2 ms·

> The real problem isn’t that athlete deals are more expensive today. It’s that Nike lost athletes because it was no longer the clear leader in product developm

by ceejayoz 10mo ago

> The real problem isn’t that athlete deals are more expensive today. It’s that Nike lost athletes because it was no longer the clear leader in product development. Federer left because On was developing better running shoes. This feels like a really bald assertion.

nradov 10mo ago
Federer isn't a runner. There's a huge difference between tennis and running shoes.
- echelon 10mo ago
  It doesn't matter. Federer is an athletic god. I'm a runner and Federer is much more of a celeb in my eyes than any top runner.
echelon 10mo ago
Federer has a 3% ownership stake. That puts his skin in the game. He honestly got too little of a stake for his brand. If anything, once athletes wake up to the value prop, I'd expect for more brands emerging in the future with athletes taking more control or even owning the brands outright. It works like gang busters for celebrities launching fashion and cosmetics companies. It's turned dozens of them into billionaires in the last decade - more value creation than their acting or music careers: Skims (Kim Kardashian), Fenty (Rihanna), Rare Beauty (Selena Gomez), etc. etc. These companies have $500M ARR+ and aren't even a decade old. Celebrities are the ideal launching platform for new consumer brands. When your customer spends 30% of their day thinking about celebrities, you've already won them from a marketing perspective. My wife pays attention to the Kardashians, Hailey Bieber, Millie Bobby Brown, and the like. She knows instantly the moment there's some pop up for one of these brands. A large percentage of women her age do. It's practically the function of Instagram and TikTok to get the message out. This is huge. Brands anchored by influencers and celebrities capture public attention and consumers have an in-built desire to purchase and support those products. Celebs constantly show up on social feeds. It's not just free advertising. It's almost like a miasma where consumers live in the personality and the brand. People that follow celebs know about this stuff as much as you or I know about Nvidia or chip shortages. They're as loyal as Nintendo or Valve fans. Nike has no way to get exposure to this. They have no equity left to give. They could make rev split deals like the Nike Jordan line, but that doesn't come with true ownership or control. The celeb doesn't sit on the board and control the company directly. And celebrities are all about image and control. I expect more and more celebs and athletes to launch their own brands. It's a free billion dollar opportunity for them. It's the best way for them to capitalize on their status and turn it into a durable platform for their likeness beyond their career's peak.
mbesto 10mo ago
Ya this isn't true by any objective measure. Two pair of shoes on the top rankings: https://runrepeat.com/catalog/running-shoes https://runrepeat.com/catalog/running-shoes The top 10 men's at the Boston Marathon were wearing Adidas, Nike and Asics and Puma. On shoes rose up because they went grassroots and built "technology" that seemingly performed better and didn't make massive swings in design changes year over year (which is what Nike, Saucony, etc. do and its really annoying for most runners who get comfortable in a shoe). This is like saying Warby Parker made "technically" better glasses - they just made the experience of buying the item better (which is valuable btw).
- kstrauser 10mo ago
  A lot of people seem to be missing that Nike has fashion lines and sport lines. Their fashion lines are junky, IMO, and apparently in lots of people’s eyes. Their sport lines are still excellent. I only run in Brooks because they fit me better, but my wife only runs in Nike. Are Nikes junk? Yes. Are they top notch? Also yes. Imagine Toyota and Nissan had the same owners and it’d be a lot like that.
7777777phil 10mo ago
[dead]

nradov 10mo ago

Federer isn't a runner. There's a huge difference between tennis and running shoes.

echelon 10mo ago
It doesn't matter. Federer is an athletic god. I'm a runner and Federer is much more of a celeb in my eyes than any top runner.

echelon 10mo ago

Federer has a 3% ownership stake. That puts his skin in the game. He honestly got too little of a stake for his brand. If anything, once athletes wake up to the value prop, I'd expect for more brands emerging in the future with athletes taking more control or even owning the brands outright. It works like gang busters for celebrities launching fashion and cosmetics companies. It's turned dozens of them into billionaires in the last decade - more value creation than their acting or music careers: Skims (Kim Kardashian), Fenty (Rihanna), Rare Beauty (Selena Gomez), etc. etc. These companies have $500M ARR+ and aren't even a decade old. Celebrities are the ideal launching platform for new consumer brands. When your customer spends 30% of their day thinking about celebrities, you've already won them from a marketing perspective. My wife pays attention to the Kardashians, Hailey Bieber, Millie Bobby Brown, and the like. She knows instantly the moment there's some pop up for one of these brands. A large percentage of women her age do. It's practically the function of Instagram and TikTok to get the message out. This is huge. Brands anchored by influencers and celebrities capture public attention and consumers have an in-built desire to purchase and support those products. Celebs constantly show up on social feeds. It's not just free advertising. It's almost like a miasma where consumers live in the personality and the brand. People that follow celebs know about this stuff as much as you or I know about Nvidia or chip shortages. They're as loyal as Nintendo or Valve fans. Nike has no way to get exposure to this. They have no equity left to give. They could make rev split deals like the Nike Jordan line, but that doesn't come with true ownership or control. The celeb doesn't sit on the board and control the company directly. And celebrities are all about image and control. I expect more and more celebs and athletes to launch their own brands. It's a free billion dollar opportunity for them. It's the best way for them to capitalize on their status and turn it into a durable platform for their likeness beyond their career's peak.

mbesto 10mo ago

Ya this isn't true by any objective measure. Two pair of shoes on the top rankings: https://runrepeat.com/catalog/running-shoes https://runrepeat.com/catalog/running-shoes The top 10 men's at the Boston Marathon were wearing Adidas, Nike and Asics and Puma. On shoes rose up because they went grassroots and built "technology" that seemingly performed better and didn't make massive swings in design changes year over year (which is what Nike, Saucony, etc. do and its really annoying for most runners who get comfortable in a shoe). This is like saying Warby Parker made "technically" better glasses - they just made the experience of buying the item better (which is valuable btw).

kstrauser 10mo ago
A lot of people seem to be missing that Nike has fashion lines and sport lines. Their fashion lines are junky, IMO, and apparently in lots of people’s eyes. Their sport lines are still excellent. I only run in Brooks because they fit me better, but my wife only runs in Nike. Are Nikes junk? Yes. Are they top notch? Also yes. Imagine Toyota and Nissan had the same owners and it’d be a lot like that.

7777777phil 10mo ago

[dead]