Last Monday I broke the news that Ben Shelton and his team were closing in on an apparel and footwear deal with a brand not named On. This came after my earlier reporting that his contract with the Swiss athleticwear brand was up for renewal at the end of this year.
There was a bit of unintentional foreshadowing in the piece when I wrote:
Nothing is official yet, and On’s matching rights mean there remains a path—at least contractually—for Shelton to stay put. One person familiar with Shelton’s commercial situation joked that if he wins this year’s US Open, On might suddenly find itself willing to pay up.
Of course, Shelton didn’t win the US Open. But after he beat Carlos Alcaraz in the semis and made his first Slam final, a lot of people wondered whether the run would significantly change the value of his next apparel deal.
The truth is there’s often a discrepancy between how much audiences think these moments matter in business and how much they really do. Look at the number of one-off Slam finalists we’ve seen over the years and you’ll understand why most companies want to see some repetition before hinging a massive deal on a single result.
I don’t think anyone assumes this will be Shelton’s last Slam final, but that’s also precisely why making one doesn’t drastically change the equation around his next apparel deal. The brands bidding for him were already pricing in the possibility that he could win a Slam. Every company his team spoke to—including On—was weighing Shelton as a potential major champion when deciding what it was willing to pay to sign or retain him. Getting within one match of doing it certainly helps validate that bet, but it doesn’t suddenly create a valuation that wasn’t there two weeks ago.
Keep reading for the latest on Shelton’s next deal, the truth about Maja Chwalińska’s Lacoste kits, and why Elena Rybakina is “still” wearing Yonex.
