UniFed: Di$re$pect involved?

[brinkeguthrie]

Here's what I think. Could be way off, but anyway.

I was of the opin that Fed wanted to maintain the status quo, comfortable with the long-term relationship.
Wrong.

"How much will you pay me?"

We don't know what Nike's offer was. I have a feeling that Fed felt disrespected. That would certainly set him off. Mild mannered tho he may be, Fed knows his place in the food chain of tennis history.

"How much will you pay me?"

Uniqlo CEO says "We share a goal of making positive change in the world, and I hope together we can bring the highest quality of life to the greatest number of people.”

Blah blah blah. They put up the most money. He was with a performance, athlete's-based company, now he's with a lifestyle brand moms wear shopping at Ginza. My take on Uniqlo is that they're a mass merchant like Old Navy. Middling quality at best.

I always looked forward to the special promo deals Nike would roll out around the slams. The Jordan|RF shoes, for example. Good luck ever seen coordinated promotions from Uniqlo. As I've said, here in SF I never once saw a Djoker shirt, and when I'd ask they'd look at me as tho I was speaking of some high level physics. And their sizing- if you don't wear XS (extra small!) S or M- forget it. You might get lucky and find a L.

Also brings an interesting point about merchandising. Will TW begin to carry the Fed clothing? I'm betting not.

I've loved the Nike|RF line as long as it's been out- most of the designs are clean, spare, with just the swoosh and RF. There have been some weird designs, but it's been for the most part a clean look. To me, as iconic- and I use that term sparingly as it is so overused- as Borg/Fila pinstripes.

Nike should've done what it took. You don't let the sport's living legend walk. If this happens with Fed, it can happen with Nadal, the other living legend. Would Nike have let Jordan go? you have to wonder. Basketball contributes a lot more to their bottom line, so it likely wasn't even discussed.

Someone one said "Image........is everything." IMO, Fed's just took a hit. My last words on this subject.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The meltdown of the fanboys.

 

[EloQuent]

 

[ohiostate124]

Dear diary

 

[Phantasm]

People are bashing on him for taking the Uniqlo deal cause of money and his image blah blah. Every single one of you would take the Uniqlo deal if you were in his shoes. If you don't, you're just letting your emotions get the better of you. Businesses only look out for themselves and for their bottom lines. There's no "loyalty" involved. Roger did what's best for him and his family.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It is Nike’s fault.

If money is not the driving force behind these decisions, they should have matched the offer.

They are greedy and wanted to save on him, despite of him playing with their gear for 10 years almost for free, before he signed his second long-term contract with them.

 

[Rubens]

Agreed. Nike took Fed for granted. Especially after the contract ended in March and he kept wearing their stuff.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

The meltdown of the fanboys.

If this is all you're going to contribute then I would kindly ask that you simply refrain from posting about this subject.

 

[EloQuent]

If this is all you're going to contribute then I would kindly ask that you simply refrain from posting about this subject.

Just some mild teasing, don't take it personally.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

It is Nike’s fault.

If money is not the driving force behind these decisions, they should have matched the offer.

They are greedy and wanted to save on him, despite of him playing with their gear for 10 years almost for free, before he signed his second long-term contract with them.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Probably a wise decision on their part to not sign a guy who might retire in the next 2 years to a 300 million dollar lifetime deal in a sport that is miles behind futbol and basketball as far as the sale of athletic apparel is concerned... If anyone is greedy it's the Fed camp for taking the highest offer that came their way and fighting tooth and nail to get such an exorbitant amount of money...

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Just doesn't make any sense to sign a tennis player to a multi-year guaranteed contract in which the player might be retired for more than half of the length of it.

 

[Elektra]

What is wrong with Fed fans.

Fed is not a sales generator like Lebron or Ronaldo. Nor is his persona in that same level. He does not have it like that where he can get a lifetime deal cause his brand can only go so far.Basketball has a wider reacher to mass audience then tennis. Tennis is popular but nowhere as influential in pop culture like basketball and even soccer. I see people of all ages wearing Lebron's fashion in everyday life, I rarely see it with Federer unless they go to a tennis tournament.

The return does not outweigh the money.

 

[Rhino]

Look obviously people care. Perhaps you don't care. Perhaps you care about something I don't care about? Who the hell cares?

 

[li0scc0]

What is wrong with Fed fans.

