When is the last time there was an ATP year end top 5 without Nike?

[every7]

Nike has been phoning it in for a while now. The inherent quality of Nike's tennis products has dropped substantially in the last 10 years. For this reason the company has become very reliant on having visibility and market saturation through sponsorship of the absolute elite players in order to sell their product.

It will be interesting to see what Nike's next move will be. There still might be a while to wait for their younger players to break through (Coric et al) and their older athletes (who couldn't have done more for the brand, quite honestly) are not as visible as they once were. Nike thrives on visibility. If they continue this approach, a decision will have to be made soon as they have suffered a dramatic loss of exposure.

Meanwhile, two of the top 5 are essentially sponsored by lifestyle clothing brands. It's a massive threat to Nike and also Adidas.

 

[Babolad]

Pretty much Nike tennis was carried solely by Federer and Nadal.

With the future "big 3" being Thiem, Zverev and Pouille, Adidas is likely gonna take the forefront as the biggest brand in tennis for the next 10 years.

 

[Ihatetennis]

Pretty much Nike tennis was carried solely by Federer and Nadal.

With the future "big 3" being Thiem, Zverev and Pouille, Adidas is likely gonna take the forefront as the biggest brand in tennis for the next 10 years.

What about fritz?

Strongest American presence and should be up there in the conversation

 

[Babolad]

What about fritz?

Strongest American presence and should be up there in the conversation

Yes i agree, Fritz is in line with them. The next big four would be Thiem, Zverev, Pouille and FRITZ. But majority of exposure will be Adidas.
There's also Kyrgios.. but then again he's Kyrgios. Dude might quit tennis next year for all we know. lol

 

[Sentinel]

Isn't Kyrgios in the top five ?

 

[every7]

Pretty much Nike tennis was carried solely by Federer and Nadal.

With the future "big 3" being Thiem, Zverev and Pouille, Adidas is likely gonna take the forefront as the biggest brand in tennis for the next 10 years.

I think the biggest curveball Nike got thrown was Dimitrov and Del Potro not panning out.

Every selection metric they had must have been pointing to those two being top 5 by 2016. Del Potro would have been, it's just shocking luck. In Dimi's case I still can't explain it, and Nike execs must feel pretty ripped by him tbh.

 

[Babolad]

I think the biggest curveball Nike got thrown was Dimitrov and Del Potro not panning out.

Every selection metric they had must have been pointing to those two being top 5 by 2016. Del Potro would have been, it's just shocking luck. In Dimi's case I still can't explain it, and Nike execs must feel pretty ripped by him tbh.

Regarding Dimitrov, Wilson is probably feeling the same way. He's supposedly the endorsement face of the Pro staff 97S. Though he could still make his mark. At least he's back in the Top 20. If he can hold it together next year then maybe he can make it close to top 10 eventually.

 

[junior74]

Nike has been phoning it in for a while now. The inherent quality of Nike's tennis products has dropped substantially in the last 10 years. For this reason the company has become very reliant on having visibility and market saturation through sponsorship of the absolute elite players in order to sell their product.

It will be interesting to see what Nike's next move will be. There still might be a while to wait for their younger players to break through (Coric et al) and their older athletes (who couldn't have done more for the brand, quite honestly) are not as visible as they once were. Nike thrives on visibility. If they continue this approach, a decision will have to be made soon as they have suffered a dramatic loss of exposure.

Meanwhile, two of the top 5 are essentially sponsored by lifestyle clothing brands. It's a massive threat to Nike and also Adidas.

Is that Nike's Wimbledon post match-costume you're wearing?

 

[smalahove]

What about fritz?

Strongest American presence and should be up there in the conversation

Right now, he's def in a category below those three.

I mean, they've all won ATP (250) events this year. They've all beaten top 10 players several times this year. For sure Fritz is only 19 and could have a bright future, however in comparison, Zverev is also 19 and is making his way towards the top of ATP 500 and ATP 1000 events. Fritz has to beat a top 10 player before his name is a serious contender in this discussion, imho.

 

[Ihatetennis]

Right now, he's def in a category below those three.

I mean, they've all won ATP (250) events this year. They've all beaten top 10 players several times this year. For sure Fritz is only 19 and could have a bright future, however in comparison, Zverev is also 19 and is making his way towards the top of ATP 500 and ATP 1000 events. Fritz has to beat a top 10 player before his name is a serious contender in this discussion, imho.

