When a major sports star changes sponsors, the move goes far beyond a new logo on their boots or shirt. The abandoned brand can lose years of association with an idol, while the new one can suddenly buy notoriety, credibility and access to millions of consumers.

Nike experienced it with Messi and Stephen Curry. Now it is experiencing it again with Kylian Mbappé. But there is an even more interesting question: can a brand really recover the millions it pays for an athlete?

Michael Jordan: when the sponsored athlete became a brand

To understand today’s business, we have to go back to 1984. Nike did not yet dominate basketball and Michael Jordan had just arrived in the NBA. Adidas was his preferred brand, but Nike offered him a deal that would end up transforming the industry.

The initial contract guaranteed Jordan $500,000 a year for five years, in addition to royalties and other compensation. But the great revolution was something else: Nike did not limit itself to using his image to sell a pair of shoes. It built a product and, later, a brand around him.

The first Air Jordans went on sale in 1985. Nike expected to generate around $3 million in revenue during the first three years; according to Sports Illustrated, the product generated around $130 million in the first year alone. What had begun as a sponsorship ended up becoming Jordan Brand, a division of Nike in its own right.

Four decades later, the scale of the business explains better than any advertising campaign what had changed. Nike reported that Jordan Brand had exceeded $7 billion in annual revenue during fiscal year 2024.

Jordan demonstrated that an athlete could stop being simply someone who advertised a product and become a business asset capable of generating value for decades. A large part of today’s major contracts are based on that idea.

Messi and Cristiano: losing a star or locking one in

Before becoming a global Adidas icon, Lionel Messi had worn Nike. In 2006, when he was only 18 years old, the Argentine switched the American company’s boots for Adidas’s three stripes. Nike considered that it had contractual rights over the player and the dispute ended up in court. The company even claimed €5.5 million in compensation, but in 2007 a commercial court in Barcelona concluded that the document signed with Nike did not constitute a definitive contract and ruled in Messi’s favour.

Adidas had bet on him before he became the best player in the world. According to the court ruling reported at the time by EFE, the new agreement more than tripled the income Nike had offered him.

Seen in perspective, Adidas was not buying an established superstar. It was buying the possibility that he would become one.

The bet paid off extraordinarily well. In 2017, Messi extended his relationship with Adidas through a long-term agreement that various sources described as a lifetime deal. Forbes estimated that the previous contract generated around $12 million a year for him.

Nike, however, made a very different decision with the other great footballer of his generation. Cristiano Ronaldo has maintained a relationship with the American company since the beginning of his professional career. At the end of 2016, Nike announced a new long-term agreement with the Portuguese player. Various reports described it as a lifetime contract and compared it with LeBron James’s deal, potentially valued at $1 billion. The exact figure of Ronaldo’s contract, however, has not been made public.

What has been estimated is its commercial impact. In 2016, Hookit data reported by Forbes calculated that Ronaldo’s sponsored content had generated around $176 million in media value for all of his sponsors. Compared with sponsorship income of around $32 million, that was equivalent to an estimated media return of 449%, without counting other commercial channels.

Here a first lesson appears. Nike let Messi slip away when he was still a prospect. With Cristiano, it chose to secure a long-term relationship with a star who had already demonstrated an extraordinary ability to generate value. Just as important as identifying the next star is knowing when you cannot afford to lose one.

Curry: the cost of letting a prospect slip away

Nike would experience a similar situation again with Stephen Curry. The point guard had been a Nike athlete, but in 2013 the company did not match Under Armour’s offer. Curry was not yet the global star he would become.

Under Armour took the risk. Two years later, Curry was NBA MVP and a champion with the Golden State Warriors. The company’s footwear sales grew by 40% in one quarter and reached a record $153 million, driven in part by the Curry One.

The initial growth was spectacular. But the story also demonstrated that signing a star does not automatically turn every product into a success. In 2017, Under Armour acknowledged that the Curry 3 was selling below expectations. The athlete can bring millions of consumers to the shop window. After that, the product also has to work.