Fed is not a sales generator like Lebron or Ronaldo. Nor is his persona in that same level. He does not have it like that where he can get a lifetime deal cause his brand can only go so far.Basketball has a wider reacher to mass audience then tennis. Tennis is popular but nowhere as influential in pop culture like basketball and even soccer. I see people of all ages wearing Lebron's fashion in everyday life, I rarely see it with Federer unless they go to a tennis tournament.

The return does not outweigh the money.

I've never once seen a LeBron James clothing item.
Actually perhaps I have, but did not recognize it.

 

[li0scc0]

Just doesn't make any sense to sign a tennis player to a multi-year guaranteed contract in which the player might be retired for more than half of the length of it.

Fred Perry, Chuck Taylor, and Rene Lacoste disagree.

 

[dkmura]

Here's the way I see it: Uniglo saw an opportunity to sign Fed to an attractive offer and put it on the table as Fed had honored his Nike contract to the end. Fed looked it over, and asked his lawyer to see if Nike would match. Nike examined it and decided not to match, thus setting Fed free. Fed obviously liked the line and met with Uniglo to make sure he'd get what he wanted (outside of the money), design-wise. No muss, no fuss- except on this board...

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Fred Perry, Chuck Taylor, and Rene Lacoste disagree.

Rene Lacoste actually owned Lacoste, Fred Perry had his own brand(he didn't have a line from some other company). Chuck Taylor played basketball.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Nike should've done what it took. You don't let the sport's living legend walk. If this happens with Fed, it can happen with Nadal, the other living legend. Would Nike have let Jordan go? you have to wonder. Basketball contributes a lot more to their bottom line, so it likely wasn't even discussed.

Someone one said "Image........is everything." IMO, Fed's just took a hit. My last words on this subject.

Do you promise?

The stuff you've written, including the item you linked to yesterday is full of conjecture and void of deeper marketing nous they read like the sort of worthless items we see about tennis time and time again from ESPN.

To save you the trouble I'll simplify the discussion. Nike didn't let Federer go out of annoyance or anything.He was off contract and when it came to it they couldn't make a business case to match an offer he had from elsewhere. Period. The business case didn't stack up but it obviously did for Uniqlo because they have much more headroom for deals like this. They have this capacity because they're not already paying sports teams and athletes billions of dollars combined each year like Nike. Their growth curve is also much steeper than Nike's also and they're in a quicker growing market too (general fashion vs tennis wear).

 

[li0scc0]

Rene Lacoste actually owned Lacoste, Fred Perry had his own brand(he didn't have a line from some other company). Chuck Taylor played basketball.

All of them were athletes whose name thrived post their playing career.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

All of them were athletes whose name thrived post their playing career.

But do you understand the difference between owning the company(like Lacoste) and having a contract with some other company.

 

[li0scc0]

But do you understand the difference between owning the company(like Lacoste) and having a contract with some other company.

Certainly so.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Probably a wise decision on their part to not sign a guy who might retire in the next 2 years to a 300 million dollar lifetime deal in a sport that is miles behind futbol and basketball as far as the sale of athletic apparel is concerned... If anyone is greedy it's the Fed camp for taking the highest offer that came their way and fighting tooth and nail to get such an exorbitant amount of money...

It's not about greed and people are constantly missing what he's done here. He's signed up as the face of a brand. Whether he is retired or not is irrelevant. In fact many great sportspeople have seen their legend increase after they retire - Jordan, Maradonna etc etc. And that will certainly happen with Federer. He will have more time to do business, will be a huge PR coup for them every time he shows up at an event, especially tennis. I guarantee the first time he shows up in the royal box at Wimbledon there will be a standing ovation for him longer than for anyone playing.

This mostly post-career sort of deal is exactly what Federer is perfect for and was obviously angling for. Nike hitch their wagon too much to current sportspeople in their broader marketing and it shows a disadvantage in their business model when athletes (or teams) hit the twilight of their success curve.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Rene Lacoste actually owned Lacoste, Fred Perry had his own brand(he didn't have a line from some other company). Chuck Taylor played basketball.

Stan Smith disagrees.

 

[HunterST]

Fred Perry, Chuck Taylor, and Rene Lacoste disagree.

