The reason: sport takes place in segments. between segments is by no means guaranteed. The more specialized a brand (like On), the more difficult it is to transfer it to another segment. Puma learned this the hard way. When they wanted to push the streetwear and fashion sectors, the performance sector collapsed. Asics is hardly imaginable in tennis, and can you imagine On in football stadiums, for example? These are very isolated segments, which is why Nike describes itself rcs data malaysia as a multi-niche provider and why Adidas is still a football shoe brand at heart.
A second point: the many advertising contracts have drained a lot of energy from the Federer brand. Let's be honest, his face has been on too many advertising subjects. The fact that he has represented Nike for the last 20 years is likely to cause cognitive dissonance among die-hard runners.
The million-dollar question, in my opinion, is whether the timing is right for the collaboration with Federer. It's a perfect fit for Federer, no question about it. But is that also the case for On? If a niche brand like On expands too quickly into the mass and streetwear business, there is a risk of exploiting the brand and risking its soul. Brands need boundaries and density to maintain their appeal and thus their price premium.