiewp

Professional
So Uniqlo thinks Federer is very much marketable for 10 years from now but Nike thinks his career will wind down from now or something like that ?
 

vex

Hall of Fame
It was a zero chance of Federer also leaving Nike.

Interesting how those probabilities work, no?

:cool:
I dunno what to tell ya but if you believe that Biz A responds to Biz B’s bid of 5m/yr with an offer of 30M a year then you should stay the heck out of he business world lol

And only fools said Fed would never leave Nike. He was always going to he highest bidder and Nike was always going to try to lower his pay bc they were losing money with the FEDAL deals in the Tennis division. $100 polos made it pretty obvious the Fed deal had failed
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
I dunno what to tell ya but if you believe that Biz A responds to Biz B’s bid of 5m/yr with an offer of 30M a year then you should stay the heck out of he business world lol

And only fools said Fed would never leave Nike. He was always going to he highest bidder and Nike was always going to try to lower his pay bc they were losing money with the FEDAL deals in the Tennis division. $100 polos made it pretty obvious the Fed deal had failed
How do you know what their offers were?

And, judging by the uproar it caused, there are quite a few fools out there (not that it is not expected, but still).

Nike is not upcharging only for their RF polos, it has always been their business model. Besides, it is not only about revenue, otherwise they should have collectively dumped the lost gen.

:cool:
 

vex

Hall of Fame
How do you know what their offers were?

And, judging by the uproar it caused, there are quite a few fools out there (not that it is not expected, but still).

Nike is not upcharging only for their RF polos, it has always been their business model. Besides, it is not only about revenue, otherwise they should have collectively dumped the lost gen.

:cool:
Ok. So you do believe it’s 30m a year just for the record?
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Ok. So you do believe it’s 30m a year just for the record?
I don't have to believe anything, since I don't care, but it is business, and in business all things sell for the price someone is prepared to pay, and you will be surprised how much some people are prepared to pay for things other people wouldn't give 50 dollars for.

Just recently a relatively simple steel watch was sold for $17.75 mil with the buyer's premium, because of his historical value to someone.

Even people in the business with such things were surprised.

:cool:
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
So Uniqlo thinks Federer is very much marketable for 10 years from now but Nike thinks his career will wind down from now or something like that ?
As the discussion in this thread (and other places) should have made clear, these are very different deals.

Nike was offering Federer a conventional athlete endorsement contract. The Nike brand is well-known virtually everywhere in the world, and certainly has enormous equity in North America. High-profile stars are just needed to add some luster and ensure that the brand continues to be associated with winners. No single endorser is essential.

Uniqlo wants Federer to serve as the foundation for its brand. That's an incredibly important and specialized role in which few athletes would be effective. Uniqlo has much less brand equity than Nike, particularly in North America. It needs to build itself virtually from scratch in some areas.

For Nike, Federer was a marketing expense. For Uniqlo, he's a capital investment.
 

Benben245

Professional
Ever watch Christopher hitchens debate religious apologists? So many of his polemic foes insist that it is on Christopher to disprove the existence of god when the premise for or against is unfalsifiable unto itself. You have an imperfect information set yet your certain of contract details, that's silly.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
But the real point is that he's a legit journalist who's quoting his sources. And multiple outlets repeated the same number. These guys don't make stuff up. You're gonna ignore all that because of some random tweet?
‘Legit journalist?’ - thanks for the laugh - that ship sailed a long time ago. We live in an era of clickbait and paying sources for info. And other outlets routinely copy others’ stories.

There’s no plausible reason to overpay by so much. Nike and the other sports companies weren’t going to get roped into a bidding war for a guy about to retire.
 

augustobt

Legend
Jesus ****ing christ.

There's a reason why Tennis World USA is a banned word on this board, for ****ing ****s sake, don't post **** you read there here.
 

JoelDali

G.O.A.T.
Jesus ****ing christ.

There's a reason why Tennis World USA is a banned word on this board, for ****ing ****s sake, don't post **** you read there here.
He’s a 13 year old kid with limited Internet and life experience. He will learn at some point.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
‘Legit journalist?’ - thanks for the laugh - that ship sailed a long time ago. We live in an era of clickbait and paying sources for info. And other outlets routinely copy others’ stories.