Don’t forget Stan Smith.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Probably a wise decision on their part to not sign a guy who might retire in the next 2 years to a 300 million dollar lifetime deal in a sport that is miles behind futbol and basketball as far as the sale of athletic apparel is concerned... If anyone is greedy it's the Fed camp for taking the highest offer that came their way and fighting tooth and nail to get such an exorbitant amount of money...

But they gladly had the most dominant player of the Open Era wear their logo for peanuts for 10 full years.

No talk of decency from them (or their fanboys) then, eh?

 

[Sentinel]

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Probably a wise decision on their part to not sign a guy who might retire in the next 2 years to a 300 million dollar lifetime deal in a sport that is miles behind futbol and basketball as far as the sale of athletic apparel is concerned... If anyone is greedy it's the Fed camp for taking the highest offer that came their way and fighting tooth and nail to get such an exorbitant amount of money...

How do you know he fought tooth and nail for it from Nike ??

How come Nike did not renew the contract and yet he kept wearing their stuff ? Doesn't look too greedy to me.

Nike has been in the news for some pretty bad reasons of late. Not that it would have affected the decision, but still. I doubt anyone isn't "greedy" at that level.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What is wrong with Fed fans.

Fed is not a sales generator like Lebron or Ronaldo. Nor is his persona in that same level. He does not have it like that where he can get a lifetime deal cause his brand can only go so far.Basketball has a wider reacher to mass audience then tennis. Tennis is popular but nowhere as influential in pop culture like basketball and even soccer. I see people of all ages wearing Lebron's fashion in everyday life, I rarely see it with Federer unless they go to a tennis tournament.

The return does not outweigh the money.

What have Fed fans to do with anything?

 

[Subway Tennis]

Nike has a long and storied history of doing this to its tennis superstars when they seek lifetime deals towards the end of their careers.

We have the key examples of Sampras, Agassi and now Federer. All generational superstars and all subject to the same fate. The object lesson is that Nike only offers these lifetime deals to the absolute best of the best. You must be an athlete with timeless appeal, and your sport must be one of Nike's biggest markets so they get a return on their investment.

The most interesting thing to me is the story coming out about what role Nike has had in Federer's charity organisations, and whether, if required, Federer has made sure that the same financial guarantee can be made via his uniqlo deal.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

How do you know he fought tooth and nail for it from Nike ??

How come Nike did not renew the contract and yet he kept wearing their stuff ? Doesn't look too greedy to me.

Nike has been in the news for some pretty bad reasons of late. Not that it would have affected the decision, but still. I doubt anyone isn't "greedy" at that level.

Greed shouldn't even be in the conversation when two parties are free to negotiate in an open market, but like I said, if anyone is to be accused of greed, it should be Nike that more than cashed on Federer's career, and obviously he also wanted to stay with them at the right conditions.

Don't forget.

If some other player is ready to pay for you $300 mils then you are worth at the time at least that much.

Nike wanted to low-ball him on his current value, by making promises of building his brand, after his late career success exposed their lack of belief in him.

They should have started much earlier with massively marketing his brand, but instead they wanted more brand exposure for themselves. More greed on their part, and a shortsighted approach when it comes to a legend of such magnitude.

 

[Sentinel]

Greed shouldn't even be in the conversation when two parties are free to negotiate in an open market, but like I said, if anyone is to be accused of greed, it should be Nike that more than cashed on Federer's career, and obviously he also wanted to stay with them at the right conditions.

Don't forget.

If some other player is ready to pay for you $300 mils then you are worth at the time at least that much.

Nike wanted to low-ball him on his current value, by making promises of building his brand, after his late career success exposed their lack of belief in him.

They should have started much earlier with massively marketing his brand, but instead they wanted more brand exposure for themselves. More greed on their part, and a shortsighted approach when it comes to a legend of such magnitude.

I often kick myself in the shin thinking that I stayed loyal to a company for six years that was under-paying all of us, while the industry offering three times as much (during the internet boom). God knows how many great offers I gave up not wanting to look greedy.

Never understood back then that its all basically business. Companies talk a lot but also fire people the moment they don't need you.

Coming back OT, we don't know what all was going on between them. Maybe their relationship was not very good over the last few months or year. Maybe Fed was looking around for alternatives for quite some time before the Uniqlo offer came around.

We are just assuming that one day ULO made an offer and Fed grabbed it.

 

[Robert F]

So who is going to carry the Nike brand in tennis now?
I guess after Sampras/Agassi, Federer rose.
Guess they'll be waiting for the next star for their brand. Maybe Kyrgios?