Zverev is a bit older than Fritz

Fritz only turned 19 less than 3 weeks ago.

I just think Fritz has potential for being the next big thing for the us. Height and strength are not lacking. Finally the us has a rising star over 5'11

Edit: pouille and thiem are both 22, not old but not 19

 

[Noveson]

Pretty much Nike tennis was carried solely by Federer and Nadal.

With the future "big 3" being Thiem, Zverev and Pouille, Adidas is likely gonna take the forefront as the biggest brand in tennis for the next 10 years.

So the future big 3 is a 23 year old and a 22 year old that are both lower ranked than a 21 year old? Funny how you sound so sure. Zverev I'll give you. He's only 19 and looks crazy talented.

 

[Babolad]

So the future big 3 is a 23 year old and a 22 year old that are both lower ranked than a 21 year old? Funny how you sound so sure. Zverev I'll give you. He's only 19 and looks crazy talented.

21 year old? You're referring to Kyrgios? Dude is planning to leave tennis in 1 to 2 years. Also last time I checked Thiem is already in the Top 10. Also Thiem has a H2H record 3-1 over Zverev. Maybe Zverev could end up winning more against Thiem later on, but doesn't mean they both can't rule the top 4 together. Just look at Federer and Nadal.

Pouille is also another player to look out for, he moves well, plays smart, has weapons, forehand and serve, he has an especially good and accurate slice serve.

 

[smalahove]

Zverev is a bit older than Fritz

Fritz only turned 19 less than 3 weeks ago.

I just think Fritz has potential for being the next big thing for the us. Height and strength are not lacking. Finally the us has a rising star over 5'11

Edit: pouille and thiem are both 22, not old but not 19

I am not questioning his potential. I am merely pointing out the fact that he is not in the same category as the three others.
Potential needs to be fulfilled, and is most often done in several stages, where, for each stage, several players fail to rise to the occasion (and never do). Tbh, I put Sock before him, based on performance.

So the future big 3 is a 23 year old and a 22 year old that are both lower ranked than a 21 year old? Funny how you sound so sure. Zverev I'll give you. He's only 19 and looks crazy talented.

Based on performance this year Kyrgios is def in the same category as the 3 mentioned. My guess he omitted him due to his mental resolve - or lack of it

 

[Booger]

Nike has the brand and the money to take whomever they want.

They've made it very clear they want nothing to do with defensive pushers (Murrovic) or lost generation mugs who will only weaken their image. I don't blame them. Who is going to buy apparel because Murray wears it?

 

[Ihatetennis]

I am not questioning his potential. I am merely pointing out the fact that he is not in the same category as the three others.
Potential needs to be fulfilled, and is most often done in several stages, where, for each stage, several players fail to rise to the occasion (and never do). Tbh, I put Sock before him, based on performance.



Based on performance this year Kyrgios is def in the same category as the 3 mentioned. My guess he omitted him due to his mental resolve - or lack of it

I would say that fritz should still be in the next wave of great category.

Thiem and Pouille were doing much worse at 19 than fritz is.

Thiem was just inside the top 50 when he turned 20, and wasn't in the top 100 until he was 19.

Pouille was 200-133 at fritz's age

Zverev is the only one that was doing better at the same age and even then they arent far apart from eachother because zverev was ranked 3 spots higher at 53 when he turned 19 earlier this year.

Basically fritz is on par with zverev as far as age timeline

fritz deserves to be in the conversation, even if he isnt top 20 yet, he is still the youngest and is rising incredibly fast

 

[Kid Carlos]

Remember this very important point: Nike is a billion dollar company and you can bet your bottom dollar that when Serena, Federer, Sharapova & Nadal (4 of Nike's top 19 assets) retire, about 30-40 million dollars a year will be opened up. I've had the same feelings on Nike throughout the past two years regarding their aging stars, but it's important to remember that THEY ARE A BILLION dollar company and can afford to get whomever they please when they time is right.

 

[every7]

Is that Nike's Wimbledon post match-costume you're wearing?

US Open Post-match costume lol

 

[every7]

Nike has the brand and the money to take whomever they want.

They've made it very clear they want nothing to do with defensive pushers (Murrovic) or lost generation mugs who will only weaken their image. I don't blame them. Who is going to buy apparel because Murray wears it?