Mbappé: buying a star to enter a market

This very September 2026, Kylian Mbappé starred in a move that takes this strategy one step further. After almost twenty years linked to Nike, he signed with On, the Swiss company that had established itself in running and tennis but was not yet a relevant player in football.

For On, Mbappé is not simply a footballer who has to sell boots. He is a way of entering a market dominated by Nike, Adidas and Puma without having to spend decades building the same level of notoriety. The deal also includes an equity stake and the player’s involvement in product development. Following the announcement, On shares rose by 3.8%.

The brand is not merely hiring an endorser. It is bringing in a partner who has incentives for the company’s value to increase. And Nike is not only losing Mbappé. It is watching a star it had helped build over the years become the spearhead of a new competitor in football.

How much is a star really worth?

At this point, the question that explains the entire business appears: how can a company know whether paying millions to an athlete pays off? The answer does not simply consist of comparing the contract with the sales of a pair of shoes. A star can sell more units, make it possible to charge a higher price, steal customers from the competition, open new markets or multiply brand awareness. And there is an even more difficult element to value: they can prevent all that value from ending up in the hands of a rival.

The case of Tiger Woods allows us to put numbers on it. An academic study published in Marketing Science analysed the golfer’s impact on Nike golf ball sales between 2000 and 2010. The researchers estimated that the sponsorship had generated $103 million in additional profit for Nike thanks to an extra 9.9 million dozen balls sold.

In addition, Woods’s presence allowed Nike to charge approximately 2.5% more for its products. According to the study, golf ball sales in the United States alone made it possible to recover approximately 57% of the $181 million invested in the contract. And this did not include clothing, footwear or international sales.

This is probably the best answer to the question of whether these contracts can be recouped: yes, but the real return is much broader than the direct sales of the advertised product.

The cost that does not appear in the accounts

When Nike lost Curry, it did not record a bill for having let him go. When Messi signed with Adidas, there was no accounting entry entitled “lost future profits” either. But there is an opportunity cost.

If a star ends up generating a multibillion-dollar line for a competitor, the brand that let them slip away does not only lose potential sales. It loses notoriety, cultural association and years of relationship with a new generation of consumers.

That is why the price of a star is not only what it costs to sign them. It is also what it can cost to watch them succeed with your competitor.

And, naturally, there is the opposite risk. The athlete can get injured, lose performance, suffer a reputational crisis or simply stop connecting with consumers. The more a company identifies its brand with one person, the more exposed it becomes to what happens to that person. A star can multiply a good strategy. They can hardly save a bad one.

From Jordan to Mbappé: from sponsored athletes to partners

This is where the circle that Michael Jordan began to draw four decades ago closes. The traditional model was simple: the company paid and the athlete lent their image. Jordan demonstrated that the athlete could become the centre of a brand. Then came increasingly longer contracts, royalties, signature lines and lifetime agreements. Now another step is being taken.

Roger Federer invested in On and went from ambassador to shareholder. Mbappé has incorporated an equity stake into his new agreement with the same company. The relationship is increasingly becoming a partnership between two brands: the corporate brand and the personal brand.

The difference is considerable. In traditional sponsorship, the athlete is paid for the brand to grow. When they receive shares, they profit if the brand grows. Jordan, Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Curry and Mbappé thus explain the evolution of a business that has changed radically.

Creating a brand around a star. Betting on a prospect. Locking in an icon. Stealing talent from the leader. Or turning the athlete into a partner to enter a new market.

That is why, when a star changes logos, what is at stake is not only the value of the contract. There are future sales, market share, reputation and the possibility that millions of consumers will end up associating their idol with a brand for an entire generation.

Because in the sports sponsorship business, knowing how much it costs to sign a star is just as important as calculating how much it can cost to let them slip away.

Protecting savings with physical gold has been one of 11Onze’s greatest contributions to its community, and its range of products continues to expand. In today’s environment of market volatility, persistently high inflation and growing distrust in the banking system, gold is once again strengthening its role as a safe-haven asset. Discover Or Llavor at Preciosos 11Onze.