There’s no plausible reason to overpay by so much. Nike and the other sports companies weren’t going to get roped into a bidding war for a guy about to retire.
If you're so skeptical, why do you believe rando? This is something I'll never wrap my mind around. People calling legit outlets "fake news" then go and believe anyone at all.

Reporters do make mistakes, and have biases. I don't believe everything I read. But it's more likely to be accurate than a completely unreliable source.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Maybe.

But when did Uniqlo make this $30M/yr offer? If it was March why didn’t Fed sign then? No way Nike was going to get close to that; he’s close to retirement and RF gear isn’t selling. Uniqlo is bringing him in for a completely different reason - brand ambassador, not moving billboard for tennis gear.
And Fed made it sound like the RF logo would come to him for sure, but Nike owns the brand, not Fed. Same as the Jordan brand is owned by Nike. There is absolutely no reason, especially legally, for Nike to release it to Fed. If he was smart like Jordan he will still be getting profit percentages from its' use like Jordan does. But no, unless Fed coughs up a boatload of $$$ to buy it from Nike he won't get it. And even then Nike stands to gain more in the long run owning the brand than selling it. Unless tennis brand names really don't sell that much, especially as I believe as a legacy brand.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If Nike owns the logo, then at least if Federer takes the money from Uniqlo and no longer promotes the line then the value of the logo is less.

If he accepted less money from Nike they would have made even more from the logo due to him promoting it, so he did well moving.
 

kimguroo

Legend
It’s just wrong in my opinion.
Nike is not stupid to offer $5 mils per a year. Almost every companies can afford 5mils for Federer. There is no reason that Nike offered 5 mils per a year.
I strongly think that Nike offers 5mils more from previous contract (10 mils per a year) so total is 15mils per a year. It’s more reasonable deal than 5mils per a year from Nike. OR Nike offered 5mils for shoes deal and Agent/Federer might be rejected.
Hard to believe Uniqlo offered 30 mils per a year for 10 years but Uniqlo deal might be much higher than Nike (At least 20 mils per a year). Probably that’s why Nike let Federer go.

Nike does not need to overpay anyone in my opinion especially women’s side.
Nike just signed Halep for 2 mils and Sharapova does not worth more than 3.5 mils per a year in my opinion.
Even I might not consider more than 2 mils for sharapova. Current her deal is 8.5 mils and I don’t think no one wants to pay huge money to her since she lost her popularity because of scandals. If she does not take Nike offer, Nike should let her go too. Tricky with Serena but both sides will not be too picky about the contract in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

joekapa

Legend
Just as I thought !!!!! Hahahahahahaha Novak was making close to that with Uniqlo as well !!!!!! hahahahahahahahah 30 mil a year.......bwahahahaha
 

joekapa

Legend
Nike and Uniqlo are billion dollar companies because they are careful with every penny they spend. I too think they are not giving Fed 30 Mill a year.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Nike and Uniqlo are billion dollar companies because they are careful with every penny they spend. I too think they are not giving Fed 30 Mill a year.
Until now you showed that you thought that Federer doesn't receive $30 mil per year from Uniqlo.

You don't believe it, and fair enough, considering who you are a fan of and not wanting for Djokovic to be valued less than Federer.

Do you have any information, apart from your belief?

:cool:
 

joekapa

Legend
Until now you showed that you thought that Federer doesn't receive $30 mil per year from Uniqlo.

You don't believe it, and fair enough, considering who you are a fan of and not wanting for Djokovic to be valued less than Federer.

Do you have any information, apart from your belief?

:cool:
It's not about Djokovic. It's about business. Federer ain't worth that much.

I also bet the stipulation is that Federer plays until Olympics in Tokyo......
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
It's not about Djokovic. It's about business. Federer ain't worth that much.

I also bet the stipulation is that Federer plays until Olympics in Tokyo......
You don't know until you know, but your reaction shows that you wish that that is the case.

Saying something that is not unreasonable to think doesn't give more credibility to the rest.

:cool:
 
Top