That's the whole point of my thread. Nike relies on contracting visible superstars to sell clothing. Visibility and saturation has been their method. It used to be a mixture of quality and visibility / saturation marketing techniques.

So if there is a dearth of players who can market their clothing, they are in big trouble. If they have to sit out a 5-10 year span where they can't use their current marketing techniques successfully they will be forced to change. I'm fascinated to see how they cope with the challenge.

 

[joekapa]

Nike has the brand and the money to take whomever they want.

They've made it very clear they want nothing to do with defensive pushers (Murrovic) or lost generation mugs who will only weaken their image. I don't blame them. Who is going to buy apparel because Murray wears it?

Then why did they sign Nadal ?

 

[joekapa]

Nike/Adidas is not the only billion dollar sports apparel companies out there. Fila is in the top 5. Reebok as well. Even Asics is. And wait for it.....Muzino's sales are also in the billions.

Any of these comapnies can challenge Nike/Adidas if they really wanted to.

 

[kimguroo]

Nike is stuck with closely 100 mil for those four big name aged players. We might see more price hikes until they retire. Unfortunately, there is no rising star. More good news for Nike.
Nike tennis should refocused on their products first and plan for futures whether they will make Federer brand or not.

Nike has money but they can't afford everyone. Two big names will be maximum budget for them unless Nike can sign a crazy talent player for super bargain deal (similar to Federer's worst early contract in history of tennis hahahahaha).

 

[smalahove]

Actually, Nike can easily afford as many top ATP players it wants.
The problem is, like so many have pointed out, there are no clear options under 25, fitting their desired brand image, and closing in on the top 10.
The situation has been so sparse the last few years, they've been throwing money at any young player entering the top 100, just to make sure no one else signs them. Hasn't panned out yet: the australian dynamic repulsion duo comes to mind (even though Kyrgios does perform well), Sock, Dimitrov, Edmund, Coric, Fritz, Harrison, etc ... All great players with potential, but not at the level Nike wants them to be - yet.

 

[Backhand Compliment]

http://www.marketingdeportivomd.com/2016/11/nike-prepara-su-gran-golpe-en-el-tenis.html

Seems like that could change next year, since Djokovic's 5 year contract with Uniqlo is about to finish.

 

[Andy Murray Is Goat]

To be honest for me the future of tennis is Zverev.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Nike is fine. They can afford to let players go through their early years sponsored by another brand and when they start to really work out who is going to be great they have the resources to walk in and offer deals most other companies wont match. It's not because they waste money either, they just have a massive global network of sales locations which means their top limit for sales is higher than the others.

 

[Bender]

Better question:

When was the last time there was a year end top 5 witout the APD?

 

[scotus]

Nike hasn't been featured in men's slam finals for quite a while.

 

[Pronate]

Nike hasn't been featured in men's slam finals for quite a while.

The last one being 2015 US open by Roger

 

[ollinger]

Nike has been phoning it in for a while now. The inherent quality of Nike's tennis products has dropped substantially in the last 10 years. For this reason the company has become very reliant on having visibility and market saturation through sponsorship of the absolute elite players in order to sell their product.

not sure what the basis for "the inherent quality of Nike's tennis products has dropped substantially in the last 10 years" is (can you substantiate this??) but it may be irrelevant; Nike, as reported in Forbes and elsewhere the last two years, sees women's sports and particularly women's leisure wear as the markets it will attack for the greatest potential in growth. Tennis shoes are not a very big market for them, and in any event their shoe business was actually up 12% last year, so it likely isn't the one they're focusing most of their attention on.

 

[every7]

not sure what the basis for "the inherent quality of Nike's tennis products has dropped substantially in the last 10 years" is (can you substantiate this??)

For me the main indicators that the inherent quality of Nike's tennis products has dropped substantially in the last 10 years:
- Fabric Lifespan is decreased (in all sorts of areas - One example? Nike's changed approach to outsole guarantees, even on flagship tennis models)
- Quality and variation of fabric cuts and styles and fabric stitching has decreased
- Use of quality natural fabrics decreased.
- Quality of on-fabric branding (things like logos - these are regularly now just dye-subliminated digital surface latex prints, as opposed to premium process intensive embroideries or separate fabric / material overlays)

I would love to read those Forbes articles. If you can post some links to relevant reading in these areas it would be great. I'm as clueless as everyone on Nike's approach going forward. I am fascinated to see how or if Nike is going to change moving forward. Their traditional tennis marketing model of the last 10 years will not be sustainable as the tennis apparel landscape has changed dramatically and they have new, large competitors. Lifestyle brands with the same global supply chains that Nike has. And they are supplying comparable or better gear at greatly reduced prices.

