I thought Roddick not re-negotiating his clothing contract with Reebok and going over to Lacoste was weird earlier this year but after watching a week of the US Open and realizing that many players have changed their clothing contracts this year, I am left asking: where is Nike?
First I saw that Agassi was wearing Adidas. I can't imagine that Nike would have dropped him so I assume that Adidas gave him a good deal. And Steffi still wears Adidas so maybe it was just easier--especially if they plan on doing more ads together.
Then I heard that American Robbi Ginepri, who is having a comeback summer, was dropped by Nike earlier this year because os his poor performances of late. He went to Under Armour which is now making tennis clothes--or at things that one can play tennis in. Anyway--now that he is playing well (he beat former top ten player Tommy Haas, also formerly of Nike who is now wearing an Asics shirt with what looks like a bar code on it--trying to save time getting through security, Tommy?) at a tournament that Americans actually watch I bet Nike is having some regrets over that.
And then I saw some of Leyton Hewitt's match the other day and noticed he is no longer wearing Nike either. He is with Yonex--Yonex!! What is up with that?
And finally, former Nike player, Mary Pierce--who is having a great summer, is still without a clothing contract. Wake up, people! A top 15 player who is often a sentimental favorite, should have a clothing contract. She is playing in outfits typically found on the Sunday morning old lady doubles players at country clubs. The woman plays for France, if Lacoste is going to give Andy a deal, they should sponsor Mary too.
5 comments:
You make it sound like a sponsorship from a sportswear company is a reward for being a good tennis player, when really it's all about marketing. A young, hot, improving player is a lot more valuable as a spokesperson than an older, declining, but better player.
As a general rule, the clothing companies are only too happy to give away merchandise, and I bet that they would be happy to give it away to Pierce, too, in exchange for an agreement of exclusivity. Money, on the other hand, is a lot harder to get. I don't know any of the details about the Pierce situation, but it looks like she is deliberately wearing "no label" clothing when obviously she could afford to buy whatever she wanted. That makes it look to me that she is holding out for a "you-pay-me-to-wear-your-stuff" deal, which is probably not going to happen.
By the way, I left you an inviting lead-in the other day, if you have any more thoughts on softball.
I noticed the lead-in--thanks for that. I am still composing my thoughts on men's softball. I will definitely get back to you on that
According to Mary Carillo, who is commentating on the US OPen women's final, Mary Pierce, who is also without a racket contract, has decided, at age 30, that she doesn't to answer to sponsors. I guess I can respect that. But seriously Mary--at least buy some better outfits--you have the money. It may not be Nike you choose, but still Just Do It!
If that is true, I also have increased respect for Mary Pierce. But it still appears to me that she is making a statement because her clothes are conspicuously label-free. So not only does she not want to answer to sponsors, but she won't give them any free advertising either.
That certainly sets her apart.
Post a Comment