Maria Sharapova: Marketing a Champion

...

She won many titles throughout her career and she proved that the Wimbledon success in 2004 was not a mistake. Even though her reputation as an athlete was spoiled by the doping scandal, some brands like Nike and Head continued a partnership with her because they know that she is a very popular person in the world and they still can profit together. Sharapova admitted the drug use by saying: “she did not know it was banned”. I guess it is her doctors mistake rather than hers. She is only 29 I believe she still can win some Grand Slams and people still believe in her. Her ban ends in April 2017 so she would be eligible for Roland Garros. I think if he wins something after her ban it would strengthen her image as a fighter.

- How would you describe IMG’s approach to selling athlete endorsements? What are its strengths and weaknesses? How easy is it for competitors to replicate IMG’s model?

No doubt that IMG is a very big company. Their previous successful partnerships made them who they are today – a leading agency in the world. I think their approach to selling athlete endorsements is successful. Their main strength is that they have different departments which specifically specializes on, for example, tennis or modeling. So they have very smart and talented people in one field and these people don’t have to do what they couldn’t do well. Another strength is that they are in a strong financial position.

I think it is not easy for other competitors to replicate IMG’s model. Simply because IMG is a truly global agency. It became so big that it had to split into multiple departments. IMG reputation is strong; it has many people who are one of the best in their endeavor and an athlete would more likely to choose IMG over some other agency. IMG has representatives everywhere across the globe, they can secure deals with athletes faster than other agencies.