The outfit wars: how clothing contracts dominate the tennis business
Imagine a player stepping onto the court, under the spotlights: it’s not just their game the world is watching, but also the color of their outfit, the design of their polo, and the carefully placed logo on their chest.
This stylistic choice is far from innocent: it embodies a brand’s universe.
Behind this simple act lies a powerful economic game plan, turning every rally into a marketing opportunity, and some male and female players into living embodiments of commercial strategies.
Clothing contracts: the new strategic battleground in tennis
Today, outfits are real marketing weapons. An outfit worn in a Roland-Garros final can send sales of an entire collection through the roof, and an unexpected color at the US Open can become a visual code for an entire season.
Brands invest millions because a prime-time match is the equivalent of a global advertising campaign. And unlike the racket, apparel is what shows up the most on screen.
Players have become brands in their own right. The days when champions “simply wore an outfit” are over. Today, they embody a universe, a storytelling, a logo.
Federer was the first to have his own, Nadal and Djokovic followed, now imitated by Alcaraz and Sinner.
And above all: most earn more from marketing partnerships than from prize money in the tournaments they play. That’s how tennis economics work: image sells more than victories.
For example, when Djokovic wins Wimbledon, he pockets 3 million dollars. And when Djokovic wears a Lacoste outfit, he earns three times more over the year.
Same logic for Federer, whose marketing income has often exceeded 80 million per year. The outfit has become a core business, sometimes even the primary source of revenue.
Major players in the market: XXL contracts and spectacular splits
Novak Djokovic is the perfect example of a star whose clothing contracts quickly exploded, even forcing a sponsor change.
As early as 2009, the Serb signed a ten-year deal with Sergio Tacchini. But his success quickly became a problem.
The Serb was winning too many tournaments, too fast. Sales skyrocketed, but the brand couldn’t keep up: it broke the contract after two years, unable to financially assume the champion’s performances.
Djokovic then bounced back with Uniqlo in 2012, before landing at Lacoste in 2017 for around 9 million dollars per year.
On top of that, there are his Asics shoes: 4 million annually to outfit the former world No. 1. In total, the Serb now earns nearly 25 million dollars a year in sponsorships.
Federer: 300 million dollars over 10 years
Another example is his former rival Roger Federer. But this time, the change was linked to disagreements with his former partner: Nike.
In 2018, the Swiss left the American company and signed one of the biggest deals in sports history: 300 million over ten years with Uniqlo. A major decision, but not an easy one, as it wasn’t truly his choice.
“Nike, his long-time partner, abandoned him,” his agent Tony Godsick would later say.
Worse still: the Swiss left behind the mythical “RF” logo, owned by Nike. A symbolic wound and one of the most powerful logos in sports taken away from him.
Finally, for the last member of the Big 3, the story is different. Rafael Nadal has never left his sponsor (Nike), which he signed with at the age of 13.
This loyalty has allowed the Spaniard to earn 10 million dollars a year and to own his own now-mythical logo: the famous horns of the Bull of Manacor (Nadal’s nickname).
Nike already in the future with Sinner and Alcaraz
However, Nadal and Federer are now retired, a loss that may seem monumental for Nike. But no worries: the California-based company has secured its future.
The new wave is already worth a fortune. Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner are the new selling machines. Nike and other brands understand this: their influence on social media and their results have propelled them to star status.
Their contracts? Between 15 and 20 million euros per year each. With, as a bonus, a personalized logo like their elders (Alcaraz is expected to unveil his at the 2026 Australian Open). No less.
Brand strategies, contracts, and the race to sign prodigies
This dream scenario is giving other brands ideas. Everyone wants their Alcaraz and their Sinner, to the point of signing kids even before the age of 12.
Social media boosts visibility, and a viral junior can attract sponsors without having played a single main-draw match.
Diane Parry, former junior world No. 1, explains: “I signed with Asics very young, as soon as I was playing on the junior circuit.”
And that’s not the only example: Sharapova signed her first Nike contract at 11, Coco Gauff joined New Balance at 14, and Venus Williams landed 12 million with Reebok at just 15.
“Easier to sign Novak Djokovic than some juniors”
This increasingly common phenomenon often causes headaches for brands. Negotiating with a young player can be harder than with a star:
“It’s much easier to sign Novak Djokovic than some juniors, because he has a very clear vision. He knows exactly what he wants,” explained Marina Caïazzo, a consultant at Asics, to our colleagues at Tennis Legend.
On top of that, family pressure is often enormous. Parents want to secure the future. Brands want to lock things down. And players, sometimes still children, end up becoming marketing vehicles in spite of themselves.
Inequalities: the stars and everyone else
Finally, while the battle between brands has never been so fierce to attract a male or female player, what happens next once the contract is signed? What are the clauses? Do all players have the same rights?
No. Some champions on tour can negotiate certain clauses, such as a maximum number of photoshoots and events per year; they can also choose their outfit, their shoes, and work closely with the brand.
That’s not (always) the case for an average player, who must follow the rules below:
- exclusive use of the brand, attendance at requested photoshoots, media and social media obligations, all under penalty of being sanctioned in case of non-compliance or “lack of visibility.”
A never-ending race forward?
The player-brand relationship keeps evolving season after season. Tennis giants have always been paid. But never as much as today. Never this early in their careers.
Tennis has never been so publicized. And backstage, never so lucrative. This raises several questions:
How far will we go in turning tennis and its protagonists into a full-fledged marketing product? Is this a good thing for tennis?
And if not, is it a necessary evil? Don’t we risk losing, along the way, what makes up the “soul” of this nearly 200-year-old sport?