I also wonder how long they'll run the Roger Federer line that just came out for Nike?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I often kick myself in the shin thinking that I stayed loyal to a company for six years that was under-paying all of us, while the industry offering three times as much (during the internet boom). God knows how many great offers I gave up not wanting to look greedy.

Never understood back then that its all basically business. Companies talk a lot but also fire people the moment they don't need you.

Coming back OT, we don't know what all was going on between them. Maybe their relationship was not very good over the last few months or year. Maybe Fed was looking around for alternatives for quite some time before the Uniqlo offer came around.

We are just assuming that one day ULO made an offer and Fed grabbed it.

I think that there was no bad blood between them, otherwise there would have been at least some signs that Fed is unhappy with the situation.

He wore their stuff even when their contract expired, which shows that he understands that at least he should demonstrate good relationship.

If you didn't work for a player of similar standing in the IT sector as Nike is in the sports sector, your case is a bit different as mostly the small to middle-sized companies in the IT are always on unstable ground for many reasons, whereas Nike is a global player with long-term strategy.

They should have (and probably had, before he signed with Uniqlo) long term plans for Federer.

It is unclear what those were, but it increasingly looks like they intended to pay him as much as his previous contract was bringing him (or slightly more), and then send him in retirement with a minimal fuss and leaving his own brand linger on his natural popularity, without investing too much in developing it.

It reeks of negligence and disrespect, and I think that some people at Nike think that their work is God's word.

It seems that Federer would happily forfeit the opportunity to see his name on a building for the opportunity to see him been treated with real respect.

 

[see_ping]

Greed shouldn't even be in the conversation when two parties are free to negotiate in an open market, but like I said, if anyone is to be accused of greed, it should be Nike that more than cashed on Federer's career, and obviously he also wanted to stay with them at the right conditions.

Don't forget.

If some other player is ready to pay for you $300 mils then you are worth at the time at least that much.

Nike wanted to low-ball him on his current value, by making promises of building his brand, after his late career success exposed their lack of belief in him.

They should have started much earlier with massively marketing his brand, but instead they wanted more brand exposure for themselves. More greed on their part, and a shortsighted approach when it comes to a legend of such magnitude.

100% agree with this. Uniqlo saw a big opportunity for themselves, one that's worth $300 million dollars to them and went for it. Nike saw a living legend but still decided that he'd not be worth that much after retirement--seems like a slap in the face by Nike if I'm in Fed's position. It's also possible that Uniqlo has bigger plans to expand into more athletic wear and signed Federer with that goal in mind. As mentioned by a poster above, Uniqlo isn't already paying hundreds of millions to other athletes already and so can they afford to pay him a lot more; they are also growing revenue-wise a lot faster than Nike because their main markets are China, Japan, and the rest of Asia.

I really don't understand why anyone thinks that Federer staying with Nike is somehow NOT the greedy decision. In this case, he took the money but also a new opportunity with a company that could possibly represent better him than Nike has been. To me, Nike's Federer line clothing has been too expensive to sell in large quantities and their designs have been a bit stale in the last few years. I do find Uniqlo stuff to be rather bland, but it's possible that they up their game in the near future.

 

[joekapa]

Fred Perry, Chuck Taylor, and Rene Lacoste disagree.

There is NO WAY any Federer line would be anywhere near as popular as any of those brands. Those brands have been around for eons, and have cemented themselves in pop culture.

Take the "small" brand like Fred Perry. Do you know the "history" behind this brand, apart from it's original creator being a tennis player ? Do you know what a mod, hard-mod, skinhead was/is ? Have you seen Quadrophenia ? Do you know who The Jam, and Paul Weller are ?

Brand building takes YEARS to develop. Federer stands NO CHANCE against these brands.

 

[joekapa]

Greed shouldn't even be in the conversation when two parties are free to negotiate in an open market, but like I said, if anyone is to be accused of greed, it should be Nike that more than cashed on Federer's career, and obviously he also wanted to stay with them at the right conditions.

Don't forget.

If some other player is ready to pay for you $300 mils then you are worth at the time at least that much.

Nike wanted to low-ball him on his current value, by making promises of building his brand, after his late career success exposed their lack of belief in him.

They should have started much earlier with massively marketing his brand, but instead they wanted more brand exposure for themselves. More greed on their part, and a shortsighted approach when it comes to a legend of such magnitude.

