Should someone access a place if they don’t meet the entry requirements, despite being a global icon? That is the question that thousands of people ask themselves in recent days after Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic, world number 1 tennis player, tried to enter Australia without being vaccinated against Covid-19 to play the Australian Open.
It is not the first time that the public image of the Serbian tennis player has suffered a setback of such caliber, since a few months ago he left his partner before the mixed doubles final of the Olympic Games. “Are you going to stop selling Lacoste polo shirts after the attitude shown by Novak?” 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 ambassador), they should stop associating with the Serbian tennis player because it does not meet a coherence with this person.
Question: How does the controversy of the tennis player affect the brands that sponsor Djokovic?
Answer: Brands have not and will not retaliate. Throughout his career he has already been a participant in several scandals (Olympic Games 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, know what they can win 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 theme occurred in another event or place like Wimbledon or Roland Garros?
R.: This should be more in the hand of the final 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 character reflect the ideals that these types of brands would like to have. The impact is the same regardless of whether the incident had occurred anywhere, although today, as a result of the mass information, the event would be news anywhere.
Q .: How can controversies of this type affect an athlete when they renew their sponsorship?
R.: If the sponsors he has (Lacoste, Hublot and Peugeot) have opted for him, it will be for something; 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 in recent years has worsened and probably does not match the objective of the brands, which, in addition to notoriety, want peace of mind from their patrons.
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 handles social networks, which should be a reflection of how the athlete is in real life. Sometimes they are the showcase where insults are launched and it is not the right thing to do, since they must execute them in a different way, such as Rafael Nadal or Juan Mata. The first move Djokovic should make would be to post a photograph of himself being 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 coming from a country like Serbia influenced?
R.: The conflict has gone from sporting to diplomatic. The Serbs are complaining because they say that it is a matter against Djokovic, that it would not be the same if the affected person were another tennis player. In the long term, this event will not undermine his reputation, but will prolong his image as the third party in contention.
“Any event that has Djokovic as its 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 rather puts sporting success and income above all else.
Q .: Is the notoriety of Djokovic something that will always be behind the other two greats despite being at the same sports level?
R.: All the attitudes and values that they both reflect, Djokovic cannot reflect, because he is only linked to sporting successes. Even so, today, when these three are closer to retirement, they continue to concentrate most of the sponsorships in 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 “no one was above the law”, and even so they have granted him a visa, who is 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, in the same way that other tennis players have. In this conflict, nobody comes out well, although both lose both the credibility of the country and the Australian Open.
Q .: What values should the Serbian work to be able 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 them to relate to you 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 of his purposes through his actions and with the help of the brands that have supported him throughout the years.
Q .: There are usually insurance and release clauses for sponsored athletes in the event 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.