[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

Sure, but their logo is still on their product even if they do sell clothing commercially. So why is it OK for Tommy to just buy their clothing and wear it in front of thousands of people without being sponsored, when Baghdatis still has to use a blank racket?

Because Nike has no problem with free exposure. Most clothing companies don't, they would be very stupid to do so for reasons that are pretty logical if you give it a second of thought. Only in cases of limited edition articles or some sort of special articles do they go to that extent and even in that case I'm sure it's just a matter of time and exclusivity if anything.

Obviously the racket manufacturer in question thinks differently. And making rackets is not the same as making clothes.

If the player in question has a problem with not getting paid while exposing in front of thousands of people then I guess he can just suck it up and wear plain t-shirts.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

Sure, but their logo is still on their product even if they do sell clothing commercially. So why is it OK for Tommy to just buy their clothing and wear it in front of thousands of people without being sponsored, when Baghdatis still has to use a blank racket?

Players don't use blacked out rackets because they're not allowed to use a normal racket, they use blacked out rackets because they don't want to give whichever manufacturer free advertising.

They may also be using a blacked out racket whilst under sponsorship (mainly in training, though) whilst they're using an old frame not updated with the latest paintjob or testing a new model or more likely pro stock.

And there have been lots of players that aren't under sponsorship wearing a brand.

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

Because Nike has no problem with free exposure. Most clothing companies don't, they would be very stupid to do so for reasons that are pretty logical if you give it a second of thought. Only in cases of limited edition articles or some sort of special articles do they go to that extent and even in that case I'm sure it's just a matter of time and exclusivity if anything.

Obviously the racket manufacturer in question thinks differently. And making rackets is not the same as making clothes.

If the player in question has a problem with not getting paid while exposing in front of thousands of people then I guess he can just suck it up and wear plain t-shirts.

Originally Posted by Burrow

Players don't use blacked out rackets because they're not allowed to use a normal racket, they use blacked out rackets because they don't want to give whichever manufacturer free advertising.

They may also be using a blacked out racket whilst under sponsorship (mainly in training, though) whilst they're using an old frame not updated with the latest paintjob or testing a new model or more likely pro stock.

And there have been lots of players that aren't under sponsorship wearing a brand.

Ok. That makes sense now

[JanKowalski]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

What the heck does this have to do with the U.S.? I'm just saying hypothetically if I had a clothing brand called "Freak3y Clothing" and Wayne Odesnik(who I hate) shows up at the US Open wearing my clothing, that wouldn't be allowed? I'm not saying anyone hates Tommy(he's one of my fav players), but I'm pretty sure you have to be sponsored by a company to go on TV wearing their clothing. Otherwise wouldn't Baghdatis start using an actual brand of racket instead of his blank one?

You're so brainwashed by corporations, that you think a tennis player can't wear whatever the fuck he wants on a tennis court.

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by JanKowalski

You're so brainwashed by corporations, that you think a tennis player can't wear whatever the fuck he wants on a tennis court.

Yes, because corporations ONLY exist in the U.S....

[Burrow]

Actually, this is a kind of interesting topic. Anyone remember Youzhny, I think a year and a half ago, he was wearing full Adidas at the Australian Open, but the previous season's fall kit. He's always had dodgy clothing issues. I remember at the 2006 US Open he went from wearing Fila, to Adidas.



to

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by Burrow

Actually, this is a kind of interesting topic. Anyone remember Youzhny, I think a year and a half ago, he was wearing full Adidas at the Australian Open, but the previous season's fall kit. He's always had dodgy clothing issues. I remember at the 2006 US Open he went from wearing Fila, to Adidas.

This deserves another thread

[JanKowalski]

Originally Posted by Freak3yman84

Yes, because corporations ONLY exist in the U.S....

But in other coutries corporations don't own the citizens, like they do in USA.

Jesus, you're thick.

[Freak3yman84]

Originally Posted by JanKowalski

But in other coutries corporations don't own the citizens, like they do in USA.

Jesus, you're thick.

In what way do corporations own the citizens? Have you lived in the U.S. before?

[Smoke944]

Originally Posted by JanKowalski

You're so brainwashed by corporations, that you think a tennis player can't wear whatever the fuck he wants on a tennis court.

Yeah. Why would they care if Haas wears their clothes without a contract? It's just free visibility for them on a popular player.

[Pratik]

Just came across this:
http://blog.sportscape.tv/category/tennis/
Good captions. Here are a few:

[henke007]

[BroTree123]

That's hot as.

[henke007]

Masha

[JanKowalski]

Originally Posted by henke007

Masha

Banshee : puke :

She seems to hang out around Djokovic a lot.