You guy's seem to forget that Nike is a sportswear company, selling mostly sports apparel. Uniqlo is not a sportswear company. It is a casual wear company. They are not in the business of selling sportswear. That's why you never see Uniqlo stuff on Tennis Warehouse or any other sporting goods store.

Nike have been around long enough, and have sponsored Federer long enough to know how popular Federer is. They did the numbers, and figured that Federer is not worth the 300mill Uniqlo was willing to offer him.

I'm sure Nike made a very good offer, probably even a lifetime offer, and a development deal, to create his own line. As is evident with the recent "Federer line". But maybe Federer wanted GUARANTEED payment, which Nike was not willing to offer. Nike probably wanted payment based on sales.

 

[Bobby Jr]

You guy's seem to forget that Nike is a sportswear company, selling mostly sports apparel. Uniqlo is not a sportswear company. It is a casual wear company. They are not in the business of selling sportswear. That's why you never see Uniqlo stuff on Tennis Warehouse or any other sporting goods store.

Good to see you've learned at least something from my posts/replies to you.

Nike have been around long enough, and have sponsored Federer long enough to know how popular Federer is. They did the numbers, and figured that Federer is not worth the 300mill Uniqlo was willing to offer him.

No... they can't make it worthwhile for them - given their limited business focus. Uniqlo meanwhile can because they have a much more diverse company and are on a steeper growth path.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You guy's seem to forget that Nike is a sportswear company, selling mostly sports apparel. Uniqlo is not a sportswear company. It is a casual wear company. They are not in the business of selling sportswear. That's why you never see Uniqlo stuff on Tennis Warehouse or any other sporting goods store.

Nike have been around long enough, and have sponsored Federer long enough to know how popular Federer is. They did the numbers, and figured that Federer is not worth the 300mill Uniqlo was willing to offer him.

I'm sure Nike made a very good offer, probably even a lifetime offer, and a development deal, to create his own line. As is evident with the recent "Federer line". But maybe Federer wanted GUARANTEED payment, which Nike was not willing to offer. Nike probably wanted payment based on sales.

That is a lot of speculation and assumptions on your part.

In this post you assumed/speculated that:

1) Uniqlo are not interested in selling sportswear

2) Uniqlo is never selling on TW for that reason (it might be so, but for reasons different than that, like having their own end consumer distribution channels)

3) Uniqlo cannot make the calculation how much Federer is worth to them (not to Nike)

4) the recent RF line is a sign of Nike's commitment to the future development of the RF brand (the RF Nike collaboration exists for years, and only a very limited number of items have come out of this. Combined with a total lack of any marketing for his line, apart from a simple logo plastered on a limited couple of items, I don't see where this conclusion comes from).

 

[Elektra]

Nike has a long and storied history of doing this to its tennis superstars when they seek lifetime deals towards the end of their careers.

We have the key examples of Sampras, Agassi and now Federer. All generational superstars and all subject to the same fate. The object lesson is that Nike only offers these lifetime deals to the absolute best of the best. You must be an athlete with timeless appeal, and your sport must be one of Nike's biggest markets so they get a return on their investment.

The most interesting thing to me is the story coming out about what role Nike has had in Federer's charity organisations, and whether, if required, Federer has made sure that the same financial guarantee can be made via his uniqlo deal.

Exactly and unfortunately tennis never had that kind of appeal among mass audience where you can make a lot of money post career. The only excpetion I see in this case is Serena Williams, the reason because she is reaches out to people besides just tennis fans. She has transcended her sport cause of her background, diversity and being different in terms of not looking like a typical tennis player. She looks like the everyday woman and she also has other passions besides being a tennis player.

Lifetime deals are a big deal it means that you don't have to worry about chasing money and your legacy is set post career and you will have relevance. Federer has accomplished a lot in his sport but tennis is niche sport and it does not move the needle in pop culture like soccer and basketball.

Lebron James is such role model that even when he hangs up his sizeable shoes – children worldwide will still aspire to emulate his magnanimous feats.
As for his business association with Nike once he’s done playing, James said he has had ‘a conversation’ about branching off into his own brand – like Jordan – under the company’s umbrella.

 

[brian anderson]

never see anyone wearing labron gear or shoes at the courts where i play; its all jordan; lebron is over rated as a pitchman; also nike doesn't have curry fyi