Nike is so big and overwhelming to a lot of people that they assume they are immune from disaster. Trust me, Nike makes mistakes. Worst case scenario would be a historic withdrawal from certain market segments like the disastrous foray Nike made into golf clubs.

 

[Noveson]

For me the main indicators that the inherent quality of Nike's tennis products has dropped substantially in the last 10 years:
- Fabric Lifespan is decreased (in all sorts of areas - One example? Nike's changed approach to outsole guarantees, even on flagship tennis models)
- Quality and variation of fabric cuts and styles and fabric stitching has decreased
- Use of quality natural fabrics decreased.
- Quality of on-fabric branding (things like logos - these are regularly now just dye-subliminated digital surface latex prints, as opposed to premium process intensive embroideries or separate fabric / material overlays)

I would love to read those Forbes articles. If you can post some links to relevant reading in these areas it would be great. I'm as clueless as everyone on Nike's approach going forward. I am fascinated to see how or if Nike is going to change moving forward. Their traditional tennis marketing model of the last 10 years will not be sustainable as the tennis apparel landscape has changed dramatically and they have new, large competitors. Lifestyle brands with the same global supply chains that Nike has. And they are supplying comparable or better gear at greatly reduced prices.

Nike is so big and overwhelming to a lot of people that they assume they are immune from disaster. Trust me, Nike makes mistakes. Worst case scenario would be a historic withdrawal from certain market segments like the disastrous foray Nike made into golf clubs.

Huh? I don't see any of this at all. you want intensive embroidery logos on tennis shirts? Why would that be considered higher quality LOL. Do you have data to back up the fabric lifespan? Or that the quality of fabrics decreased? I've been wearing Nike and Adidas stuff my whole life(obviously in the hometown of both) and haven't seen any consistent kind of decrease in qulaity. As always there are some shoddily made products for both brands, but saying the fabric quality has decreased is absolutely absurd to me.

The only real complaint I can see is the designs seem particularly uninspired lately, and the Vapors really have no durability, but people(looking at you TT) gobble them up 3 pairs at a time so I don't see why any would expect that to change.

 

[Noveson]

As far as athletes go I wouldn't blame Nike for stepping back from tennis. None of the top 10 tennis players are selling a lot of gear right now. How many people do you see wearing Novaks line? Lets face it him and Murray are boring as all hell. Grigor and Kyrgios both had potential to sell clothes(maybe still do?) but were let downs. But I don't see nay hot ticket player right now that Nike would want badly, and if they wanted someone they would get them.

 

[every7]

Huh? I don't see any of this at all. you want intensive embroidery logos on tennis shirts? Why would that be considered higher quality LOL. Do you have data to back up the fabric lifespan? Or that the quality of fabrics decreased? I've been wearing Nike and Adidas stuff my whole life(obviously in the hometown of both) and haven't seen any consistent kind of decrease in qulaity. As always there are some shoddily made products for both brands, but saying the fabric quality has decreased is absolutely absurd to me.

The only real complaint I can see is the designs seem particularly uninspired lately, and the Vapors really have no durability, but people(looking at you TT) gobble them up 3 pairs at a time so I don't see why any would expect that to change.

You've probably only been wearing Nike and Adidas since both brands went to crap LOL. You have no frame of reference of how good Nike USED to be.

Agree, from a design standpoint Nike has definitely deteriorated.

 

[Noveson]

You've probably only been wearing Nike and Adidas since both brands went to crap LOL. You have no frame of reference of how good Nike USED to be.

Agree, from a design standpoint Nike has definitely deteriorated.

....so when was Nike good? You didn't answer any of my other questions. All you keep saying is that their stuff, who's athletic apparel is good then?

 

[every7]

....so when was Nike good? You didn't answer any of my other questions. All you keep saying is that their stuff, who's athletic apparel is good then?

I mainly just wear the older Nike gear. The older Nike Court apparel is best but it is getting increasingly hard to find. Of the new gear, Uniqlo seems to be the best at marrying technological advances with high quality materials and inoffensive designs at a reasonable price. With that said, Boast and Under Armour also make great products.