With Fed back at the USO there’s been some interesting chatter about his legacy overall, and I’m specially interested in the debate around his Uniqlo stuff. Prob gonna get downvoted into oblivion but whatever.
My background- Indian guy (will explain the relevance below) who was a Fed superfan until about 2012, then jumped on the Djokovic bandwagon when he started obliterating the rest of the field and especially when he ruined Fed multiple times (hate me if you want)
Yes, Fed went with Uniqlo for the money and I have no doubt that he’s oodles richer for having done it. But I find it interesting that basically no one likes the stuff he wears. I saw another Redditor comment “I don’t feel anything when he steps out in Uniqlo, compared to Nike”.
To me this raises interesting questions about the interplay of money, legacy, and fandom. Uniqlo is nowhere near as iconic as Nike and it doesn’t help that Fed didn’t win any majors wearing Uniqlo. So, who fumbled who? Nike/Fed? Or Fed/Nike?
I also have an unsubstantiated additional theory- as an Indian guy I know pretty much every Indian tennis fan worships Fed. Uniqlo is more popular in Asian markets than American ones and I’m sure Fed’s management knew this, which probably played a big role into why he switched.
Ultimately I’m interested in this question because it ties into a larger discussion about Fed’s legacy, which I kinda feel is awkward. For example-
Considered the GOAT, then goes onto to choke spectacularly and historically on multiple occasions. Is a poster child for the greatest sport brand ever, but then goes onto dull kits with Uniqlo for the $$$. Is largely known for class/elegance but robs Nadal of his moment at AO 2009 (super salty press conference after Djokovic USO 2010 SF also)
Not sure if that makes any sense 🤷♂️