Should someone enter a place if they don’t meet the entry requirements, despite being a global icon? That is the question that thousands of people have been asking in recent days after Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic, number 1 in world tennis, tried to enter Australia without being vaccinated with Covid-19 to play the Australian Open.
It is not the first time that the public image of the Serbian tennis player has suffered such a setback, since a few months ago he abandoned his partner before the mixed doubles final of the Olympic Games. “Are you going to stop selling Lacoste polo shirts after Novak’s attitude?” asks Chema Lamirán, director of the master’s degree in Digital Marketing and Big Data at the European University of Valencia, who believes that entities such as Unicef ( of which Novak is an ambassador), they should stop associating with the Serbian tennis player because he does not comply with a coherence with this person.
Question: How does the tennis player’s controversy affect the brands that sponsor Djokovic?
Answer: The brands have not taken any retaliation nor will they take it. Throughout his career he has already been a participant in various scandals (JJOO in the mixed doubles final or the US Open). Is Lacoste going to stop selling polo shirts because of his attitude? No. Ideally, brands are consistent with who they partner with, and unfortunately they know what they stand to gain and lose at the same time by partnering with Novak Djokovic.
Q.: How should these companies react to what happened? Would it be different if the topic happened in another event or place like Wimbledon or Roland Garros?
R.: This should be more in the hands of end consumers; There are brands beyond business (UNICEF), which have a contract with him as an ambassador and should rethink their future with him, if the person and the character reflect the ideals that this type of brand would like to have. The repercussion is the same regardless of whether the incident had occurred anywhere, although today, as a result of the mass of information, the event would be news anywhere.
Q.: How can controversies of this type affect an athlete when it comes to renewing their sponsorship?
R.: If the sponsors that he has (Lacoste, Hublot and Peugeot) have bet on him, it will be for a reason; probably because of his attitude towards Federer and Nadal, so he’s not going to catch them again. The tennis player has a history of events that has worsened in recent years and probably does not match the objective of the brands, which in addition to notoriety want peace of mind from their sponsors.
Q.: The personal brand of an athlete is affected by controversies of this type. How should Djokovic take care of his personal brand? How can you add more value to the brand?
R.: Djokovic is a person who manages social networks, which should be a reflection of how the athlete is in real life. Sometimes they are the showcase where expletives are thrown and it is not correct, since they must execute them in a different way, like, for example, Rafael Nadal or Juan Mata. The first move Djokovic should make would be to post a photograph getting vaccinated, avoiding controversies of any kind to show that, as other tennis players have done, he wants to compete on equal terms with the rest.
Q.: In Serbia there is a low vaccination rate compared to other European countries, so it can be understood that this controversy will not have an impact on a national scale as a brand and its brands, but on an international scale? Has it influenced coming from a country like Serbia?
R.: The conflict has gone from being sporting to being diplomatic. The Serbs are complaining because they say that it is an issue against Djokovic, that it would not be the same if the affected party was another tennis player. In the long term, this event will not diminish his reputation, but will prolong his image as the third party in contention.
“Any event that has Djokovic as the protagonist will prolong his image as a third party in contention”
Q.: Why hasn’t Djokovic positioned the brands that have accompanied him throughout his career as Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer have?
R.: Basically it is because of the athlete’s way of being. Djokovic is a person who is not capable of prioritizing values and attitude like the other two tennis players, but who puts sporting success and economic income above all else.
Q.: Is Djokovic’s notoriety something that will always be behind the other two greats despite being at the same level sportingly?
R.: All the attitudes and values that the two of them reflect, Djokovic fails to reflect, because it is only linked to sporting success. Even so, today, when these three are closer to retirement, they continue to concentrate most of the sponsorships on their figures to the detriment of new talents, making it clear that they continue to be the true figures of this sport.
Q.: The Prime Minister of Australia said that “nobody was above the law”, and even so they have granted him a visa, who comes out worse off, the country or tennis?
R.: According to the laws and ethical codes, Novak Djokovic should be deported from Australia for not being vaccinated, just as the rest of the tennis players have done. In this conflict no one comes out well, although both lose, both the country’s credibility and the Australian Open.
Q.: What values should the Serbian work on in order to maintain the strength of his personal brand after his retirement?
R.: The values that you must work on once you hang up the racket are those with which you want to be related to your person in the future, such as solidarity or transparency. When he leaves tennis with 250 million, do you think he will be associated with some values or others? He has achieved all his purposes through his actions and with the help of the brands that have supported him over the years.
Q.: Is there usually insurance and release clauses for sponsored athletes in the face of controversies of a certain caliber?
R.: Clauses exist, and there are athletes who, after having been the image of relevant scandals, were abandoned by their sponsors. A clear example was the cyclist Lance Armstrong who, after having used prohibited substances such as EPO, testosterone or blood transfusions, saw his main sponsor, Nike, immediately break his contract.
–
