The BackPage Weekly | Are boot deals worth it for female players?
By Daniel Geey, Jonny Madill and Zoe Bennett
Introduction
We have previously written about football player boot deals with companies like Nike, Adidas, Puma and New Balance and broken down how these deals are typically structured and some of the high-level nuances for players and their agents to consider. These include:
how players enter into commercial deals through an image rights company;
why boot deals are significantly broader in scope than simply an obligation on a player to exclusively wear a brand’s boots in return for a fee; and
why the strict approach taken by many boot brands in their standard contracts can restrict players securing additional commercial deals.
There is no doubt that the benefits of aligning with global sports and footwear brands are significant, not least the potential to catapult players and athletes into the spotlight from a brand perspective. However, the broad exclusivity many boot brands insist on as part of these deals has the potential to restrict players’ wider commercial opportunities in other sectors.
Given the increasing opportunities for the trailblazing players in the women’s game to create a wide portfolio of brand deals, this article assesses the ‘opportunity v cost’ of boot deals, and drills into whether the small print in the contracts makes them really worth it.
Brand Deals in the Women’s Game
As players have become household names with global reach, a wide variety of brands continue to partner with footballers. Historically, the more lucrative, higher profile commercial brand deals had been reserved for male players. This is emphatically no longer the case. Brands continue to flock to a be associated with:
national teams like the USWNT and the Lionesses;
NWSL and WSL clubs like Angel City FC and Arsenal FC; and
players lighting up their domestic and international teams and who have global superstar brand potential.
The teams mentioned above have been some of the trailblazers in demonstrating what is possible; from record-breaking commercial partner deals to 60,000+ attendances at The Emirates.
When it comes to endorsement and ambassador deals for players, companies will typically pay a player a fee, usually through her image rights company, to endorse and promote brands. Notable high-profile tie-ups include:
Lotte Wubben Moy and Venus' #MoveYourSkin campaign;
Alessia Russo and Oakley;
Katie McCabe and Whoop;
Sam Kerr and Meta; and
Mary Earps and Ariel.
Boot Deals: The Basics
In exchange for a set ‘retainer’ fee and several performance related (team and individual) bonuses, players will agree to exclusively wear, for example, Adidas boots, shin pads (plus gloves, if a goalkeeper). A boot deal is usually the most lucrative sponsorship deal for most players. In addition, the player will be required to attend personal appearances and photo shoots, undertake commercial and social media activities and appear in a variety of adverts. In photo shoots and promotional appearances, the player will be kitted out in say Adidas branded clothes too. Indeed, the player will be prohibited from wearing anything Nike related if say they are sponsored by New Balance.
It's also more common for non-sporting brands (as set out above) to partner with high profile players and this is where there can be friction between brand deals. Nike, Adidas or Puma etc will want to ensure their athletes are not endorsing competitor brands. The question is “who would be considered a competitor?”. Is Louis Vuitton competing with Adidas? Is Crocs competing with Nike? Is H&M vying with Puma? Does Ralf Lauren compete with New Balance?
In addition to the competitor question, boot manufacturers have traditionally stretched the list of products that they do not wish their athletes to endorse (perhaps because they wish to enter such a market in the future). Such product categories can include sunglasses, fitness trackers, fashion, earbuds and headphones, personal care, toiletries and hygiene products, watches and electronic accessories. Such restrictions may also cover luxury brand products like eveningwear, high-end shoes and even washbags carried into the changing rooms. In short, boot brands don’t view themselves as ‘footwear’ brands, but rather fashion, lifestyle, entertainment and even technology brands.
With more brands than ever keen to align with players, should players and their agents be considering targeting a wider portfolio of commercial deals without the restrictions imposed by their boot manufacturers? Significantly, does the answer differ if you are a male or female player?
Are Boot Deal Restrictions Worth It?
The leading boot manufacturers continue to spend significant sums on the best and brightest players. Whilst the top players continue to be rewarded for their on-pitch success and subsequent off-pitch marketability, some have questioned the value of entering into a boot deal if it impacts on a player’s ability to more broadly commercialise their brand.
Apart from a minority of outlier WSL players and Lionesses, a £10-20k+ boot deal would be seen as significant for most UK based female players. However, as set out above, any deal would include requirements to wear the boot brand’s athletic footwear, clothing and accessory ranges. The boot brand restrictions list would likely include the areas touched upon above including luxury brand products and a range of other product categories (sunglasses, headphones, personal care and watches etc.).
Male players may have traditionally been more likely to accept such stringent brand ambassador restrictions in their boot deals not only because of the greater numbers being offered in the men’s game but notably as their commercial deals tend to make up a smaller percentage of their overall income. That’s simply not the case for WSL players.
Even for the elite WSL players, they are likely to earn as much, if not more, from their off-field commercial brand deals. Therefore, unless a boot deal is lucrative enough, many WSL players may be better off accepting a supply deal from the boot brand. This would then remove the wider brand and product restrictions and potentially open up opportunities in a broad range of sectors including say the wider athleisure sector (which would have traditionally been prohibited by boot manufacturers). Few WSL players have to date had opportunities to partner with female first brands like Lululemon, Alo Yoga, Athleta or Free People, for example.
If the commercials do stack up for a player to enter into a boot deal, ensuring the player (and – if applicable – her image rights company) are protected from both a legal and commercial risk perspective is obviously paramount. This includes defining the exclusivity parameters as discussed above, ensuring there are proper approval rights, clearly defining the promotional deliverables, but also ensuring the limitation of liability, indemnity and termination provisions do not expose the player to undue legal risk.
It is also critically important to ensure that that any ‘conditions’ on payment of the annual retainer fees are kept to a minimum – e.g. minimum starting appearances. There are also bespoke issues which are specific to female player deals to consider – one topical example being the increasing inclusion of ‘pregnancy’ clauses which have the potential to significantly dilute the value of the commercial deal.
Conclusion
If a player’s boot deal is so broad as to infringe on wider lucrative opportunities in other brand sectors, the commercial growth potential of that athlete is severely limited.
WSL players and their agents need to carefully evaluate the structuring of current boot deals on offer, particularly when considering the broad product and category restrictions these deals often impose. Without some changes to a boot manufacturers’ standard ‘template’ agreements, and more willingness to negotiate terms, some agents may increasingly opt for a more flexible, pragmatic portfolio approach to maximise commercial and brand opportunities for their players.